If A Sitting Politician Switches Parties Should That Election Be Rerun?

[Moderate Right]

Unless a politician is on his way out of the door and doesn’t give a crap anymore, almost everything they do is geared towards getting them re-elected. I think many of the people that switch parties do so because that’s what they think their voters want.

Don't agree. I highly doubt that voters voted in these two Kansas Republicans as Republicans when they really wanted Democrats.

 

[Moderate Right]

Absolutely not.

...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
- Edmund Burke

Representative Democracy does not mean that you vote for a party, but for an individual.
You entrust that person with your mandate. If you do not trust that person to carry the responsibility, you should never have voted for him in the first place.
If more people lived up to that, we wouldn't have such a goddamn overabundance of party politics in the first place.

LOL. The reality is the voters voting for a person would, in most cases, not vote for that same person if they were from the other party. That's why we have parties and why we have R's and D's next to the candidate on the ballot and why we have straight party line voting. Your wishes and fantasies and Edmund Burke's are not reality.

 

[Cardinal]

I noticed in the news today that a couple of Kansas Republicans switched parties to being Democrats and it has happened to both sides a number of times. It got me thinking that if this person was elected largely due to their party affiliation and then they switched parties then that is, in a non illegal way, election fraud. I mean these people were elected by voters to represent them the way they wanted to be represented. If the voters expected a Republican (or vice versa) to represent them, then they don't want a Democrat (or vice versa) to represent them. It is my opinion that whenever this happens, that election should be rerun.

It's up to voters to determine the kind of character their preferred candidate has and whether that candidate will proceed according to their party or to their principles. Often a change of party is a political kiss of death, and the politicians will be aware of that.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's up to voters to determine the kind of character their preferred candidate has and whether that candidate will proceed according to their party or to their principles. Often a change of party is a political kiss of death, and the politicians will be aware of that.

Doesn't change the fact that if a person claims they belong to one party and then while in office switch parties, they have committed fraud against those who voted for them and another election should be rerun immediately, not at the end of the term. I would support that on both sides.

 

[Cardinal]

Doesn't change the fact that if a person claims they belong to one party and then while in office switch parties, they have committed fraud against those who voted for them and another election should be rerun immediately, not at the end of the term.

Do you believe that just with the issue of people switching parties or all matters relating to defrauding voters?

 

[HK.227]

LOL. The reality is the voters voting for a person would, in most cases, not vote for that same person if they were from the other party. That's why we have parties and why we have R's and D's next to the candidate on the ballot and why we have straight party line voting. Your wishes and fantasies and Edmund Burke's are not reality.

Sure it is. It means voters get exactly what they deserve, and some of them tend to whine about it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

When you have a corrupt president, a corrupt Cabinet, and an enabling GOP Congress, there are going to be GOP defections.

It's terribly disappointing that there aren't more.

 

[AGENT J]

I noticed in the news today that a couple of Kansas Republicans switched parties to being Democrats and it has happened to both sides a number of times. It got me thinking that if this person was elected largely due to their party affiliation and then they switched parties then that is, in a non illegal way, election fraud. I mean these people were elected by voters to represent them the way they wanted to be represented. If the voters expected a Republican (or vice versa) to represent them, then they don't want a Democrat (or vice versa) to represent them. It is my opinion that whenever this happens, that election should be rerun.

well thats just plain stupid lol
no, theres no logical reason to rerun it. It is what it is next election fix it if and vote for somebody else if it needs fix

 

[JMR]

I don't believe there is a such a thing as a party switching platforms after the election. Party platforms are nothing but a myth. They are total and complete stupidity. Often times the winning candidate's platform is different than the official party platform, both before and after the election. Why they waste their time doing them is beyond me.

If you do not examine a candidate's positions, how do you determine which candidate to support?

 

[JMR]

Doesn't change the fact that if a person claims they belong to one party and then while in office switch parties, they have committed fraud against those who voted for them and another election should be rerun immediately, not at the end of the term. I would support that on both sides.

They have only "committed fraud" against those who voted on party lines. They have done a service to those who supported their positions.

Only a few days ago there was a thread about diversity in the Congress, and the overwhelming right wing response was that you guys vote for the most "qualified individual"
How does that qualified individual lose qualifications by changing party?

 

[Moderate Right]

They have only "committed fraud" against those who voted on party lines. They have done a service to those who supported their positions.

Only a few days ago there was a thread about diversity in the Congress, and the overwhelming right wing response was that you guys vote for the most "qualified individual"
How does that qualified individual lose qualifications by changing party?

Whether you check the vote party line box or not, most people vote along party lines. In this day and age there are only two extremes to chose from. Voters only vote for a particular person because they like that person's policies and they like that person's policies because they conform to the party policies that the voter responds to. There are almost zero politicians left who don't follow party line dogma.

 

[Moderate Right]

If you do not examine a candidate's positions, how do you determine which candidate to support?

Seriously? Tell me which Democratic candidates champion Republican values and vice versa. Both parties are separated out into their two corners. Other than those you can count on one hand, there are no candidates in the middle anymore.

 

[JMR]

Seriously? Tell me which Democratic candidates champion Republican values and vice versa. Both parties are separated out into their two corners. Other than those you can count on one hand, there are no candidates in the middle anymore.

These days I am not so sure of what "Republican values" means. I think there are MANY moderate Republicans, especially women, who are very dismayed with the current positions of the Republican party. In any case, I think the idea of a special election, if a Congressperson changes parties is way off base.

 

[Moderate Right]

These days I am not so sure of what "Republican values" means. I think there are MANY moderate Republicans, especially women, who are very dismayed with the current positions of the Republican party. In any case, I think the idea of a special election, if a Congressperson changes parties is way off base.

What positions?

 

[JMR]

What positions?

The immigration debacles (bans) that began as soon as Trump took office. The support for candidates who have stated nationalistic (both social and economic) goals. The support of a president who mocks people, who behaves intolerably, and who has insulted our oldest allies. The obvious disdain for the needy by voting for corporate tax breaks, and threatening social programs.

I could go on, but why bother? I am sure you think all of these positions are wonderful. But the fact remains, the GOP is bleeding female support, and it is basically because of the hard line tough guy image currently being put forth.

I have heard in Kansas in particular, (and the subject of your poll) that opposition to all things Brownback and Kobach is growing, especially among women. Wasn't Kobach just defeated by a democrat for governor?

 

[HumblePi]

Here's just one example of a sitting Senator changing political parties in the middle of his tenure.

James Jeffords of Vermont

Republican, 1989-2001
Independent, 2001-2007

Jeffords announced his change on May 24, 2001, effective June 6, 2001. He indicated that he would caucus with the Democratic Party, thus changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats.