Reopen Discussion on Defections

[New Democracy]

Dear list members

     I would like to reopen the discussion on defection from a political
party because of what Olli Salmi of Finland wrote.

Olli Salmi wrote:

Defection from a party must be legal whatever one has
pledged, it's one way to make party leadership accountable.

In Finnish constitutional law an MP is bound only by the constitution in
his representative role. That has been taken to mean that he can legally
defect. The parties of course react but they can't do much after a
defection.

If a pledge is made it's probably treated like an illegal contract or
something. It's void.

                   Section 11 [of the Parliament Act]
   In performing his duties a representative shall be bound to serve the
interests of justice and truth. He shall be bound therein to comply with the
Constitution, and shall not be bound by any other regulations.

http://www.eduskunta.fi/kirjasto/Lait/constitution.html

Olli Salmi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And Steve Eppley wrote:

The only problem with these "solutions" is that if they were
part of the system, the legislator would simply avoid officially
changing his/her party, and would merely informally make it
clear to his/her new party that s/he is going to vote with them
most of the time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don writes:

     I have been thinking about what Ollie Salmi and Steve Eppley have
written and I now feel that party pledges should not be enforced by the
government.

     If a party wishes to drum a member out of their party that should be
their right but it is not the business of the government to enforce the
rules and pledges of each party.

     Who decides when and which member is to be forced to resign and who
enforces the action?

     If a member was to cast one vote with the other side of the aisle does
that mean that the member is subject to being forced out?

     Suppose the party members themselves are divided and vote fifty-fifty
on an issue, how do we decide which half is to be purged?

     These efforts to force out members would be very disruptive but there
is a bigger problem: Should we do what we should not be doing?

     In order for us to decide what to do we need to go back and look at
the basis of a lawmaking body.

     The basis of a lawmaking body is that we collect together a number of
persons to study an issue and then each is expected to use their own
separate conscious when they vote.

     When we enforce party rules to force members to march lock step and
vote as one mind we do not have the basis of a lawmaking body. We have the
basis of a ruling class.

     The position we whould take is to encourage member to vote their
conscious. And if that should result in defections then so be it.

     When the voter gets fooled he is fooling himself. The voter should
know and vote the candidate. All these candidates have political track
records. Defecting members were not good party faithful to begin with. That
would show in the record.

     "Fool me once shame on you - Fool me twice shame on me"

Don


  * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
  |                       N E W   D E M O C R A C Y                       |
  |                      http://www.mich.com/~donald                      |
  * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *