• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Switching political parties.

Should politicians be allowed to keep their seat if they switch?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
39,604
Reaction score
28,872
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.
Yes, they should.

It's up to their voters to decide...in the next election...if they support the decision to switch or not and to vote accordingly.
 
Yes, they should.

It's up to their voters to decide...in the next election...if they support the decision to switch or not and to vote accordingly.
I imagine that if the representative is a Democrat most likely it was democratic voters who elected him/her to the seat. (Vice versa for Republicans). You vote for someone on the basis of ideology. To some degree when you switch parties it’s because you no longer support the ideology of the party in which you ran. Perhaps you know of examples where even though a member switched they continued to vote along their previous party lines.
 
I imagine that if the representative is a Democrat most likely it was democratic voters who elected him/her to the seat. (Vice versa for Republicans). You vote for someone on the basis of ideology. To some degree when you switch parties it’s because you no longer support the ideology of the party in which you ran. Perhaps you know of examples where even though a member switched they continued to vote along their previous party lines.
I don't know of any examples you ask for. I don't really care.

Like I said in my previous post, it's up to the people who vote for the Congressman to deal with the situation as they see fit.
 
'Yes', they should be allowed to switch. They are a representative, firstly, a party member secondly.
 
Yes. Perhaps it would actually teach voters to check out what their candidates stand for, their actual view on issues, votes on issues, rather than what letter is beside their name.
 
'Yes', they should be allowed to switch. They are a representative, firstly, a party member secondly.
Good point. They all say that and if true then why run on a party platform? We are stuck with a two party system because most people vote along party lines. I would wager that a lot of voters don’t even know the details of where their candidates stand. If they are Republicans they vote for Republicans. Vice versa for Democrats.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.

Let the voters decide.
 
Yes. Parties have no legal standing. You either got elected or you didn't.
 
Good point. They all say that and if true then why run on a party platform? We are stuck with a two party system because most people vote along party lines. I would wager that a lot of voters don’t even know the details of where their candidates stand. If they are Republicans they vote for Republicans. Vice versa for Democrats.
Because with our form of government, it's the only way to efficacy.

CF Duverger's Law
 
Because with our form of government, it's the only way to efficacy.

CF Duverger's Law
I’m not sure I follow you. Our form of government is a republic (representative). We link ourselves, because of our personal priorities, with a party which closely aligns itself with those issues we deem important.

For instance, Democrats are identified as the party of labor whereas the Republican Party identified with big business. One fiscally liberal; one fiscally conservative. One for greater government control; one for less.

Efficacy is defined as the ability to produce desired results. We elect politicians on the idea that they will produce the results we want.

So, maybe I’m just missing something in what you’re saying.

Edit. Didn’t see your link at first. I’ll look it over.
 
I’m not sure I follow you. Our form of government is a republic (representative). We link ourselves, because of our personal priorities, with a party which closely aligns itself with those issues we deem important.

For instance, Democrats are identified as the party of labor whereas the Republican Party identified with big business. One fiscally liberal; one fiscally conservative. One for greater government control; one for less.

Efficacy is defined as the ability to produce desired results. We elect politicians on the idea that they will produce the results we want.

So, maybe I’m just missing something in what you’re saying.

Edit. Didn’t see your link at first. I’ll look it over.
Sorry. I can see I caused confusion using the term, 'efficacy'. I was referring to the limited 'efficacy' of a single independant legislator, vs the combined power of a party. As we can see here in the States, it takes major party to get things done. To remove Trump, I went from an Indie to a Dem, because they are the only party capable of removing him.

As to Duverger's, he states that the natural evolution (devolution?) of a plurlity voting systen (winner takes all), in single member voting districts (one winner), will be to a two party system. There are exceptions, usually limited in time, but the general law pretty much stands.

Check-out the link I earlier gave you, if interested.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.

Often they step off as an independent for the remainder of their term I think and just caucus with the other side until they officially run again, but yes they should be able to keep their seat. Just for the LOLZ, I would love to see an election in which everybody was an independent so that people actually had to make an effort to decide who to vote for instead of voting straight party tickets. We would have record low turn out.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.

I say no because it is a betrayal to the voters that put you in that seat. Sorry but a deal is a deal. I think any politician that does this on either side is a piece of shit.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.

Yes. We elect the person, not the Party. Whether that person should be allowed to keep the seat after they switch party affiliation is a question that only the voters can determine.
 
Should members of Congress be allowed to switch party affliction and keep their seats for the remainder of their terms?

According to the following it appears that the majority of switches have been from the Democratic side to the Republican.


I don’t personally think it matters which side benefits the most. I think if you’re elected as a representative for one party the people who elected you should have a say on whether you stay or go.
The election is where the people have a say.
That, or a recall, which some states have.

I would assume that if a representative got elected, then instantly switched parties and went against everything they had run on, there would be a movement to recall them in the state they came from, even if no system of recall existed before that point.
 
Sorry. I can see I caused confusion using the term, 'efficacy'. I was referring to the limited 'efficacy' of a single independant legislator, vs the combined power of a party. As we can see here in the States, it takes major party to get things done. To remove Trump, I went from an Indie to a Dem, because they are the only party capable of removing him.

As to Duverger's, he states that the natural evolution (devolution?) of a plurlity voting systen (winner takes all), in single member voting districts (one winner), will be to a two party system. There are exceptions, usually limited in time, but the general law pretty much stands.

Check-out the link I earlier gave you, if interested.
I see nothing I can quibble with in your response and I thank you for taking the time to share it.

I noticed the link you shared after I initially replied to you. Once I saw it I read through it twice. Interesting. I vaguely recall seeing it (or something like it) years ago. I confess I didn’t have the benefit of studying political science in college. Just dabbled in it. It’s a field that’s always interested me.
 
Often they step off as an independent for the remainder of their term I think and just caucus with the other side until they officially run again, but yes they should be able to keep their seat. Just for the LOLZ, I would love to see an election in which everybody was an independent so that people actually had to make an effort to decide who to vote for instead of voting straight party tickets. We would have record low turn out.
Yes, I think everyone would benefit if all politicians ran as independents. I don’t think your average American would or could take the time to educate themselves, unfortunately. Which of course, most likely result in lower turnout as you say.
 
I say no because it is a betrayal to the voters that put you in that seat. Sorry but a deal is a deal. I think any politician that does this on either side is a piece of shit.
That’s how I saw it also - a betrayal. I wouldn’t call them a pos though. Sometimes there’s a good reason to switch. And anyone who does has to know that they might be ending their political career. That can’t be easy.
 
I see nothing I can quibble with in your response and I thank you for taking the time to share it.

I noticed the link you shared after I initially replied to you. Once I saw it I read through it twice. Interesting. I vaguely recall seeing it (or something like it) years ago. I confess I didn’t have the benefit of studying political science in college. Just dabbled in it. It’s a field that’s always interested me.
Learning is a life-long process!

"Don't let schooling get in the way of your education"

- Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
 
The election is where the people have a say.
That, or a recall, which some states have.

I would assume that if a representative got elected, then instantly switched parties and went against everything they had run on, there would be a movement to recall them in the state they came from, even if no system of recall existed before that point.
I’m not sure how easy a recall would be to initiate. But if the switch occurred early in the term it might be worth the effort.
 
Learning is a life-long process!

"Don't let schooling get in the way of your education"

- Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
:) I have to be a little more selective on what I give my time to. Don’t have as much of it left.
 
:) I have to be a little more selective on what I give my time to. Don’t have as much of it left.
Crazy as it sounds, for the right kind of person there's a lot that can be learned at D - if you do research on the topics you debate and find interest in. Just like teaching makes one a better practitioner, I believe debating (and the research required) makes one more knowledgeable. That's if one is honest & open-minded of course, and willing to put in some effort.
 
'Yes', they should be allowed to switch. They are a representative, firstly, a party member secondly.
I agree, I think. A representative is elected to represent the interests of his/her community, and to act as their voice. If the Rep finds that is easier to do so with one party, or the other, that is fine. What is important is that the community being represented, continues to be represented, in a way that serves its interest. If the purpose of the switch is to serve the Reps interest, then vote the bastard out
 
Back
Top Bottom