To everybody that voted for David Emerson

[Paroxysm]

Fuck you Dave, you stupid putz! He was asked to resign and run for election as Conservative in a byelection but Emerson said "he wouldn't be resigning and submitting himself to a byelection" because he'd loose.

Last fall, former NDP MP Ed Broadbent released an ethics package that would have required floor-crossing MPs to resign and then try to regain their seat in a byelection. The Conservative party heavily pushed the theme of improving government accountability but now there's nothing in their platform about regulating floor-crossing MPs. Steven Harpers a joke, With all the Tory gnashing of teeth that went on over Belinda (and the alleged attempted seduction of Grewal), it seems a touch hypocritical now.

But I urge you people to keep one thing in mind: At least Belinda tried to make it work with the Tories. She ran for leader. She moved in the circles of Tory power and found herself increasingly marginalized. She tried to move the party to the centre (sidebar: I wonder how much of the Tory party now is the party she tried to make it - how many of the ideas and policies she advocated which were rejected are now being used?) and failed. She tried to make it work with Harper and it didn't. Only after realizing that the Tories were increasingly out of synch with her beliefs and (given her re-election) those of the people in her riding, did she switch.

Emerson on the other hand ran under the Liberal banner. The people voted Liberal. And now, before Parliament even sits, before the seat of Martin's pants are cold, before the smell of Ablonczy's perfume fades from the benches on the Speaker's left, he says, "oh no, well, I think I should go Tory."

Perhaps he conforms to the worst stereotype of Liberals. He just didn't like not being in Government. Power for power's sake.

Disgusting, really.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

and now you see why that's a stupid way to vote. you're voting for the party based on the platform of the leader. but THE LEADER'S NAME ISN'T ON THE BALLOT, SO STOP ASSUMING THAT THAT'S WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR! If you voted based on party rather than representative, you might as well have not voted at all because it seems fairly obvious that you didn't pay attention to who you were voting for.

the leader's name isn't on the ballot, but the party name is. MP's are associated with certain parties...that party is associated with certain values, traditions, ways of handling issues, etc... you vote for the MP to represent you WITHIN THAT PARTY.

you are NOT simply voting for the MP. if you were then they would all be independents. the fact is that they ARE attached to a party which is attached to certain ways of governing. it's like, in your argument, you're completely forgetting that MP's are affiliated with a certain party.

yes, they still have the MP they voted for in parliament...but NO he doesn't represent the same party anymore. you're not seeing this whole thing clearly if you don't get that people vote for MP's based on their party affiliation as well as their personal characterisitcs. that's the reason they belong to certain parties and not just all running as independents. they are supposed to represent some of the ideals and values of that party. and when they switch from that party it pisses people off and rightly so...that is not the representative that they voted for.

you're argument would only work if he was running as an independent and then switched himself into a party afterward. only then would people have been voting just based on him and not on party affiliation.

it's not wrong for people to vote based on the parties. it makes sense. MP's belong to parties for certain reasons and people vote for those MP's based on those reasons.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

My point is that people didn't vote for the representative mp and now they're getting their panties in a knot. but that falls under "your own damn fault" because they technically lied on their ballot. they weren't saying "i want david emerson", they were saying "i want the liberal party". which is not what the ballot is asking, i'm afraid.

that's just wrong. people are effectively saying "i want david emerson in government BECAUSE he is a part of the liberal party and i support the liberal party"

is that deluded and lying on your ballot? hell no. if you think it is then you don't really understand canadian politics and the party system. if we weren't supposed to consider the parties while voting then why would the MP's have the party logo all over their stuff and market themselves as part of that party?

like i said above you are voting for the MP as well as the party they are affiliated with. why do we have parties if they don't mean anything on the ballot?

edit: i just wanted to add that being part of the liberal party (or any party) is not just a 'side-note' as you said. you can't look at the liberal party as just a funding machine churning out money. it is a much more weighted concept than that (with political values, etc...) and you can't just deny the link between MP and party and say that it means nothing when it clearly means almost everything. when MP's go out and campaign they are constantly referring to their parties values and their parties positions on certain subjects, not just THEIR own values...because if they are part of a party they are a part of that parties values.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

that's just wrong. people are effectively saying "i want david emerson in government BECAUSE he is a part of the liberal party and i support the liberal party"

is that deluded and lying on your ballot? hell no. if you think it is then you don't really understand canadian politics and the party system. if we weren't supposed to consider the parties while voting then why would the MP's have the party logo all over their stuff and market themselves as part of that party?

The party system is a sponsorship system. A party saying "we will sponsor this candidate's application to be in the election" is what gets their name on the ballot. And no, that's not what people are saying when they're voting. It might be what they intend to say, but THIS CASE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE AS TO WHY YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE LIKE THAT. You don't get to make that assumption unless there's another check mark asking them why they're voting. People can vote however they want for whatever reasons they want. The fact that most vote based on party is a shame, because it means a bunch of political hacks who really have no political clout whatsoever get elected and the constituents don't really get a chance to have their voices heard with any authority in parliament.

like i said above you are voting for the MP as well as the party they are affiliated with. why do we have parties if they don't mean anything on the ballot?

Sponsorship. It's the party delivering _THEIR_ approval of the candidate, NOT the other way around. Simply because it's the party that gets them into the election and puts their name on the ballot. That's why the party name is on there. If nobody sponsors you within a party, you have to pay your own $100, get your own 20 signatures and run as an independent. But it still doesn't change the fact that you're voting specifically for a person. Regardless of what you intend your vote for, ultimately it all comes down to the name that's on the ballot

[Senior]

Way more on this later but in the mean time, http://www.recalldavidemerson.com/

In short though, people have every right to be angry at what he has done, he lied in the most obnoxious manner I can remember any politician doing in a long time. When Belinda Stronach crossed the floor not only did Conservative MP's make a big deal out of it they also went as far as to call her a whore among other things. So to anyone that is saying to STFU what about Belinda that's beside the point. The conservatives finished a distant 3rd and have no right having that seat.

Ebbomega - we have a parliamentary system of government party affiliations do matter and have a large effect on things.

More latter...

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

The party system is a sponsorship system.

our party system is NOT just a sponsorship system. we have a 'liberal' party and a 'conservative' party, which in their names alone create a sense of what kind of government that they are going to be; and those governments do different things and treat situations differently while in power. that's why they aren't just named 'party 1' and 'party 2'. parties are not just a neutral money giving entity meant to sponsor MP's. they are very emotionally and politically idealistically charged.

whether a candidate is deciding to join a party or is simply joining a party to be sponsored is really of no consequence because when that person joins that party they are subscribing to the values and ideas that are behind that party.

each party comes up with their own platform. they don't just give money to MP's who come up with each of their own individual platforms. they create one as a one large party that each MP is supposed to strive toward. and that platform is different for the 'liberals' and different for the 'conservatives' because those two parties have very different ways of governing our country.

the parties in canada are like teams. and the teams stand for different values. yes, they give money to their teammates, but no, that is not all they are for because each teammate is supposed to play toward the same goal. and if you hired someone to score on a certain goal and then right after the game started they switched teams you would probably be pissed. and that is what david emerson did. they don't just hire people to score on whatever goal they want to score on (which is what would happen if parties were nothing more than sponsorship programs)

it is not deluded to base your vote on the MP as well as on what party they belong too. they belong to that party for a reason...and that reason is not just to get money. that is part of the reason, but the other part is that they chose a team/party that agrees most with their personal ideas about how the government should be run.

you can't look at parties as without value and just as sponsorship programs. that isn't the party system works in canada.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

The fact that most vote based on party is a shame, because it means a bunch of political hacks who really have no political clout whatsoever get elected and the constituents don't really get a chance to have their voices heard with any authority in parliament.

it sounds like you have a problem with the party system in general. because the way it works right now voting based on MP's according to their party affiliation makes sense.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by revolver

EXACTLY!

-beside the guys a career politican for fuck sakes! of course hes going to cross the floor and snag a juicey cabinet seat. i mean COME ONE HES the best guy for the job and ultimatly it is going to benifit the country alot more with hime there

as shady as they all are, and as corrupt as i consider the cons to be.

POLITICALLY it was the right move.

The federal government is not a private business, it's an exercise in democracy. So whether or not David Emerson is the most qualified person for the post is irrelevant. Everyone knew before they cast their ballot that the Conservatives were likely to form a minority government and with that in mind they still elected David Emerson as a Liberal. The thing that you and people like David Emerson need to get through your heads is that as an elected MP you're not the boss the people that elected you are.

The fact is that the last 2 elections David Emerson won that riding very narrowly. He got a couple 100 or maybe even 1000 votes each time but the point is that it was close. The thing is though is that it was Ian Waddel of the NDP in second place both times. So to anyone with a slight grasp of politics you will see that by endorsing the conservative party he is going completely against the values of people in his riding. Further more this is a guy that for the last two elections has gotten elected by telling people how scary the conservatives are and that electing him is the only way to stop them from winning his riding.

Personally I'm glad that Harper and his gang have shit the bed so quickly with these types of arrogant and hypocritical moves. It just means less support for the conservatives in the next election.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by recall david emerson

Protest on Sunday in Vancouver



Want your vote back? Join protesters outside David Emerson’s office in Kingsway on Sunday.



SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12th, at 2 PM.

Outside of David Emerson’s office, 2148 Kingsway, Vancouver

[Mangle]

If he ran as a conservative, he would've lost. Deal with it.

[Leviathan]

What about the ethics of universality? What if everyone defected after an election?

Originally Posted by ebbomega

^^ distracting from the major issues so that you don't realize the person you're voting for is a tool and really doesn't know much about parliament and will just vote however the leader tells them to.

parliament would be in a lot better shape if people like that just didn't get elected. but because the distractions work, people blindly vote based on party. why should there be an expensive and time-consuming by-election to cover the ass of all the people who couldn't be bothered to pay attention to their local candidates?

It's not like his defection gives harper a majority, nor does not defecting put Martin as prime minister, so let's get over it already and deal with the asshole politician you elected, like it's been since democracy began.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by BongMan

Once again I ask where was the huge outcry when Stronach did this atleast he isn't proping up a failing government as was the case with Belinda..

there was a huge outcry, but.....

belinda stronach crossed the floor largely because she disagreed with her party on a matter of proniciple. don't forget that this occured during the same-sex marriage debate. she'd already stated publically that she was in favour of same-sex marriage. when it came to the vote the conservatives made it a confidence motion, meaning that if the motion didn't carry the government would fall. belinda was then put in the awkward position that if she voted yes to same sex marriage she would be in essence expressing her confidence in the liberal party. as well, she knew that if she voted yes and the liberals carried the same-sex motion by a slim majority her rise through the conservative ranks would be over and she'd probably be consigned to a back bench. so she crossed the floor.

emerson did it strictly for the money and power, no principle involved because other than liking money and power he apparently doesn't ahve any.

[Mangle]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

What about the ethics of universality? What if everyone defected after an election?

Being as we decide who the leader of Canada is based on the number of people in that party we elect, we need to stem the tide of bribed defection. I mean, Emerson actually said "I will be Harper's worst enemy" during his campaign and two weeks after he left, he's on Harper's right hand.

[decypher]

For all this voting for the party vs. the MP talk, here is a little something for ya:

"recent studies indicate that since 1940, no MP from the governing party has ever broken party ranks during a minority government."
- Paul Conlin, "Floor Crossing in the Canadian House of Commons, 1940-1992"

Our party system has strict disciplinary action against MP's who step out of line, basically it can be a career stopper. So crossing the floor to the Conservatives is a change of values as MP's don't normally vote out of their party bloc. This alone proves that the Vancouver-Kingsway constituents who voted Liberal have a founded argument. I believe a recent poll said the majority of Canadians want him to run in a byelection.

[se7en]

well when the next election happens and he loses running under conservatives, will he switch sides to the winner so he can do better for the community. i really wanna see what happens in the next election and if he loses what he'll do.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

What about the ethics of universality? What if everyone defected after an election?

Then maybe people would get the picture and start voting for representatives, so we don't have a parliament filled with political hacks who serve merely the purpose of sucking the party leader's dick.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by decypher

For all this voting for the party vs. the MP talk, here is a little something for ya:

"recent studies indicate that since 1940, no MP from the governing party has ever broken party ranks during a minority government."
- Paul Conlin, "Floor Crossing in the Canadian House of Commons, 1940-1992"

Funny, the last minority government had just that happen.