Is this a good start?
Monday, January 4, 2010 at 10:57AM Today's news of two MLA's crossing the floor from the PC Party to the Wildrose Alliance Party will get a tonne of press and from what I have seen, there is very little that should surprise us. Basically these are two MLA's who probably didn't fit in the PC Party as well as they might in a more right-wing Wildrose.
What I really think was lost in this opportunity, was the chance for the Wildrose Alliance to demonstrate real leadership on the issues of MLA Accountability and Democratic Reform. Here's what could have happened:
- The two MLA's express thier discontent with the PC Party (and they had some good points) and announce that they are choosing to sit as independents
- They express their interest in running as candidates of the Wildrose Alliance in the next election
- The Alliance thanks them for their words of support and reminds Albertans that they could have added them to ther caucus, bringing them official party status, but they want to EARN the votes of the good people of Airdrie-Chestermere and Calgary Fish-Creek
Of course this hasn't happened, and so many people will look at this as simple opportunism. I think the people of Alberta are looking for something different. REAL reform and REAL accountability from our MLA's and party leadership.
When you see the information coming from the party, they proudly profess that they are adding two ELECTED MLA's to their party. Of course it goes without saying that these two individuals were in fact elected, but elected by their constituents As PC Party MLA's.
So, it just seems to me as much of the same old politics.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
As per usual, you nailed it. What really kills me is the reference to "elected", because they were never elected as Wild Rose members, and as per usual typical politics, the press release misleads people. I so love the way they start out, making all of the "rah rah" moves. And then you see some of the true colors coming out. WRA started out hiding things, and now they are doing the misleading trick.
Woe is us...
Here is the problem with your idea - we elect members of legislature, not members of a particular party. Forcing a by-elections when a member crosses the floor isn't reform, it would simply further centralize power into the party leader's office and party HQ.
If you want to strength democracy, you should focus on weakening the parties and the leaders that infringe on member's ability to do what's best for their constituents. Crossing the floor is a member's democratic right to choose what party they want to belong in. removing that right would be undemocratic.
Slam-dunk, Chris. Not only would the optics have been fantastic, but so would have the ACTUAL POLITICAL ETHICS.
I agree completely. The WAP has been extremely vocal about its intent for meaningful electoral reform, so it's disappointing (even as someone decidedly more liberal in many ways than either you or the WAP) to see an opportunity missed so quickly. It reminds me of Prime Minister Harper's platform, as leader of the Official Opposition, which included the belief that crossing the floor should result in a by-elections, the solid logic being that many people cast their vote partially or primarily based on the candidate's political party, as opposed to just the candidate, and that a change in party is something that should come under the voters' consideration. Like the WAP, PM Harper's initial action (the appointment of David Emerson to cabinet when he crossed the floor immediately following the election, Emerson having campaigned and been elected as a Liberal) was contrary to his stated principles, but it also didn't seem to affect the polls in any long-term or meaningful way on either the federal or constituency level - I'm unwilling to attribute the Conservative Party's 2008 election loss in Emerson's former riding to this issue as much as I am the constituency's left-leaning history in general.
I'm not sure how much these issues will come into consideration by the general electorate, particularly in the seemingly faraway future of a 2012 election. While we might now consider this a highly symbolic action or even a portent, I can't help but think that it will be all but forgotten by the time polling numbers turn to election results. However, it's definitely something to note and to remind us to keep on our radar.
Greg,
I must disagree with your assertion that "we elect members of legislature, not members of a particular party." While I agree with your belief that we should be strengthening an elected official's ability to act according to their own beliefs instead of merely voting with their party, the reality is that for many people, the political party of a candidate is a large, and in some cases ONLY, consideration when voting. Candidates campaign based on their party platform, with some occasional addition of specific details relating to the constituency - usually a simple application of party platform to specific riding concerns instead of a true digression. Party seat numbers are the primary basis we use for determining who forms the government, and in common discussion, it's the party that is the important part of many people's considerations of their elected official and vote. Whether or not it's the candidate that's on the ballot, you can't forget that their party affiliation is what follows it, is plastered on signs and brochures, and what helps form a lot of votes. Many voters feel cheated when an elected official crosses the floor, and I'd like to see these feelings and frustrations be what's addressed.
Then lets work to remove the importance of the party in the electoral/governing processes.
I believe the root of the problem lies in the centralization of power in the leader and the party HQ - a recent example is the placement of party labels on the ballot. When Elections Alberta (and our federal equivalent) allowed this practice, it undermined the representatives and elevated the important of the party in the process. This change occurred in the 70s (along with many other centralizing changes) and it has eroded the power of the individual representative in the electoral and governing process.
The PC's are undemocratic. Look at what they did with Craig Chandler, clearly elected and denying democracy. The two crossing the floor to the Wildrose shows that they support the democratic process and have come to a truly principled party.
Mike T:
Seriously? Craig Chandler? extremists like him are the sort of people WAP needs to seperate themselves from....Fiscal Conservatism is one thing....extreme conservative social agendas are another...Chandler did not represent the PC platform...the "progressive". agreed others in the current tory caucus share chandler's views but they are willing to work within the framework of the current PC policy.
Side note- how many of these recent tory elects ran as a PC candidate simply because everyone knows your chances of election as a PC (er) are greater than not. already power hungry, anderson didn't get his so he's on to the next best thing. This guy is a parasite to any caucus he represents.
The two MLAs ... sit as independents [and] express their interest in running as candidates of the Wildrose Alliance in the next election
This would just be a sham so why not be openly Wildrosers? If they are going to seek re-election as Wildrosers obviously they will not be true independents now, so why just pretend to be independent? I also don't see how sitting as an independent is any more democratically legitimate when they never ran for office as independents. They could have run as independents in 2008 and did not. They ran and were elected as Stelmach's PC people, not independents.
Brian:
The difference, is that the constituents decide in my scenario, not the candidates.
Chris
Another plus to sitting first as an independent (even while making the noises of a new party), gives voters time to watch the new dynamic before they actually vote: kinda' like a sample snack at Costco.
... and be honest... don't most of us like those sample snacks?