U.S.A and Canada are not democracies in this respect........

[glarius]

There's something about both our democracies (Canadian and American) that bothers me....Why is it that a person who is elected by the people to represent a particular party, can decide at a later date that he or she no longer wants to represent that party and can change parties, or sit as an independant?.....That just seems wrong to me....I think if the person no longer wants to represent the party, a by-election should be called in that district and the people have a chance to vote again....Anyone agree?:shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Party changes should be restricted to within the normal election cycle.

...in other words, if you want to switch parties, announce yourself as the candidate for the other party when you are up for re-election.

Of course, unfortunately there's nothing preventing these DINOS (or RINOS, or whatever they would be called in Canada) from voting the other party's agenda. We have an asshole in the state Senate here who votes with the Pukes 90% of the time, but refuses to officially switch parties.

[glarius]

2. I agree about announcing

for the other party at election time, provided the person is not allowed to switch parties before that time....They must stay with the party they were elected in, until the next election...IMO

[eallen]

3. No one in the US government is elected to represent a political party.

In fact, if you read the Constitution, political parties are not even mentioned. Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents. Senators to represent their states. The President to represent the American people as a whole. All swear to defend the Constitution. Not a one has any official duty to a political party. In general elections, no one knows how many Republicans or Democrats voted for a particular candidate.

Now, there are people who represent political parties, and those are the people who fill party offices, from the precinct chairs on up to the chairs and secretaries and other directors and officials of the parties. And I will agree with you to this extent. Thus, the Treasurer for the Democratic Party should not change party affiliation while holding that role. But they are not members of our government. At least, not by virtue of their party capacity. (It's conceivable, of course, that someone could serve in government and fill an official party role. But these are separate and distinct roles.)

[glarius]

4. For all practical purposes aren't they all either Democrats, Repubs or

Independants?....I'm Canadian and am only going by what I have observed from afar, but it seems to me when they vote in Congress their party affiliation is evident and when they are running for office they run for a particular party....My beef is that we vote these people in under the party we have chosen and they have no right to change affiliation on their own...

[eallen]

5. Yeah? So Lieberman is a Republican, and Chaffee a Democrat?

I don't know Canadian government well enough to understand the role of parties there. Here in the US, they are entirely ancillary to government. No US politician gets elected "under the party we have chosen," but always in their own right, and they have every prerogative to stick with one party, to switch, to declare themselves independent, or to start a new party, while holding office. Any American who doesn't like that should lobby to change our voting system.