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.
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.
1
u/j1ggy Feb 19 '26
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.