The National today reports that a petition demanding by-elections for defector MPs has passed the “milestone“ of 100,000 signatures. I wonder how many of those signatories are aware of the position a person puts themselves in when they agree to stand as a candidate in an election.
Would it be worth you starting an opposing petition?
Pointing out that a requirement to resign if leaving a Party, would give political Parties even MORE power to silence whistleblowers in their midst, and even LESS incentive to properly vet candidates they back.
How easy it would be to effectively Court-Martial and Firing-Squad any MP (and by precedent) any MSP who believes humans can't change sex, a baby is not a bunch of cells, Scotland is a Country, peaceful protest is not terrorism, or the chonically ill should not be 'offered' assisted suicide!
Knowing that they could be replaced, like World War I cannon fodder, by a yes-man, using the block vote of the many voters who base their selection on the rosette colour favoured by their ancestors fifty years ago!
The point you make is perfectly valid. But I'm not sure how a petition against a petition would work. Perhaps a petition for an alternative 'solution' would be the way to go. Except I don't see a problem that requires a solution. MSPs and MPs are representatives, not delegates. Delegates follow instructions. Representatives follow their conscience. The petition under discussion seeks to treat representatives as if they were delegates. That just doesn't make sense.
Imagine I stand for a candidate for party X because they have policy P in their manifesto which I really care about. I get elected and X does really well, winning the majority of seats and forming a government.
Then they renege on their promise to do P. I resign form the party in disgust.
Why should i have to face a by-election? I haven't left the party, the party has left me! If anything, it is the people who have stayed with them who should face a by-election!
I'm not sure that you are correct with your statement regarding voting for the candidate as opposed to voting for the party. If I'm honest, which I do always try to be, my tendency is to vote party first. I invariably know very little about the standing candidate when I cast my vote, as I tend to vote to empower my party of choice. Unless my candidate is famous or in the news, I am not likely to know very much about them if truth be told. Do I tend to read electioneering material that is posted through my door? Sorry, that's a no. All that "bumff" is gathered into a neat little pile and recycled into my paper bin at the earliest opporchancity. As I tend to vote party first, I am in very much in favour of a by-election if my MP/MSP decides to jump ship and join a party that I may view with some degree of distaste. As such I actually signed this petition. This year however, due to the failure of the SNP to unearth a new direction and a viable strategy on independence, I may actually find myself looking at individual candidates a little more closely, as I try to find a reason and a direction for my vote. Then again maybe not.
You think you're voting for a party. In reality, you are voting for a candidate. The candidate's party affiliation is incidental. That the party affiliation looms so large as to eclipse the candidate is just one of the ways in which the system has distorted the relationship between the voter and their elected representative.
Sorry Pete but I once again disagree. We vote for a candidate, agreed, who represents a party. The policy and membership of that party is decided, not by the candidate, but by the NEC of the party. If we voted for individual candidates with no affiliation to any party, all of the UK parliaments would be well represented by such candidates. With 6 independent MP's in Wastemonster out of a possible 650, it appears they are not. As such, I have to respectfully disagree with your view. How many times in recent memory have we had parliamentary votes where members are told by the party that they must tow the party line or face punishments such as losing the whip etc. That can hardly be construed as incidental can it?
I accept the fact that some of the electorate may have time to partake in an in-depth study of their prospective candidate, but I sadly am not on of them. I also cannot in good conscience change my feelings regarding my candidate choosing to join another party (the main point of this discussion) who have partial or completely conflicting political ideals to that of the party I previously voted for, without them having to face consequences.
Only three people have ever been elected to the Scottish Parliament as independent candidates. There are currently no MSPs who were elected or are sitting as independents. There are only five independent MPs, none representing a Scottish constituency.
But the fact that candidates can stand without party affiliation proves my point that it is the candidate you are voting for, and not the party. If it were the party you were voting for, how could you vote where there is no party?
EDIT: I now realise you were referring to six nominally pro-independence MPs and not MPs elected or sitting as independents. But my point still stands.
I was referring to the fact that only 6 MP's out of a possible 650 were elected in the last UK election without standing under a party banner. My view remains that people vote for a party, not an individual.
The candidate does not 'represent' a party. They may be sponsored and supported by a party, but they are elected as an individual. That's the law.
Of course, the party benefits from the election of a candidate it has sponsored. And with very rare exceptions, the returned candidate will repay the party with uncritical loyalty, even when the party's policies impact negatively on their constituents. But that is the distortion. They are supposed to put their constituents first. The party is a collective the MP or MSP joins for the purpose of better serving their constituents through that party's access to effective political power.
"The candidate does not 'represent' a party". And yet most candidates are either currently sitting MP's or MSP's, or are chosen, almost without exception from the current membership of the party. The vast majority of MP or MSP's don't join their respective party through a need to serve their constituents; they are already a member of said party before they are selected. No committee in Christendom would select candidates from outside of their membership barring extremely exceptional circumstances.
It's a UK Government petition? Well there's yer first clue...foreign english government.This is the government that lie regularly about Scotland ..insult /attackScotland with the words..' it's none of your business who we hand your land to so they can attack their enemies.'.. 300 years of theft by stealing OUR resources for their benefit with impunity.... have denied us the right of self determination.....etc etc..and they want me to sign a petition..in the words of the bard..bu**er off. That's my considered and well balanced response to anything from the cesspit.
Would it be worth you starting an opposing petition?
Pointing out that a requirement to resign if leaving a Party, would give political Parties even MORE power to silence whistleblowers in their midst, and even LESS incentive to properly vet candidates they back.
How easy it would be to effectively Court-Martial and Firing-Squad any MP (and by precedent) any MSP who believes humans can't change sex, a baby is not a bunch of cells, Scotland is a Country, peaceful protest is not terrorism, or the chonically ill should not be 'offered' assisted suicide!
Knowing that they could be replaced, like World War I cannon fodder, by a yes-man, using the block vote of the many voters who base their selection on the rosette colour favoured by their ancestors fifty years ago!
The point you make is perfectly valid. But I'm not sure how a petition against a petition would work. Perhaps a petition for an alternative 'solution' would be the way to go. Except I don't see a problem that requires a solution. MSPs and MPs are representatives, not delegates. Delegates follow instructions. Representatives follow their conscience. The petition under discussion seeks to treat representatives as if they were delegates. That just doesn't make sense.
"With the exception of the regional ballot in a Scottish general election, we vote for the candidate and not the party."
Absolutely.
I agree.
Imagine I stand for a candidate for party X because they have policy P in their manifesto which I really care about. I get elected and X does really well, winning the majority of seats and forming a government.
Then they renege on their promise to do P. I resign form the party in disgust.
Why should i have to face a by-election? I haven't left the party, the party has left me! If anything, it is the people who have stayed with them who should face a by-election!
Well said.
Technically correct which how I choose my second vote. But as Alan Grant states, it doesn't always work in practice, as with myself for both votes
I'm not sure that you are correct with your statement regarding voting for the candidate as opposed to voting for the party. If I'm honest, which I do always try to be, my tendency is to vote party first. I invariably know very little about the standing candidate when I cast my vote, as I tend to vote to empower my party of choice. Unless my candidate is famous or in the news, I am not likely to know very much about them if truth be told. Do I tend to read electioneering material that is posted through my door? Sorry, that's a no. All that "bumff" is gathered into a neat little pile and recycled into my paper bin at the earliest opporchancity. As I tend to vote party first, I am in very much in favour of a by-election if my MP/MSP decides to jump ship and join a party that I may view with some degree of distaste. As such I actually signed this petition. This year however, due to the failure of the SNP to unearth a new direction and a viable strategy on independence, I may actually find myself looking at individual candidates a little more closely, as I try to find a reason and a direction for my vote. Then again maybe not.
You think you're voting for a party. In reality, you are voting for a candidate. The candidate's party affiliation is incidental. That the party affiliation looms so large as to eclipse the candidate is just one of the ways in which the system has distorted the relationship between the voter and their elected representative.
Sorry Pete but I once again disagree. We vote for a candidate, agreed, who represents a party. The policy and membership of that party is decided, not by the candidate, but by the NEC of the party. If we voted for individual candidates with no affiliation to any party, all of the UK parliaments would be well represented by such candidates. With 6 independent MP's in Wastemonster out of a possible 650, it appears they are not. As such, I have to respectfully disagree with your view. How many times in recent memory have we had parliamentary votes where members are told by the party that they must tow the party line or face punishments such as losing the whip etc. That can hardly be construed as incidental can it?
I accept the fact that some of the electorate may have time to partake in an in-depth study of their prospective candidate, but I sadly am not on of them. I also cannot in good conscience change my feelings regarding my candidate choosing to join another party (the main point of this discussion) who have partial or completely conflicting political ideals to that of the party I previously voted for, without them having to face consequences.
Only three people have ever been elected to the Scottish Parliament as independent candidates. There are currently no MSPs who were elected or are sitting as independents. There are only five independent MPs, none representing a Scottish constituency.
But the fact that candidates can stand without party affiliation proves my point that it is the candidate you are voting for, and not the party. If it were the party you were voting for, how could you vote where there is no party?
EDIT: I now realise you were referring to six nominally pro-independence MPs and not MPs elected or sitting as independents. But my point still stands.
I was referring to the fact that only 6 MP's out of a possible 650 were elected in the last UK election without standing under a party banner. My view remains that people vote for a party, not an individual.
The candidate does not 'represent' a party. They may be sponsored and supported by a party, but they are elected as an individual. That's the law.
Of course, the party benefits from the election of a candidate it has sponsored. And with very rare exceptions, the returned candidate will repay the party with uncritical loyalty, even when the party's policies impact negatively on their constituents. But that is the distortion. They are supposed to put their constituents first. The party is a collective the MP or MSP joins for the purpose of better serving their constituents through that party's access to effective political power.
"The candidate does not 'represent' a party". And yet most candidates are either currently sitting MP's or MSP's, or are chosen, almost without exception from the current membership of the party. The vast majority of MP or MSP's don't join their respective party through a need to serve their constituents; they are already a member of said party before they are selected. No committee in Christendom would select candidates from outside of their membership barring extremely exceptional circumstances.
It's a UK Government petition? Well there's yer first clue...foreign english government.This is the government that lie regularly about Scotland ..insult /attackScotland with the words..' it's none of your business who we hand your land to so they can attack their enemies.'.. 300 years of theft by stealing OUR resources for their benefit with impunity.... have denied us the right of self determination.....etc etc..and they want me to sign a petition..in the words of the bard..bu**er off. That's my considered and well balanced response to anything from the cesspit.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.