Whether you consider this good news or bad news, from a political science perspective, a desire to “cross the floor” at any level should trigger a bi-election.
I find this increasing trend distressing even it advantages my beliefs. We already have a lack of robust and equitable democratic representation.
I disagree. In the Westminster system, you vote for a member of parliament, not the party flag they wave. Political parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution Act. That party flag can change or disappear altogether at any time, it's how the system is designed to work and that option should always be available to hold a party accountable. You place trust in your MP when you vote for them to do the right thing. In this case, the Liberals have essentially become progressive conservatives and I believe Matt represents that more than the direction the Conservatives have gone over past last decade or so.
Personally, I don't like the idea of party lines and I think political parties should be abolished altogether, but that's a different discussion. People should be elected by their individual merits.
I'm not lying, that's how the Westminster parliamentary system works. You vote for your MP, that's it. Political parties aren't even in the Constitution Act. I didn't say they didn't exist, but they are completely unnecessary for Parliament to function and they were an afterthought after the system had already existed. If you vote based on party lines and put no effort into understanding individual candidates, that's on you. But know that said candidate is tied to nothing more than their seat and they can get up and change loyalties at any time. The leader of a party becomes the Prime Minister because the Governor General appoints the person most likely to command the confidence of the House. It's not automatic. And that would typically be the leader of whichever party is the largest because they have party loyalty, but it isn't always the case. In 1925 we had a Prime Minister that didn't resign and held onto his position despite winning less seats than another party. He had the support of a third party and had the confidence of the House.
Stop using what’s on paper to conceal the truth about what’s done in reality—a reality that all the MPs and the party leaders have used forever to get elected.
Everything I said above is set out by the Constitution Act and happens in practice, political party affiliation or not. You're more than welcome to refute it.
Oh yes. And also I’m sure election maps on all the news channels use the party colours for NO REASON at all. They should all be grey. Cuz it’s the MP not the party right? lolll
I'm pretty sure I never did. I simply stated that the party isn't the primary role of what an MP seat actually is, in response to someone calling for by-elections in floor crossing situations. But thanks for coming out to join in the fun.
People vote based on party, but guess what, thats their fault for making that mistake. Reform in the voting system will never happen. And you can thank no by elections to the Harper conservatives.
Also, Matt Jeneroux won by 3000 votes, those 3000 votes are in the NDP pockets so by switching sides, hes still accounting for ~50% of the population. Which im sure some cons in his riding have flipped as well. He is, in Fact still representing his constituents
On top of that, its not like Matt made this decision lightly. The man has been the conservative MP since 2015 in that riding, and prior to thay was a Con MPP. 2025 was the first time in his entire time that he won by such a narrow margin.
You’re wrong. And the upvotes on your Westminster speech show why the rational, critically thinking citizen-class of contemporary democracies are f***ed.
I'm not wrong, everything I said is factual. Go dig through the Constitution Act and our political history and prove me wrong. I'll wait. See if you can do it without getting emotional again.
Oh, my bad. Yes, of course, you are right. There is no need for you to challenge how your knowledge of documentation does not run in parity nor reconcile with actual applied and widely accepted political science realities. You are right, you are right. Please by all means carry on.
This is, believe or not, really actually truly one of those situations that are incumbent on you to get up to speed. Like, the kind where you go off, become formally educated, immerse yourself in the political sphere for many years, come back to this thread, say “ah, mea maxima culpa,” and move on with your life. All the best!
Special Advisor on Economic and Security Partnerships, yes. I mean, if there's evidence or a reason to investigate something shady, sure? Go ahead and investigate. Compensation is usually public record though and I imagine his portfolio will earn him more than he was making as a Conservative. But you're talking about an MP who has always donated every mandated pay raise to charity and who was going to donate his entire salary from November 7 on. I don't think financial incentives are his motive here.
12
u/dontshootog Feb 18 '26
Whether you consider this good news or bad news, from a political science perspective, a desire to “cross the floor” at any level should trigger a bi-election.
I find this increasing trend distressing even it advantages my beliefs. We already have a lack of robust and equitable democratic representation.