The way I see it, an MP has no right to simply change parties. I believe they should have to resign, & a new election be held, when one of these twits decides to take a new direction.

Years ago, when I was involved in a number of community organisations I knew the councilors, & the state & national MPs. I was dealing with them on behalf of those organisations.

Today, having stepped back from most of this stuff, I realised the other day, when these little men started taking themselves far too seriously, that I did not even know the names of either local member. I was not even sure which party the national member was from.

As this surprised me a little, I asked a dozen or more locals if they knew who our representatives were. Only one knew both MP names, but not our divisional councilor. Only 4 more could name any of these representatives, & that mainly because the local state bloke has succeeded in getting a maternity unit back in our hospital, with some fanfare.

So it appears most of us vote for a party, not an individual member. This being the case my member is only in parliament as a party representative. This being the case, should he be able to assume the right to change horses, when it was the horse, not the rider we elected?

Personally I would be most annoyed to find I now had a Katter party MP were this to occur. Much as I admire ratbags in most things, I don't want them running the state.

So I ask, should not an MP have to resign, if they chose to represent a party, other than that which actually was their ticket into parliament, & the party chosen by the majority of that electorate?

of course they should be allowed to change party
when they realise they been tricked..and only united to get elected

heck i would love if 7 resigned and joinbed katter
just so the alp dont even be opposition..

[i say this knowing the dlp is looting us more than ever
it sure as heck isnt slowing down asset looting..or sacking them alp heads reping in millions..from selling out the consumers

so yes by all means
leave..form an affective opposition..hold feet to the fire

what we really need is a new party..
that puts serving the people first..saving us from corperate payrates and gold plated systems..

sold to mates..
@..mates rates

i feel joining any party..
voting 'the pary line'..is treason to the voter
but first i feel i want alp gone/..for good..so the next generation of rats know it dont end..when you do treason to the people...ashes to ashes..rip alp.

<< The way I see it, an MP has no right to simply change parties. I believe they should have to resign, & a new election be held, when one of these twits decides to take a new direction. >>

Yair but Haz, they wouldn’t be taking a new direction! Both major parties are blundering along in the same wonky direction! And the Katter hangers-on aren't much different either. The Greens are perhaps a little differenter, but certainly no betterer!

But no, they should not be able to change parties mid-stream. We do indeed vote in the rep of a certain party and it is an affront to democracy (even to our very poor approximation to democracy) for any sitting member to then change parties, or become an independent.

<< Much as I admire ratbags in most things, I don't want them running the state. >>

Hehehehe!

Hasbeen,
The reason most parliamentarions change parties or become independnt is a little thing called EGO. They become filled with their own self importance.

This is partly due to the way they are treated in Parliament. For example, all security staff, and other staff, are expected to know every member, and their wives/partner, by name and sight and address them accordingly. This means a tug of the forelock, an obesance. They are treated like royality.

Another example of the inflated egos working, is the resignation of the elected members of ON in QLD. They simply put aside that they were elected because the voters supported Pauline Hanson. Consequently they did not serve another term. The same with one David Oldfield in NSW. Elected by ON supporters, on Paulines apron strings, he assumed he was above the party rules and when called out on this he got a huff and resigned, not to be re-elected.

The fact is we elect individuals in each electorate whether they belong to a party or not. Unless it is advantagous to the major parties, who make the rules, I do not see that changing.

NO - because the people elected them to office on the information they provided to the people before the vote, so if they change after being elected that is close to theft by deception.
They stole the vote by purporting to represent a different ideal to the one they changed to.

There is entirely too much party discipline. Except on the specific items mentioned in the platform on which the rep ran he or she should be free to follow conscience, the wishes of the electorate or the good of Australia and the world. Political parties are transforming themselves all the time. If a representative of the party feels her or his positions are no longer compatible with that of the party the rep should leave the party. My local rep is a servile wimp who follows the party line and appears never to have an independent thought.

Members of parliament are elected as individuals.
That they belong to a political party is incidental and is only one
factor that you should apply when deciding how to vote.

There could be matters of principle as the reason to leave a party.
That would probably make him a more honest member.

If you want to elect parties - fine, but do so, change the electoral system so that one votes for a party-list. The regional system is dead anyway when most voters live in big cities: it makes no sense that one voter has more influencing power because they happened to rent a unit on one side of the street while another has no power at all because they rented on the other side of the street where is a "safe seat".

A party-list with proportional representation is far more fair than the way it is now.

Fairer still, is to have citizens vote on the actual issues rather than on the people that are supposed to serve those issues.

As I said in my last post, as a matter of principle, elected reps should not be able to change parties.

But there is a bigger principle that could override this. If they were to change to a party that is clearly a whole lot better, then it would arguably be for the good of the constituency and the country.

So if any sitting Lib, Lab, Katter, Green, Family First or independent member wanted to jump across to the Stable Population Party, then I’d be all for it!!

http://www.populationparty.org.au/

As I have said for many years now, our democratic rights are gone once we exit the polling booth.

To answer the question, no, they should not be allowed to jump ship.

They should resign and whoever received the nect highest votes, shoud replace them, as aftervall, that's what the electorate wanted.

Rectub, I totally agree that an mp should resign and the the next politician with the highest vote in the electorate of the resigning mp should replace him. In using that system it might make a political party more responsible and adhere to the wishes of the people and not the parties policies which harm the people.

Anything is worth a look at and implementation from the system we now have.

It might just force the politicians to act for and serve the wishes of the people in their electorates.

You're a brave, or foolish man david f.

To start with few politicians even try to show us the contents of their conscience, & there is nothing like enough information available for us to know that of each candidate.

Secondly, without the party analysis of many issues, few MP would understand many of the subjects sufficiently to know how to vote. In fact many of them would have trouble deciding how to vote, if asked, which way was up.

Thirdly unfortunately, if many MPs voted from conscience, they would be voting from a black hole. This would definitely be the case if we could but see into the conscience of the Greens. They are very careful not to let anyone see what a nest of vipers reside in there. The few glimpses of what does escape from their consciences occasionally are very frightening indeed.

What an oversight, Rechtub and Gypsy:

First, the next politician in line may since have died, left politics or even joined a different party.

Second, what about preferences?

If you want to do it properly, then you must reconstruct all ballot papers, eliminating the resigning-candidate first, then reuse the original ballot papers as if it was a fresh election.

Taking the next candidate without due care for preferences usually produces the most unintended outcome for the electorate, especially if they, as I do, place the two big parties in the last two places.

Then what if an MP dies or needs to resign due to health problems through no fault of their own? Shall the same procedure be applied, freely granting the big prize to their rival party? That would surely encourage political poisoning (polonium comes to mind...).

If it were up to me, as an MP who no longer believes his/her party-line, I wouldn't bother to resign or join a different party - I would simply vote always as I believe on all issues (or if it's something I don't have a strong opinion on, according to what I believe my electorate wants).

Yuyutsu "First, the next politician in line may since have died, left politics or even joined a different party."

What they wrote is correct but just slightly different words.
Here it is simplified
The person who got the next highest number of votes on the day in that electorate.

Sadly, another example of how utterly corrupt the system has become, and how distant from the concept of a representative democracy.

I'm with Philip S on this. Only more so.

>>...the people elected them to office on the information they provided to the people before the vote, so if they change after being elected that is close to theft by deception. They stole the vote by purporting to represent a different ideal to the one they changed to.<<

I would extend this to include all policy.

The only system that would be remotely fair to the voter would be that a candidate declares, ahead of the election, what he or she stands for. Once elected, they will be disqualified from voting against that platform. If they feel sufficiently compromised or hamstrung by their pre-election promise, they should immediately resign, and forfeit any further pay or pension entitlements as of that day. A by-election held as a result of such a decision would also disqualify that person from receiving any campaign funding unless they are re-elected - i.e. their constituents endorse the platform change.

Only such a radical reassessment of what we, poor saps, can expect from the vote that we sheepishly cast, can break the cycle of dishonesty and corruption that typifies today's political environment.

Incidentally, under the above rules, changing Party will become irrelevant.

Why should there be a fixed MP in the first place then?
Or elections for that matter?

Let the electorate vote directly on every issue.

This could be done on a per-electorate basis, or per-state or nationally - since that's not the point right now, let's assume a per-electorate model:

Since it is impractical for 99% of the electorate to follow the discussion in parliament and understand the details, most voters will give their proxy to an "MP". Voting on issues will take place over the internet/phone and every voter who hasn't assigned a proxy has one vote plus the number of proxies they received (if any). The simple-majority vote becomes the vote for the electorate. The person with the largest number of proxies is the temporary MP, who attends parliament, receives wages/pension, etc. If an MP is no longer trustworthy, electors can simply withdraw their proxy and perhaps give it to another who may replace the original MP in parliament.

Why not just draw yes or no out of a bucket.

<<Why not just draw yes or no out of a bucket>>

Because there are so many better uses for buckets.

Very simplistic hasbeen.
Have you given any thought to if voters asked them to?
What if that is true, they are elected to best serve the people of their electorate.
In hopping ship they may have done what is the very best thing for them.

Belly, if that's the case, then they should resign, then re run under their new party.

At least then, they (the voters) can follow the MP if they wish.

<< They should resign and whoever received the next highest votes, should replace them, as afterall, that's what the electorate wanted. >>

Well, no that’s not what the electorate wanted, rehctub.

The candidate with the second highest vote would usually be the one from the other Laborial party, which would be the party that the electorate most significantly voted down. So if we were to emplace the second candidate we would be doing precisely what the majority of the electorate voted against!

You’d need to give the job to someone from the same party, who would then stand for election the next time round, sort of like the way in which Bligh became Qld premier and Gillard became PM.

Either that, or call a by-election.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/ConstofQA01.pdf is the url for the Queensland Constitution. I searched for the words party, parties and political and found nothing. The political parties are apparently a structure that has grown up independent of the constitution. Political parties are not mentioned in the basic law of the state. Unless they are mentioned in other laws they are not legally recognised. That does not make them illegal, but it makes them not legally recognised. Although they are definitely recognised in parliamentary rules a member is not required to maintain a party identification unless the rules specify it. Unless the rules specify it, it seems to me that a member should be free to leave or join a party with no penalty.

Our system suggests that most people vote for candidates of a particular party than for individuals.

If that's so then they should not only hold a new election, the candidate should also contribute toward the financial costs incurred.

However, when a party member crosses the floor and votes in accordance with the wishes of the constituency rather than toeing the party line, what then?

Maybe they could resign from their own party and see out their time as an independent but not be allowed to join another party.

It's a tricky question.

Unless you vote for an independent, you primarily vote for a party. If the party member wishes to change allegiance then a by election is the democratic solution.

We have recently seen independents change “parties” so to speak in the form of Oakeshot and Windsor whose electorate wanted an independent that was aligned to the right while these two representatives of the people went immediately left after they won the seat.

Wobbles, there needs to be a balance between towing the party line and representing one’s electorate or practicing a conscience vote. It should be party policy, for all parties, to allow their members a certain percentage of dissenting votes. If a member exceeds that percentage, then they could be disciplined or expelled, but if they are acting within those bounds, then they should free of repercussions.

In fact, this should be legislated so that the same applies for all parties.

There are very important conflicting principles here; supporting one’s party and supporting one’s electorate or conscience. These are fundamental to a well-functioning democracy. So the best balance needs to be struck and then needs to apply equally to all.

If a sitting member feels the need to exceed the quota of dissenting votes against their party’s position, then yes, they could become an independent, but certainly not be free to join another party during that term.

Ludwig, there is little difference between becoming an ind or changing sides, as they still have a vote in the chamber, and chances are, they will side with the oppersite party.

I still say, they should resign and allow the next highest to step up and, if that's no longer an option then a bi election isnthe only option.

Afterall, it's the people whomshould hsve the say

Now as for costs, each case would need to be evaluated on merit and, if it's found that the change was due insufficient grounds, then the outgoing member must bare some of the costs,, either up front, or out of their ongoing entitlements.

After all said and done, it is only one person and one term.

Many are unhappy with CN, but seriously, what's the alternative.

We can expect more of the same, and that goes for federal as well, cause someone has to put the brakes on waste and labor have proven it's not going to be them.

One tows a boat. One toes the party line.

<< Ludwig, there is little difference between becoming an ind or changing sides, as they still have a vote in the chamber, and chances are, they will side with the oppersite party. >>

Rechtub, I would think that the chances are that such an independent would side with the party he has just left. Afterall, that is the party that he/she was drawn to in the first place, presumably because it best matched their philosophical outlook.

So if they vote on a principled basis and not on a spiteful basis, they should be aligned with their old party on most things.

So there WOULD be a significant difference between becoming an independent or joining another party.

I also repeat the point I made in my first post; that by joining another party, especially the other major party, they would be going strongly against the wishes of the majority of their electorate.

Becoming an independent while they are a sitting member should really be the only option, apart from a by-election.

sonofgloin,

I don't agree that Windsor's and Oakeshot's electorates wanted members who were "aligned to the right". If they did they would have specifically voted for right wing parties.

The way I recall it was they both considered which party had the most to offer their electorates generally and which were most likely to deliver those policies.

Abbott and Gillard both had the opportunity to put their cases forward and the independents made their decision on that basis.

It is my understanding that there is no provision in our constitution for political parties and we still vote for the individual and not the party. Having said that the reality is somewhat different.
If a member feels that on principle they can not remain an MP for the party they were elected from then they should have the option to resign from the party and sit on the cross benches or even joining another party. If they so wish their actions can be judged at the next election.
As for someone offering themselves for election and then once being elected resigns for no good reason, Keneally in NSW is a good example, promised to serve a 4 year term, was elected then resigned after 17 months forcing a by-election. I think there should be a parliamentary committee to review a members resignation from the parliament and if the explanation is not satisfactory then the ex-member should be made foot part of the bill from their entitlements or from their pocket for the by-election.
The criminal member is another matter they should be kicked out of parliament and forced to pay the whole cost of a by-election.
I support fixed term parliaments, not having the leader of the day going to the GG to rubber stamp an election when it suits them.

Wobbles>> I don't agree that Windsor's and Oakeshot's electorates wanted members who were "aligned to the right". If they did they would have specifically voted for right wing parties.<<

Wobbs I can only go on historic data.

New England had a Labor member named FJ Foster for two terms from 1906, and Lyne has never had a Labor member since it's inception in 1948. That is why I said that Windsor and Oakeshot were not representing the core values of the electorate.

SOG,
In a society with some integrity within it's laws Windsor & Oakeshott would have been hung out to dry as traitors.
Same goes for that Nambour Independent Wellington. That mutt got us 20 years of hard Labor in Qld.

Dear Hasbeen,

Is an MP entitled to change party?

I'd have to say - yes of course.
It's the choice of the electorate if
he/she gets re-elected.