Should politicians step down from office if they switch party while in office?

[banjomike]

It depends on whether a voter voted for the person or the party.

Some voters don't care if their guy has a brain or not; all they want is a go-along with whatever the party dictates.

Other voters want their guy to have his own mind, make decisions that are the best for his voters even if they don't go along with what the party dictates.

Either way, once someone is elected, it's all up to them. If they want to switch parties, they can do it at any time, and there's nothing that can stop them. It's a basic element in a republic.

Of course, those who do must be accountable to their voters the next time around, but any district can change pretty quickly in it's political beliefs, so there are valid reasons for changing parties.

No one who is elected is going to switch willy-nilly, without giving it long and serious consideration. The party platform is something all candidates believe in and support, but some of the platform are fundamental principles and others are matters of the moment.
The fundamental party principles don't change much, but parties always throw a lot of issues into the platform that may not be good for the nation, but are popular at the moment inside the party.

Getting elected is the first thing any candidate desires the most. No one can further the basic party principles if he is defeated.

The parties are no founts of eternal wisdom. They always want something that the voters can grab onto that will arouse them enough to vote. So for every wise issue, there's always a foolish issue, too. And there are always issues that look wise at first glance, but on further examination prove to be foolish. The truly wise stuff sticks around. The foolish stuff comes and goes constantly.

Any official can agree with the fundamentals while disagreeing with the stuff that's momentary. Since they all have their own minds, some will safely vote along the party line every time, while others will weigh each issue on it's own merits.

Some voters want the first, some want the second. Both get most of what they want, but very few ever get all of what they want. That, too, is the way a republic works.

When a republic is working at its best, the citizens get what they need, even if it is not always what they want. And quite often, they get a part of what they want as well as getting what they need.

Good thing, too. Full agreement on too many issues always leads to dictatorship. Voter frustration once in a while is a sign a republic is functioning as it's supposed to.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I don't think it is right when a politician changes parties due to the fact that many people voted for the party and sometimes not so much the person.

I also think it is wrong when someone that is handed money by generous donors so they can be elected say to a state senate then shortly after they are called up by DC to step onto the national stage and they jump at the chance leaving their home state to spend more money and time on a special election to fill the vacated spot.


People do change their views and there is nothing wrong with that but if that person is hired to do a job then they should do it.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

I also think it is wrong when someone that is handed money by generous donors so they can be elected say to a state senate then shortly after they are called up by DC to step onto the national stage and they jump at the chance leaving their home state to spend more money and time on a special election to fill the vacated spot.

That's a totally different thing from merely changing party.

[kevinm]

Originally Posted by bentlebee

There are many examples of Politicians who switched party and the party the politician switches to is usually very happy.

Isn't it betrayal of the people who voted for them. Shouldn't the politician step down or have to wait till the next election.

The other thing that's on my mind is when politicians for years keep saying they will do everything to stand up for what they believe and for example vote for repeal of Obamacare and when their vote counts they always vote against it.

Shouldn't we be able to have that politician removed from office for lying to their voters.

Not so much if it is a one time vote but these politicians are voted in because of what they promised and if they have the chance to prove their voters to vote for them, if they do t do as promised that is to me betrayal too.

Political parties do not own or occupy these offices. People do. The parties should have the ability to sue for repayment, but that is all.

[prospectheightsresident]

If they had any integrity, they'd step down, especially since these party switches often bring about drastic changes in public policy positions as the "new" party members seek to curry favor with their new base. But, note, my opinion is based off of whether there are huge shifts in policy positions coming from the politicians who switched sides. If the party-switching politician, for instance, was a conservative Dem from a conservative state/city who switched to a Republican (and such a switch didn't really change much as the pol was essentially a Republican in all but name anyway), then I don't have a problem.

[pbmaise]

I bet GOP members of this board will say YES step down.

GOP is far more a cult of believers.

Witness the purity test and claims of RINO.