I'm sure you've been seeing it on the news - Sen. Jeffords is going to make an announcement (now deleyed until tomorrow) about whether or not he's going to switch parties, leaving the Republican party to become an Independent.

If this happens, what changes do you see in the current administration? And (ignoring if you can that this time it may work out very favorably for non-Republicans) what do you think of the idea of an elected official changing parties while they're holding elected office?

A history of party switching: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64962-2001May23.html

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Answers

Who was it in Anne Arundel County that went from Democrat to Republican, Bob Neall? He was county commissioner for a few years, and is a state of Maryland senator now, but I could swear he was the one who switched and there was a big to-do over all of it.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

My bad. He was a Republican, now he's a Democrat.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

He's leaving the Repblicans? Somebody make sure he turns in his white hood and compassionate conservatism at the door.

That was a joke! A joke damb you. I think party switching is kinda like the guy who tells his boss that he's got an offer from another company but he'll stay on if he can match the pay. They need the guy so they pay, but, the guy who just leveraged his way to a bigger paycheck may have just leveraged himself right out of any training or plush assignments.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

I think most party switchers are opportunists who owe their district the courtesy of doing it just before an election.

That said, I like this for a few reasons-

First, it puts a much needed check back in the Federal gov't for now. One party controlling all has never been good. See 92-94 if you need an example.

Next, this has been a long time coming for him. I honestly think this is something he believes in.

Finally, I'd *love* to see others follow- not necessarily switching parties, but asserting themselves as independents, with no strict committment to lining up just because the party said to (tho' there is a value in that type of behavior, the extremes it has gone to doesn't benefit anyone). It'll force both parties to be more responsive to ideas, rather than gamesmanship.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

I remember in 1994 after the "republican revolution" a few conservative democrats switched sides. That was pretty gross, because they obviously did it because their asses had just been kicked.

Meanwhile, here we have a somewhat progressive guy from a very progressive state whos "compassionate conservative" leadership is far to the right of Nixon and even Reagan. Every day, hell, a couple times a day the news reports some new completely fucked up thing that W. and co are doing... I could see him wanting to get out of there without it necessarily being an opportunist thing.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

I thought the most interesting this about this issue was that if Jeffords leaves the republican party, the republicans would lose their majority in the senate. (I believe this is correct - trying to remember from listening to NPR.) It was a big deal for Bush because if the republicans lose the majority then they will no longer have agenda setting duties. This would make it hard for Bush to get much passed.
I don't know the details why he is leaving the republican party, but I say more power to him.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I think that what surprised me about this (I must have been living under a rock when it's happened in the past) is that they can, but after I think about it, I rather like the signal it sends to the voters - you really should be voting for the person rather than the party because in the end that's all you're guaranteed to get.

As for this particular switch, I love it, but I'm not sure this will be the end of it - it may provide the impetus for more party switching by congress-critters among those that have been hanging in there with a party that is no longer all that reflective of their views or voting habits. It may take a couple months before it all settles out, and who knows which side will ultimately come out on top?

Who'd have thought that such a mediocre selection of presidential candidates would have led to so many history-making firsts?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

A good day, indeed.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I watched a little of his speech today - the guy is a cocksucker. One of the first questions he was asked after his little "I'm better than you" dissent was "What in the hell do you think you're doing? Six months ago you knew what G-Dub was about, and now, after the local Republican people put you in office, you betray them."

And don't give me no stupidity about how he's staying true to his own personal beliefs -- that just makes his posing worse. Such a change of heart does not happen overnight. He's a liar and an oppurtunist willing to slap the people (another check of government) in the face.

Sad thing is, he'll be able to use his new found independency for extortion and never get his due.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

And don't give me no stupidity about how he's staying true to his own personal beliefs -- that just makes his posing worse. Such a change of heart does not happen overnight. He's a liar and an oppurtunist willing to slap the people (another check of government) in the face.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Has he said he's changed his views on any actual issue? Even one? Did he wake up yesterday and say, "Goddamn, those treehuggers have a point"? I didn't think that was what was happening here. Has he even indicated that he's going to vote any differently than he did before?

If his constituents were just voting for whatever bozo's name was on the line marked "Republican" without knowing a thing about his actual stance on various issues, then I think they're idiots and they get no sympathy for me -- people who vote straight party lines without doing any research make me furious. If they were thoughtful voters who elected him based on the issues, then they're getting what they paid for -- unless he suddenly changes directions on major issues, which it doesn't sound like he's doing.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

If he's such an opportunist, why didn't he join the Democratic Party? I'm sure they would have been all too happy to hand him a plum committee assignment in exchange for the switch.

As for the local Republican people putting him in office, he's from Vermont. Vermont's voters mostly vote Democratic (there is no party registration in Vermont). He was elected by Republicans and Democrats.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

If you examine the man's past voting record, it seems obvious that he's been an Independent in all but name for a long time, perhaps all along. This seems like a fit to me, and I imagine it does to his constituents. Vermont's House Representative is an Independent as well, if I'm not mistaken. What seems weird to me is that he was ever a member of the Republican Party in the first place. I don't see any real shift in his position apart from party affiliation.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Just posted the following to my own site:

As a native New Englander, and former registered Republican (now an independent), I salute Senator Jeffords for his principled acknowledgement that the current incarnation of the Republican party and leadership is no place for people who value tolerance and moderation.

-- There's hope after all...

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Rudeboy, he's in large part reacting to the fact that the GOP has moved away from what his beliefs and positions have been all along, not changing them. His position is that the party has changed, he hasn't, and everything I read supports this. As much as I don't love Republicans, if they have any sense, they'll take this as a wake-up call and scoot back toward the middle. Perhaps they'll quit doing things like letting freaking Ralph Reed chair the GA GOP. Meanwhile, I'll just enjoy the show and be thankful for the power shift.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Just fyi, he *did* get a plum committee assignment- *Chair* of the Environment and Public Works committee.

Pointed out elsewhere is the fact that Dems should still be careful- Bob the Torch could be facing indictment (and I don't know anyone who thinks that's so unlikely).

One would hope the past couple of months would teach both sides to play nice. Lott doesn't look so dumb for signing off of what many GOP'ers called "too generous" a power sharing agreement.

(That said, I'll hope for, and watch with glee, Lott being savaged by his own party for screwing this up.)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

addendum: Rudeboy, where do you get that he's an opportunist? He was already a member of the party in power, and he turned down some amazing opportunities they offered to get him to stay.

Curtis: all eyes are turning to Zell now. I say he won't switch. What say you?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Zell *is* Georgia's Democratic Party. GA Dems, for the most part, would be Republicans in most other parts of the country. Simply moving him 500 miles north ain't gonna change the man.

Sen. Zell Miller-GA(D) for the rest of this term, and into the next.

(now can I go kick him? And WTF is happening to Max Cleland?)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I don't think local Republicans - at least not by themselves - put him into office, rudeboy. It sounds like his political views have remained consistent for a span of a couple decades, and that they line up with the general views of his constituency. He's simply acknowledging that the Republican party no longer interested in making room for those views.

As a registered Republican who has strongly considered becoming Independent for many years, I can well understand where he's coming from. I had planned to prior to this last Presidential race, and then decided I wanted to be able to vote in the primaries (I vote as I see fit during general elections, not by party). What I've seen in the last four months make clear to me that there simply are no more touchpoints left between my politics and that of the Republican party as it currently manifests itself, but I'm still holding off making the switch for awhile longer while I see what the response is.

I don't think the Party's politics are reflective of all Republicans, or even most Republicans and I hate to see registered Republicans demonized. I work in a overwhelmingly predominant Republican environment (out of 70 some employees, I know of only 1 Democrat), and only a handful of them espouse the hyper-conservative politics being preached by the Administration and their talk-show lackeys.

I think today is hopeful, not only because it causes an immediate rebalancing of power, but because it may well spell out the real beginning of the end of the far-right's stanglehold on the Republican party and acknowledgement that it's time for them to stop pandering to their extremists and move closer to the middle. (I'm cynical about whether or not that will happen, but it's way overdue.)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Rudie,

As has been pointed out, the guy switched from the winning side, and as an independents isn't even going over to the side that will probably win in a year. Certainly not opportunism.

Moreover, I dunno if you followed the debates among progressives over the Nader candidacy, but what kept coming up was people telling the Greens they should run as Democrats because otherwise they stand no chance of winning. The logic was that if they won as Democrats they could "influence the party." I'm sure this guy has been thinking about getting out of the GOP for a while, but has been consistently told that he should stay in the party and influence it. Obviously he is realizing that doesn't work.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

And as an addendum to Dave's question - are any Democrats tempted to sneer at Jefford's decision to follow his conscience rather than stay party-line?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Has he said he's changed his views on any actual issue? Even one? Did he wake up yesterday and say, "Goddamn, those treehuggers have a point"? I didn't think that was what was happening here. Has he even indicated that he's going to vote any differently than he did before?

Missing the big picture. He has single-handedly changed the balance of power by playing political musical chairs and he knows it.

If he's such an opportunist, why didn't he join the Democratic Party? I'm sure they would have been all too happy to hand him a plum committee assignment in exchange for the switch.

Because as an independent he can be the darling of the democrats and still hold his vote above the Republicans - that's why.

As a native New Englander, and former registered Republican (now an independent), I salute Senator Jeffords for his principled acknowledgement that the current incarnation of the Republican party and leadership is no place for people who value tolerance and moderation.

Kiss my ass.

Rudeboy, he's in large part reacting to the fact that the GOP has moved away from what his beliefs and positions have been all along, not changing them. His position is that the party has changed, he hasn't, and everything I read supports this.

Yeah, whatever. He changed the way the committee chairs are established. Any other reasons (valor, honor, blah) that you want to extend to him are crap.

He's simply acknowledging that the Republican party no longer interested in making room for those views.

Did you not know what George was about a year ago? Do you think that this guy was oblivious or something?

As has been pointed out, the guy switched from the winning side, and as an independents isn't even going over to the side that will probably win in a year. Certainly not opportunism.

See remarks to Jen Wade.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dear Rudeboy:

You did not actually just tell Jen Wade to kiss your ass; you told Lyn to kiss your ass. And you forgot to turn off your bold tag. Say you're sorry or we'll smack you.

Sincerely,

The Management.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Okay, so this is probably evil, but I can't help it.

Said Lyn: As a native New Englander, and former registered Republican (now an independent), I salute Senator Jeffords for his principled acknowledgement that the current incarnation of the Republican party and leadership is no place for people who value tolerance and moderation.

Said Rudeboy: Kiss my ass.

Now there's a moderate and tolerant response that really demonstrates that Lyn's analysis of the situation is off base.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

this goes for ANY politicain who switches parties mid-term: With his selfish decision to switch political parties mid-term, Senator Jeffords has defrauded every Vermont citizen who voted for him in 2000. Jeffords ran for Senate as a Republican and was elected to office as a Republican. Along with this decision to abruptly abandon the Republican Party, and those who voted for him, Senator Jim Jeffords has lowered himself to that no better than a common two bit street punk selling imitation Rolex watches.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Brilliant analysis, Dennis. Come on over to DC and see if you can find some PR or stragetery work.

~

I think this can even be seen as a good thing for the GOP. The neo- cons are getting their wish- fewer moderates to hold them back. The mods should see this as the strongest wake up call possible for the neo-con leadership.

The real show to watch now isn't going to be the Dems (you know they'll be treading ever so lightly)- it's going to be the blowing up and rebuilding of the GOP.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Did you not know what George was about a year ago? Do you think that this guy was oblivious or something?

Well, first of all, when Jeffords was running, he didn't know if GWB was going to be president.

But even if he did, I think a lot of people didn't really know what GWB was about a year ago. People didn't know that he was going to not support limits on CO2 emissions from power plants. People didn't know that he was going to snub moderate members of his own party. Bush cast himself as a moderate throughout much of the race, and was often vague about his views on key issues.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Now there's a moderate and tolerant response that really demonstrates that Lyn's analysis of the situation is off base.

Ta dah! Selective comprehension rears its head yet again. The sarcasm of the "Kiss my ass." response was lost on you Heather? What I tried to convey with those three little words was this:

Now there's a moderate and tolerant response.

I could've said what you said about Lyn's initial comments, but I chose to take the low road. You won't think that so strange once you get to know me.

Heather is my second all time favorite name. (Kirstin is the first.) I think it has something to do with growing up watching Happy Days and Leather Tuscedero -- which could also explain my fondness for raspy voices, feathered hair-dos and bad girls with soft hearts.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Rudie, in the future, if you're going to "whatever" me, kindly bring along a point, sunshine.

Denis: what Curtis said. I think you're cranky about the shift in the balance of power in the Senate, not about one man's decision to quit a club. Which is totally understandable, but "defrauding"? Huh-uh.

Lynda: I'm fine with his going Indie. I've been pondering the possibility of an impending crumbling of the two-party system in the US.

Curtis: you may kick anyone you'd like. I don't know what's up with ol' Maxie C. If you really want to see a show, follow the Governor's race. That freak Schrenko is already complicating my work life.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Say you're sorry or we'll smack you.

You have to deny the donkey the carrot if you want him to move - not feed it to him. Smack me baby. Smack me real good. I deserve it cuz I'm a bad bad boy.

Party jumpers just get my goat. Maybe he is being true to his heart. But, if he has held to his beliefs all along and he feels like it is the Republicans that have abandonded him, I think he should've ran as an independent in the first place.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Well, there is pretty good evidence that the Republicans abandoned him subsequent to his election. See this NYT article (you have to register) for details.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Rudie, in the future, if you're going to "whatever" me, kindly bring along a point, sunshine.

I thought you didn't like men's points.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

J-Dub - the article says a number of times that Jeffords never directly expressed his despair. Were I a thinking man, I would suggest that an opposing force helped him to make up his mind and frowned upon any consult with George and Dick.

One of the main points of conmtention Jeffords had was tax cuts? How could you not know that Bush was all about tax cuts? I knew that he was all about tax cuts from the moment he had to make up for his daddy's tax increase.

Maybe he was slighted on the education thing - don't know for sure. Even if he was, he has negated the ultimate check on government by changing colors midstream.

No matter what else happens, this guy's credibility as a politician is damaged. Professing that you can no longer in good conscience support a party who's ideals are out of whack with your own may sway us commoners - but I bet the guys on both sides that form alliances and play Survivor up on the Hill for the big money won't trust him anymore.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

If his constituents were just voting for whatever bozo's name was on the line marked "Republican" without knowing a thing about his actual stance on various issues, then I think they're idiots and they get no sympathy for me -- people who vote straight party lines without doing any research make me furious.

This is madness. If he wanted to be an independent he should have ran as one. It's that simple. Do you honestly think he would have been elected running as an independent? He ran as a GOP and it is his duty to serve as one.

And I often vote straight party lines without doing any (other) research. The party the gets elected is far more important than an individual member's views. In most cases they are expected to vote along party lines.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Schrenko's all Zell's fault. Shouldn't have let her out of Milledgeville in the first place.

~

Two party system ain't going nowhere. Just something of a shuffle right now. An interesting shuffle, but not a whole lot more.

~

(of course, we all know now that anything that goes wrong in this country will be because "those Democrats in the Senate won't let me do it the way it needs to be done" right? W gets another free ride. . .)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Do you guys really think that if Jeffords had run as an Independent or Democrat in 2000 it would have hurt him?

If anything, given the liberal tendencies of most Vermont voters, it almost certainly would have helped him. In 2000, Vermont voters chose Gore for president (with Nader getting 7% of the vote), a Democrat for Governor, and a Socialist running as an Independent for Representative. Jeffords was the only Republican elected to statewide office in the last election, and, of course, Vermont's only other Senator is the liberal Democrat Patrick Leahy.

To suggest that Jeffords was elected by virtue of his party status by the same voters who voted overwhelmingly Democratic in all the other races on that same ballot doesn't make any sense to me.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Beth wrote:
I think they're idiots...

Hmmm. I recall recently getting flak for using the word "moron" is much the same context. So let me get this straight: "moron" is bad, but "idiots" is okay?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

"Do you honestly think he would have been elected running as an independent?"

In Vermont? Hellyea.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

guppy- you are way wrong. you do not know my party affiliation, nor do you know if I am cranky over this switch. to me this isn't a "party" issue. if jeffords was democrat/libertarian/green party, i would feel the same way. Defraud his voters is exactly what jeffords did. Be honest with yourself, how many democrats or liberals do you think voted for jeffords? How would you feel if the person you voted for in a senate race won, but then changed parties a few months later? That's all I am saying. No need to apologize for your incorrect assumption of my thoughts.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave, I wasn't talking about anyone on this forum. You were. Now move on.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Rush Limbaugh has something very kewl on his site today -- "If Jeffords does switch and proclaim himself to be an Independent, then every Republican in the Senate ought to switch and proclaim themselves to be Independents thereby making themselves the majority again."

Oooooo - those evil Republican bastards. I wish they'd do it.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I have no real love for the two-party system in any case, but I don't think there's anything wrong with an elected official changing horses. As long as he still represents his constituents in the way they want to be represented - and the sense is that Jeffords hasn't changed - then he's doing what they sent him there to do, regardless of what party he's part of.

As far as it changing the balance in Congress, that's just an illustration of what I dislike about the system ... it should not be a foregone conclusion that legislators will vote along party lines regardless of their own consciences. If it were possible, I'd prefer either there be no organized parties at all, or so many small parties that it would be impossible for any one of them to control Congress.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I think they should too, rudey... it'll be a real hoot. 'Course, the joke will be on them when they realize that without a party affiliation, they CAN'T be a majority - but by god, you jes' keep listening to the stomach rumblings of Limbaugh. He'll save you all.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

And then we'd have Italy. And with the exception of the pornstar-cum- legislator (heh. uh oh. around rude too long, I think), I don't think anyone wants that.

Three party, maybe. But no more.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Denis: plenty. Or are you skipping the parts about Vermont voters? No apology forthcoming. He could only have defrauded voters who voted for him solely and specifically to get a Repub in the office, and I have about as much sympathy for that as I do for the loser in a street game of three card monte. They gambled, they lost. He's still the same guy. He'll still cast the same votes (with possible exceptions based on the fact that there won't be two thick-necked guys in grey turtlenecks waiting to break his kneecaps if he doesn't vote the way they say). Look, don't get me wrong. If I sympathized with the party that's losing out here, I wouldn't be nearly so "too bad, so sad" about the whole thing, but as it is, I can see things objectively because I haven't been slapped in the face, and I feel like what he did is entirely acceptable and ethically a-okay.

I have only the "thoughts" that you post to go on.

Rudie - We've talked about this, son. The points themselves i can deal with.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I can see things objectively because I haven't been slapped in the face

Not true. You're happy with the results and that has to color your objectivity. The Democrats are just loving this. I'll bet a lot of Republicans aren't that upset with it either, after seeing what Bush is doing.

But that doesn't make it any less dishonest. If he wants to serve as an independent he should get himself elected as one. It's that simple.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Ooooo.. goodie. A potential flamewar. *rolls eyes* I've been on the net too long for this...

Alright, what exactly are you objecting to rudeboy? Is your claim that the current incarnation of the Republican party is all about tolerance and moderation? Where is your evidence?

I stand by my statement. It might have been many years ago, when there were still fiscally conservative, socially tolerant Rockefeller Republican types, but the party's platform and leadership have been completely co-opted.

Personally, I'm no fan of either party; the Repubs (for reasons too many and too obvious too enumerate) and the Dems for being spineless - and- for ignoring privacy concerns (among other things). So, I registered as an independent years ago.

I completely fail to comprehend the people who think that switching parties (or rather, removing oneself from a party; "independent" is not a political party) is somehow defrauding the voters. If you really want people who will just vote the party line all the time, why have representatives at all? We could do that with a computer system. Vote on the platform on election day, vote for which party's platform you support, and be done. That's not what representative democracy is about at all. We elect -individuals- who have free will and the ability (one hopes) to vote their conscience while representing their constituents. It worries me that I have to think about parties at all when voting; it should be based on the individual's campaign and their voting record (if an incumbent), not on which party they belong to. Political parties have too much control as it is.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

gups- and i have not been slapped either, but his voters in VT have been. simple. this switch will only stall the government for a few years, and that to me is a good thing. you see, i win here. i would love to see your reaction if a person you voted for switched parties mid-term. i very highly doubt you'de say "oh well, he's/she's still the same guy/woman." you would be feel cheated. as did those voter in CO who had thier dem senator switch back in 96 (?).

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave Van: you frequently vote by party line with no research, eh? No wonder BC politics are such a mess.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Fine, Dave, I can't deny that I'm pleased about the whole turn of events, so -- though I'm not sure that colors my perception in the same way being the slapee would -- I'll rephrase: I'm not the injured party. I'm observing, rather than reacting, and I'm not observing any breach of ethics.

At this point, now that I've seen it from this angle, next time we lose one to the Evil Republican Right, unless the person in question completely changes his or her ideology or voting habits, I don't think I'll change my opinion on the right- or wrong-ness of the move. It'll just suck.

Better?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Jessica: First of all, I said "no (other) research." I want to know what each party's policies are and that's how I usually vote, I don't really care what the local politician's views are.

And frankly, I don't quite get how people think the local politician's views matter all that much. I mean, is a party member expected to vote along party lines or not? Perhaps things work a little differently between Canada and the US?

I completely fail to comprehend the people who think that switching parties (or rather, removing oneself from a party; "independent" is not a political party) is somehow defrauding the voters.

It's a simple concept, really. If I vote for a member with a stated affiliation, I expect to get a member with that affiliation. Ever heard of bait and switch?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Okay, Denis, we're staying on topic, but we're saying the same things over and over. I understand what you're trying to say. I'm disagreeing with it. I am acknowledging that being neither a member (nor a fan) of the GOP, nor a resident of hte state of VT is making it easy for me to step back from the situation and hold the opinion I do. You see an ethical problem; I don't. We should probably just leave it at that for now.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I'm happy about this particular switch, as a democrat, because of the house majority thing.

But in other ways, it does trouble me and seems unethical to the people who voted for him, a Republican, and now have a Democrat representing them. Sure, they could & should have looked at his record, but it still seems wrong to me.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

And frankly, I don't quite get how people think the local politician's views matter all that much. I mean, is a party member expected to vote along party lines or not? Perhaps things work a little differently between Canada and the US?

Perhaps they are. I think it would be a terrible shame if politician's were expected to vote along party lines all the time. In the U.S. this has become more the case recently and I think it's dreadful. Who then gets to decide what "party lines" are? Why bother electing individuals at all, if they're expected to vote with their party at all times? Sometimes local preferences should trump the national party. Admittedly this is a bigger issue in large countries with extremely diverse populations.

I try as hard as I can to educate myself and vote for individuals rather than expecting to people to fit themselves into mold "R" or mold "D". If -I- don't agree completely with either party's platform or "party lines", (and I'm still wondering who gets to dictate those) then why should I expect my Senator to? And if the party platform shifts over time (which they do), then some party-switching should be inevitable.

Perhaps it's a New England thing. If I still lived in Maine I would probably vote for Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), even though I can't stand the Republicans. Her voting record is pretty tolerable to me (as much as I've followed it recently), and she has been a good Senator for Maine not for the Republican party necessarily. I don't care about the parties, I care about my own representation. The only reason I would consider NOT voting for her is because of this party line expectation. I would have had a hard time this election knowing that voting for her would give another vote to Lott for Majority Leader. I think that is the real shame here. That I have to take party rather than simply an individual's beliefs and voting record into consideration. The parties are utterly corrupt.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave wrote: I mean, is a party member expected to vote along party lines or not? Perhaps things work a little differently between Canada and the US?

Perhaps it's a US vs. Canada thing at that. Here in the States, senators are darn well not expected to vote exclusively along party lines. The expectation is that they'll represent the public by considering each issue on its own merits, and what voters want to know in each election is not what the party lines are and whether the politician can be trusted to follow it, but rather what the politician's own views are.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Lizzie: he's not a Democrat. They have an Independent representing them now.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Jen, perhaps you would like to review how many independents were elected to the senate. Zero. No independant even came close. This could be interpreted as meaning that when it comes to the senate people prefer to vote for a member of a national party. (And isn't this the driving force behind open primaries?)

The point is moot, however. I have absolute confidence that some voters marked the box (or whatever) labeled "Republican" for no other reason than that they wanted to vote Republican. Whether or not Beth thinks they're idiots is immaterial. They have their one vote and they can cast it as they see fit. These people were defrauded.

Schmuel, expectations are quite different from reality, though, aren't they? Especially when it comes to issues the party deems important to the party. I would also submit that it is a whole lot easier for a member to "vote their conscience" when the ratio is 56/44 rather than 51/49.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

No Independents occupy Vermont's two senate seats, but their sole House seat is occupied by an Independent who blew the Republican and Democratic candidates out of the water getting 70% of the votes in the 2000 election.

Clearly, a large majority of Vermont voters are willing to vote for an Independent candidate for national office. Vermont voters may be more willing to do so than voters in other states owing to their lack of party representation. Or it may just be that there is a lack of viable Independent candidates in other states (Independent candidates often have fairly extreme political views).

Jeffords was an incumbent in the 2000 election. He did not follow the Republican Party line in his last term, so why would Republican voters expect that he would do so in his current term?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Um, I meant "party registration" not "party representation." I'm high on cold medicine.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave, I can't remember anymore - what were your views on the Florida voters who were trying to vote for Gore and wound up casting their ballot for Buchanan? Were they also defrauded because what they intended to do turned out not to be the case, or was it, in your opinion, their own responsibility to pay close enough attention to make their choice intelligently?

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Here's an AP article about some of Jefford's past departures from the Republican party line.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Most of yall are consistently missing the big picture -- this would not be such a big deal if the guy hadn't changed the balance of power. 75 Republicans, 25 Democrats - go ahead bub, ignore the party that raised money to put you where you are and claim your independence.

It's not that way though, is it? Not hardly. This wreeks of political manuevering. Tell me it doesn't -- some naive somebody tell me. It's all about the politics and the power and the money. His supposed alienation from the party is just the lamb's clothing.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Sure, there was political maneuvering.

You think Bush and Cheney just all of a sudden randomly decided that it was time Jim Jeffords came by for a visit on Tuesday? And the reason why the announcement was made today instead of yesterday is becuase "moderate Republicans asked Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R- Mississippi, to create a new moderate leadership position in the Republican Party to keep Jeffords from leaving." (from cnn.com)

I'm not saying there wasn't maneuvering by the Dems, but both sides were definitely trying to woo Jeffords.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave Van,

The way things are structured in the U.S. is very different than the more parliamentary system that Canada has (which is very similar to most European countries). In the U.S. party labels are meaningless, parties don't really have membership the way they do in other countries. It's a whole different ballgame.

In your system you do vote for the party, not the man. That's not how the U.S. system is set up at all.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Also, another datapoint. John McCain, Republican Senator, made statement about Jeffords' decision, saying, among other things (emphases added):

For his votes of conscience, he was unfairly targeted for abuse, usually anonymously, by short-sighted party operatives from their comfortable perches in K Street offices, and by some Republican members of Congress and their staff. Perhaps those self- appointed enforcers of party loyalty will learn to respect honorable differences among us, learn to disagree without resorting to personal threats, and recognize that we are a party large enough to accommodate something short of strict unanimity on the issues of the day. Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

And on the other side of things, Al Gore lost a pound today from having a good belly laugh.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Hey, someone left the BOLD on

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Actually Dave, I'm Canadian. And party affiliation does not always determine how your MP's vote. There are votes taken in Commons which are free votes: otherwise, Canada might have gone back to capital punishment during the Mulroney era. Furthermore, MP's cross the floor with alarming frequency, as note the Alliance members in recent days, and Lucien Bouchard when he crossed the floor out of the Liberal party to establish the Bloc Quebecois. I was taught, both by me American parents and my Canadian teachers, to pay close attention to the candidate, not the party. I think it's sad when other voters don't make any effort in voting, or don't bother to vote at all.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Of course I'm aware of free votes. And I'm sure you're aware that they are the exception (by a long shot) and not the rule.

The bottom line here is that if a race is close I would never "waste" my vote on an independent or member of a minor party. And I generally vote for a party and not a person. And frankly, I don't have to defend myself. It's my vote and I can cast it as I see fit. (more later...)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I don't see a lot of politicians talking about how they can't trust him any more. A lot, even the Republicans, are talking nice about him....all too aware that he's not the ONLY moderate Republican over there.

Funny, I don't remember much talk of "betrayal" when Democrat John Connally turn Republican under Nixon....

In other words.

Good for him.

Good for the country, too.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

There's nothing wrong with a politician changing parties, if she prefers to stop associating with a party for any reason. In a representitive democracy, the voters select the candidate they most want to see in office. Once in office, a politican should follow his conscience, even if doing so disappoints some of the people who voted for him.

Jeffords evidentally believes that his constituents would be better off with a Democrat-lead Senate and wants to distance himself from the current Republican leadership. He must have concluded that abandoning the Republican party is the best way to counter its rightward drift, instead of fighting from within.

On a different topic, voting based on party makes sense for many voters. Within each party, an average consensus exists about many of the major issues. For example, compared to the Republicans, the Democrats tend to support more social spending, less defense spending, pro-choice policies, more environment protection, more progressive taxes, etc. Though regional differences exist, for most liberals and conservatives one major party is consistently a better match for their beliefs.

Of course, there are moderates, libertarians, and others who agree with Republican and Democrats to an equal degree. For such people, the merits and views of the individual candidates may matter. However, unless you follow politics closely, the party membership is the main available data point; most undecided voters seem to be swayed by TV ads.

By the way, I wonder whether the 98-year old Strom Thurmond would be more inclined to resign, if his resignation won't change the Senate leadership any longer.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Dave, Of course you are well within your rights to vote any way you like, and I am well within mine to think it's sad, and say so.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Jessica: You wanna know what's sad? It's sad that Bush made it into the White House because people who think like you do voted for Nader.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Jen Wade wrote:
Jeffords was an incumbent in the 2000 election. He did not follow the Republican Party line in his last term, so why would Republican voters expect that he would do so in his current term?

Because the stakes are higher?

In any case, he also stayed with the Republican party last term. So if you're arguing that voters would expect him to do what he did last term...

In any case "he would have won anyway" is never a valid excuse for misleading voters into voting for you.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Lynda: My position on the Florida ballots would be that the people who miscast their votes (all three of them ;-) were wronged. And Gore was wronged. However, due process was followed so there's nothing that can be done about it, except to make sure it doesn't happen again. (I'm not sure how this is relevant, but there you go.)

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Shmuel and David Grenier: Do you think you're going to pull the toque over this Canadian's eyes with your idealistic rhetoric? Ask yourself why Jeffords is quitting the GOP. Why is he really quitting? If you look at the events that led up to this situation you'll see it's clearly the result of what he feels is undue pressure to follow party lines. I'd say he's basically making this move to get the GOP off his back.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

If you look at the events that led up to this situation you'll see it's clearly the result of what he feels is undue pressure to follow party lines.

I'm not seeing how this is an argument for your side, rather than mine. If anything, it suggests that the real problem here isn't a rogue senator, but the inability of the party at large to hang onto its own members.

Really, now, there seems little question that the coalition-building we heard so much about hasn't been happening, and that, having gotten control, the Republicans have gone further to the right than originally promised. If they can't play nicely with one of their own members, is it likely they're doing better with those across the aisle? If the senator's holding them to the policies he ran on, he's not the one with the problem here.

(If your intended point is that this proves that party leaders will sometimes try to pressure party members to toe the party line, I don't think anybody here's arguing with that. But that's entirely different from claiming that voters are looking for party-line-voting candidates. Quite the contrary.)

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

I think it's relevent because this is a matter of process in this country, too - no one is held to a certain party or any party at all. If it turns out that Vermonters feel wronged (and they're the only ones that should claim any legit stake in this - NOT the national Republican party) they will speak with their voices next election. Personally, I predict he'll win by even a larger margin as all those who couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican even it if IS him join in.

Is it about politics and power and wealth? Well... of course. They're politicians - politics is what they do. And power translates to the ability to get things done. He's made a move that better enables him to DO that (and don't forget that the things he wants to get done are in line with what his constituents want him to get done) - that it shifts committee leadership increases the effectiveness of the move. As for money... I can see that money will be affected - all those corporations who bought Republican-power that just decreased in value (ah well, they should be used to that after this past year). But I don't think you'll see much money ADDED for Jeffords, since he's just removed himself from any official affiliation with *any* party or its treasury.

"Getting the GOP off his back" is precisely the point. Fortunately, from what I'm hearing, most of the GOP politicos (unlike the Dems regarding Nader) ARE in fact pointing to their own party for culpability in this matter. I doubt you'll hear much screaming about how he is wronging anyone outside of message boards, since the Republicans are busy scrambling to woo a Dem over to their side right now.

I don't quite understand the argument that it's ok to shift as long as it doesn't actually affect the party - that sounds to me like "We don't like you, we're going to make your worklife hell, but you have to stay because you're our token and you'll screw us up if you go". Once he's reached a place of deciding that the Republican party in its current incarnation is using power wrongly and failed to convince them to change the way they use it, why would he want to assist in allowing it to retain that level of power?

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

A few disorganized comments on the annals of US party disloyalty:

1. Hall's Third Rule of Politics: "Constituency always outweighs consistency. That is, liberals will vote for military spending, and conservatives for social spending, in their own districts."
2. During the last campaign, some Republican Congressional candidates were openly running against their own party platform. For example, when Connie Morella of Maryland was running for the House, she said that she preferred Gore's tax plan to Bush's; in January, she said that Bush should drop his tax-cut plan. However, when the issue actually came up for a vote in the House, Morella and the other Republican moderates caved in. See here for more of the story.
3. One of Bill Clinton's favorite political tactics was "triangulation", where he positioned himself to the left of the Republicans and to the right of the Congressional Democratic leadership.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

In any case, he also stayed with the Republican party last term. So if you're arguing that voters would expect him to do what he did last term...

By all accounts (even those of party officials) it's the Republicans who have changed, not Jeffords.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Jen, that's a valid point, and does count in Jeffords' favor. However, I still feel that the Republican faithful who voted for Jeffords because he was a Republican have every right to feel miffed; they've been wronged.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

You're right, Beth, my bad. He is an independent now, not a Democrat.

So I'm still thinking it was wrong. The people who voted for him may have voted because they liked his record, and they may have just wanted to vote for the Republican. It seems wrong for him to now be an independent.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

You know... I agree with you that the conservative Republicans of Vermont have a right to feel miffed, and maybe even that they've been wronged, at least in the sense that when they cast their vote, there wasn't a conservate choice available. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for any voter who was so unaware of his record that they saw "Republican" and assumed 'conservative', though.

I've felt wronged a time or two when I've looked over the choices and realized that there is no one running that comes close to my views - but really, isn't that just the way it sometimes is? In the long run, he's doing right by the conservative Republicans of Vermont by removing himself from the Republican party, and I think he's doing what's best for the majority of his supporters. He's very popular in his state, and as long as he's running, it'd be difficult for some other Republican to successfully run instead of him. (Mind you, it doesn't sound like a conservative Republican would WIN in Vermont, but at least they could cast a vote for someone who more closely matches their views.)

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Lynda: Let's say you feel very strongly that abortion should be legal and vote for somebody in large part because they agree on that issue. Let us say that that person is elected but when it comes up for a vote that elected representative goes ahead and votes the opposite of what they said they were going to vote. But they have an excuse, "well, this is a largely religious state, and it turns out the majority of my constituents want abortion to be illegal."

Is that okay? Or was your vote elicited under false pretenses? There's nothing that says a politician has to keep their promises either, right?

Jeffords ran as somebody who would be subjected to the influences of the Republican party. After he was elected he changed the rules.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

But doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, I thought that part of the job description was staying attuned to changing situations. Isn't that why we still elect people and not platforms?

This argument is becoming increasingly circular, by the way.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Dave, your position seems to me that Jeffords, by running as a Republican, made an implicit promise to his constituents that he would remain a Republican and would generally side with the Republican party in his voting record (despite the fact that in the past he has often defied his party on crucial votes). You say that Jeffords has broken this implicit promise by leaving the party.

However, President Bush has broken many of the explicit promises he made on the campaign trail--promises that he would protect the environment, be devoted to improving schools, and that he would reach out to moderates and liberals. To my mind, Bush's abandoning of his explicit promises more than justifies Jeffords breaking any implicit ones.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

How is inviting Teddy Kennedy over to watch a movie not reaching out to liberals?

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Dialogue between Jen Wade and Lynda: "Do you honestly think he would have been elected running as an independent?"

In Vermont? Hellyea.

FWIW, Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders has been elected to the House as an independent every term since 1990, which would be six times so far. (His Web site is here.

Sanders is a Socialist by self-identification and backs a pretty radical agenda by contemporary standards (tax reform, a 50 percent cut in military spending among others) and doesn't seem to have trouble staying in Congress.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Jen: You seem to be implying that it is wrong of Bush to be breaking his explicit promises. I trust that is what you are saying?

Beth would seem to disagree when she wrote, "I thought that part of the job description was staying attuned to changing situations."

I mean, Gosh darn, that whole energy crisis thing is turning out to be a much bigger problem than poor old Bush Jr. thought. It's a pity the environment has to suffer, and yes he did promise to protect it, but he's got to stay attuned to those changing situations.

Right.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Actually, that exchange was between Lynda and Dave Van. I have mentioned Sanders (though not by name) in several of my posts here.

And I don't see Beth's point about changing situations being counter to my assertion that Bush was wrong to break campaign promises. Your assertion that Bush's broken promise to limit CO2 emissions because he didn't foresee the current power shortage does not seem to hold up in the face of Dick Cheney's remarks today that California had known for years that a power problem was in the works. And how would you defend Bush's changed stances on education and bipartisanship? What changing circumstances do you suggest he is responding to on those counts?

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Oops, my bad. Sorry Jen.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Jen, surely you jest. How does Cheney saying California knew about the problem imlpy that Bush did? You're not making any sense. It's a moot point, anyway. What I said was only done for rhetorical effect, not because I believe it. Like this:

"Well, you know, 6 months ago I sat down, my advisors and I, and we thought we could take care of the energy problem without impacting the environment, and in the last six months it has become apparent that we misjudged the problem, and we hate to do it, but we just have to stay attuned to these changing situations."

My point is that "staying attuned to changing situations" is pretty broad in scope and could be used to justify just about anything.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

How does Cheney saying California knew about the problem imlpy that Bush did?

Well, I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that someone who is running for president of the U.S. might want to educate himself on the issues facing the most populous state in the union. Power shortages began in California during the summer of 2000. One San Diego newspaper ran more than 100 stories on the power shortage in the year 2000. It's possible that GWB may not have been aware of the situation, but if so, it's not excusable.

Beth isn't suggesting that politicians be given complete amnesty for breaking promises under changing circumstances--she's saying that they should be taken into consideration when assessing whether or not someone was right to break a promise.

But anyway, I'd say that that point is moot, because I don't think that running as a Republican actually constitutes a promise to stay with the party or to vote along party lines.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Jen, I think it should be obvious that was not what I meant. Let me rephrase: How does Cheney saying California knew about the problem for years imply that Bush would have a complete and total understanding of the problem? I note you earlier mis-paraphrased what I said earlier and perhaps this contributed to this later misinterpretation. I did not say Bush didn't know about the problem, but that it turned "out to be a much bigger problem than poor old Bush Jr. though." As you have already indicated, the problem only became a big issue shortly before the election.

And I think a promise is a promise. People shouldn't make promises they can't keep.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

"Jeffords ran as somebody who would be subjected to the influences of the Republican party. After he was elected he changed the rules."

I don't think I've ever seen anyone put it that way... nor do I think a politician would get many takers if they ran on a platform of being someone who is prone to allowing themselves to be 'subjected to the influences' of anyone. At least for appearences sake, we rather like our politicians to have enough character and intelligence to avoid that sort of thing.

In Jeffords case, he's been running for years, successfully, as someone who would NOT be unduly subjected to the influences of the Republican party.

I'm sorry Dave, but your argument here seems to be mainly a lot of wishful thinking mixed in, possibly, with a misunderstanding about how U.S. politics work.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

I'm sorry Lynda, but your argument seems to be mainly a lot of horse shit mixd in, possibly, with a misunderstanding of pretty much everything in the universe.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Dave, you're out of line. Knock it off.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

While I can imagine being really disappointed in a representative I voted for switching affiliations, I think that Jeffords has a greater responsibility to the whole of Vermont, not just the few Republicans who voted straight party line. A senator is supposed to represent his whole state,just as a President is supposed to represent his whole country. On that count I feel that Jeffords is doing a far better job than Bush. He will no longer be strong armed by the GOP to vote for legislation that varies radically from the politics of Vermont, and because of his decision Vermont will now have two senators chairing committees. Also it seems that the majority of his state is still pretty pleased with him and they're the ones he's ultimately responsible to.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Aw, c'mon Beth, I just bumped Lynda's insult a teeny tiny notch. I betcha she laughed. Betcha! Okay, maybe just a chortle.

It's just this whole thing is getting so ridiculous. It seems the good people here would have one believe a senator's party affiliation is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless! In fact, why don't we take it off the ballot so those poor, "idiot" voters, the ones who actually want to factor it into their decision on who to vote for, don't get all confused.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Ever the charmer, Dave. Could you possibly explain how this would work in Canada? Is it more closely aligned with the way you describe (are politicians somehow contracted to follow the influences of the party that ran them?) or do you spend so much of your time telling the U.S. to conduct business because you've given up on trying there?

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

When I vote, I'm voting for the candidate I feel most closely represents my views or that I most trust. I don't really care what party label he/she wears. I'm registered Democrat because my state requires a party declaration, but neither of the two major parties represents me all down the line.

So if I voted for someone who later changed parties, so long as the person's views hadn't changed, it wouldn't bother me. I actually rather like a move of conviction like that ... Jeffords doesn't really gain anything by leaving a major party.

The only time I'd be concerned would be if I helped send someone to office who changed his position on a major issue that I cared about while in office. People have a right to change their minds of course, even elected officials, but that would bother me.

I suppose officials are expected to vote in ways that uphold their party platforms, but they do sometimes cross party lines to vote for or against something they feel strongly about. I would think if you find yourself wanting to do that very often, you should consider whether that party is right place for you.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Lynda: Yes, the political landscape is vastly different in Canada. (The following is vastly simplified.) In Canada the person who runs the show is the Prime Minister, and he is not elected. We get one and only one vote, and that is for the House. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House gets to be Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decides any replacement members of the Senate, who only leave when they die or retire. Since the Prime Minister is far and away the most powerful force in federal politics it makes good, good sense to cast your vote by party affiliation, with an eye toward who you want to be Prime Minister.

So yeah, your point is granted. It makes more sense to vote by affiliation in Canada than it does in the US, where you get to vote for your president directly.

But is a Senator's party affiliation meaningless? The furor over Jeffords tends to suggest otherwise.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Well, I seriously doubt there would be any furor were it not for the fact that Jeffords' leaving the party changes the balance of power in the Senate.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Party affiliation isn't meaningless, in that more often than not, members of the same party vote the same way on a given proposal. And sometimes the point is to maintain power for the party, so that sometimes a legislator may vote contrary to his own convictions on a specific item because in the long run it will be better ... compromise, give up a small thing to gain a much bigger thing.

But it's also not the sole measure. Legislators are individuals and while they align themselves with the party they feel the most affinity for, no one of them is going to agree with every point in the party platform. A President whose party holds the majority of seats in either house of Congress can be pretty sure of getting their support for his programs, and therefore, the programs' passage in that part of the Congress, but it's not guaranteed.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Thanks for that explanation, Dave. No, party affiliation isn't meaningless (and in looking over this same discussion, I don't see that anyone's saying that it is) - it's meaningful enough that sometimes, people choose to switch parties because the one they're in no longer reflects the party they originally joined. At the point where you're in one party and consistently voting with another and don't see it as a temporary thing, it's probably better for all involved if you leave.

I understand completely some Republicans being unhappy with the effect Jefford's realignment has on their immediate situation. But long term, it's better to have him out of the party so they can nominate someone who more closely reflects *their* views. And even in the short term, being unhappy about a turn of events doesn't always translate into being 'wronged'.

I don't think it's good for anyone - not the politician, not the party, and not the country - if a politician is constantly finding him or herself having to compromise their own views and that of their constituents for the sake of party loyalty, so that the party can engage in activities that one feels is dangerously wrong.

I have a feeling that there are many, many people in this country, elected or not, who are reconsidering their party affiliation. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are the party they used to be. Affliation itself matters in terms of actual power, but both of our current major parties are becoming weaker in their ability to address the interests of the majority of the people. It's safe to vote party line only when the party actually represents what you agree with.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Dave's being a trifle misleading about the Canadian system: the PM is elected, but not by the entire country on a simple majority vote. The PM is the elected leader of the party that has a majority of MP's in the House of Commons. However, the PM is also an MP of a riding, and is elected in that riding. The party leader is elected by the party membership, not just the MPs of the party.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Actually, Jessica, it is you who is being misleading. It is misleading to say that a leader was elected simply by virtue of their being elected leader of their party. In that case most Communist leaders were elected. Clearly it is misleading to say, "Joseph Stalin was elected," without additional context.

Additionally, although the Prime Minister does traditionally run for a seat in the House, he does not need to actually win that seat to become Prime Minister, he only needs to be the leader of the party with the most seats. (If he doesn't win his seat it is traditional that somebody in a "safe" seat resign so he can have their seat. See: Lester Pearson.)

Since I clearly stated how the Prime Minister gets to be Prime Minister it's pretty misleading of you to say I was misleading. The people of Canada do not get to directly elect their Prime Minister. Period.

So where's your argument about how it makes sense to "pay close attention to the candidate, not the party." Do you have any reason for doing so other than, "I was taught, both by me American parents and my Canadian teachers, to pay close attention to the candidate?"

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Dave: sorry if you thought I was being misleading. I thought you left out some important points for those who are unaccustomed to parliamentary government. I pay attention to the candidate more than the party for a number of reasons: I want to have some idea what that person stands for and whether or not they can effectively represent me and my values in the House. I want to have an idea of how they would vote on a free vote, and what they support so I know whether they can be effective legislators within their party caucus. I want to know if they are marginalized within their party, and if they are likely to cross the floor. Those are all pretty important to me, especially if I am considering a strategic vote rather than supporting the candidate of the party whose platform I generally espouse. I want to know if the candidate has made or laughed at jokes about wife-beating in the House and is respectful of people in the way that I expect from the people who lead the country. All of those things factor into my choices at the ballot box. HOw do you justify not taking those things into account?

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Beth wrote:
Has he even indicated that he's going to vote any differently than he did before?

From today's cnn:
"Jeffords has said he will support Democrats for leadership positions."

I'm guessing that as a member of the Republican party he would have supported Republicans.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001