This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the recent controversy surround the defection of two MLAs from the PCs to the Wildrose Alliance, and the subsequent debate on whether voters should have a direct say in such matters:
...But bumping the defections from the headlines may have also derailed the conversation about floor-crossing itself. It's still a conversation worth having: should Anderson and Forsyth have to seek a new mandate from their constituents?
Both have maintained that there is little need for them to do so. Both believe they have the support of their constituents and that a byelection would be a costly and needless distraction.
There seems to exist, however, an underlying assumption in this debate - certainly on the part of those arguing for byelections - that party banner is of primary concern to voters. PC MLAs were elected in these two ridings, therefore a violation of trust has occurred.
Yes, voters elect a party, but that includes the candidate, the leader, the platform, and the broader vision.
To view floor-crossing as the only decision worthy of warranting a direct consultation with voters is to miss the bigger picture.
Edmonton-Castle Downs MLA (and new Employment Minister) Thomas Lukaszuk is among those who have fallen victim to this narrow view. Lukaszuk announced soon after the defections that he was preparing a private members bill requiring floor-crossers to face a byelection before joining their new party.
The bill, though, wouldn't require a byelection if an MLA were to simply quit and sit as an independent. But why not? The voters clearly did not elect an independent.
The bill also wouldn't have any bearing on a party leader's decision to expel an MLA from caucus. Were such a law to apply today, then Anderson and Forsyth would have to run in a byelection, but Guy Boutilier - who was booted from the Tory caucus - would be free to join another party.
Again, why? Boutilier's constituents voted for a PC MLA - perhaps the Premier should not have been allowed to expel him.
It also leaves a major loophole: declaring one's discontent and desire to switch parties would surely leave a leader little choice but to expel that MLA from caucus. The floor would then be cleared for crossing.
As much as MLAs ought to respect the voters' verdict, circumstances do change. For all the focus on switching parties, how is that any more a violation of voters' intent than a broken or unfulfilled promise? Or a dramatic shift in direction?
One could argue that in electing Anderson and Forsyth, voters in both ridings cast ballots for a party that had maintained a balanced budget backed by a law which forbade deficits. If Anderson and Forsyth must resign and run in byelections, perhaps the entire Tory caucus should, too.
If we are truly interested in allowing the voters to respond in between elections to changes in circumstance, voter recall may provide the answer.
It may have been a shrewd way deflecting criticism, but immediately after welcoming the two defectors, the Wildrose Alliance announced it would soon table a bill giving voters the opportunity to "recall" their MLAs.
Under the proposed law, a byelection would be triggered if the signatures of one-third of the eligible voters in a riding are gathered on a petition.
Would the other parties support such a bill? They should. In fact, they once did - the Liberals proposed such a bill way back in 1993 (oddly enough, Heather Forsyth broke party ranks to support it).
There are many ways an MLA can betray his or her constituents. The narrow approach of banning floor-crossing ignores all but one of them. Recall addresses them all. Common sense tells us the latter is the way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment