What would a person be doing by voting against their own beliefs/position?

Gay Republicans

You get Florida.

Charlie Crist decided he no longer agreed with the Republican party line. So he went independent and made a huge deal about it, split the liberal vote between himself and a not-particularly-popular Democrat, and landed us with Voldemort Rick Scott.

@Seek Yes you can go independent, that is beside the point. The direction from the leader that you have to misrepresent the truth about yourself if you want to stay as a memeber of the party?

That is called voting your conscience. No one has to vote for a candidate just because of the party ticket upon which he is running.

The candidate can vote his conscience, yes.

He will have one hell of a short political career, though.

@Seek I read the question from a voter point of view. Slow down Moll. :)

conscience I made a spelling error in my tag.

@MollyMcGuire But the question is about what the leader is saying to the elected officials.

Republicans do it constantly. Usually because their representatives whip them up into an emotional frenzy over issues like gun control or abortion.

Democrats do it constantly. Usually because their representatives whip them up into an emotional frenzy over issues like gun control or abortion.

I can not even imagine lying to stay with a particular party. Why would staying with a particular party be so important in the first place?

The ideology crisis is on the right. There is no equivalent for “rino” in the democratic party! In addition there are still among us liberal, moderate and conservative democrats in the House as well as Congress. Liberal Republicans on the other hand have gone the way of the dodo and passenger pigeon. As the lunatic fringe proceeds in dragging the party somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, the very term “liberal Republican” sounds like a punchline in some stand up routine.

@flo I know; I stated my misreading in the post above yours.

The politician can do whatever he wants, he just runs the risk of losing the support (money and recommendations) of his party leaders and colleagues. If the people still like him, he can still get voted in and reelected.

This happens all the time, actually. Congressmen balance their Constituency with their own ideas, with their Party’s orders. And wherever the pressure is greatest, is where they usually give in.

There is a fairly constant balance of one’s beliefs against that of one’s constituents and the voting bloc.

But @flo you add one wrinkle which I don’t think can happen: you can go against the party platform, but they can’t kick you out of the party.

They can withdraw support, even support your opponent, push for a candidate to run against your for the party nomination, but they can’t kick you out of the party.

Yes it can happen

I’m not sure where you got that statement but knowing this site I’m sure it is somehow a dig against Republicans. Democrats misread the position of republicans most of the time so I assume you have misread something to get to that statement. There is no qualifying position to be a Republican. If you call yourself a Republican, you are one. No one votes you into the the part nor can anyone vote you out. They can only vote you out of office but not the party. Hell the California Republican Party doesn’t even recommend one candidate over another.

Check your source. I think you have either misread what was said or simply made it up.

I don’t think so@Jaxk. To some people, politics are like a religion. Individual religions tend to frown on congregation membres if they don’t participate in certain rites, like “speaking in tongues.” When that was introduced I said myself said, “This is bullshit!” and didn’t participate. I didn’t make a scene, just sat there quietly (with my head down) thinking they all sounded like idiots. I was frowned upon for not participating.

Actually, from the sound of it, this is a quite non-partisan question based on events in Canadian politics which centre around actions in the Liberal Party, not the Conservatives. Apologies to @flo if I guessed wrong.

My comments still stand.

@Dutchess_III

You may be right but the question isn’t about whether they ‘frown’ on certain positions. It’s about being a member of the party. When Todd Akin made his stupid statement, the Republicans withdrew funding, withdrew all support for him. If they could have thrown him out of the party they would have. But, alas they couldn’t. They could only frown upon him. That didn’t change the party he belonged to.

The Democrats and Republicans are not capable of objective leadership.

With that fact in mind, I find this question a bit tricky. If a person comes about their beliefs honestly, and has not been bought by corporations, and honestly cares about their constituents than I will vote for them whether I agree with them or not.

At this point it’s not a matter of the lesser of two evils. It’s a housecleaning issue.

I should correct myself: Cross out the part about being kicked out of the party.

So, what wouldn’t qualify as a matter of conscience? Isn’t everything a matter of conscience?

That is the fallacy of central government: nobody gets represented because everybody has to be represented. Elected officials do not represent themselves, they represent voters. But they can’t allow themselves to be influenced by individual voters because that would not be a proper representation of all voters. So who do they represent? Whoever is able to get represented!

Let’s take an example: abortion. The people have always been evenly split on that topic, half for and half against. But there is no way to pass half a law. So no matter what happens, the law forces half the voters to go against their beliefs.

Well, abortion probably wasn’t the best example. There is nothing in abortion law that “forces people to go against their beliefs.” Nobody forces a woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you’re a doctor who is against abortion, don’t perform them.

^ If you are an obstetrician who is against abortion, you need to find a new specialty.

The topic is government, not abortion. Please try to stick to the subject.

@SmartAZ…I was just pointing out that the example you gave wasn’t a very good example.

Can the leader of the parry say “If you want to run for election to be an member of parliament etc. in our party you have to be pro-choice.”? So, it’s about government, parties, when it comes to abortion as a perfect example.

I don’t think so, @flo. Government officials are allowed their own opinions. If they are pro choice, but their party is anti-choice, I think they probably just stay quiet. The point I was making, is that no one is being forced to be personally immoral. No one is forced to go against their beliefs. They may have to stand by while others go against their beliefs, but that’s a different animal.

Hereis what led to the OP.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=6kKRV7jHCuah8wfR0YD4BQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Justin+Trudeau+says+you+can%27t+be+anti+choice+to+be+a+member+of+the+party