@leftylabourtech I had no problem with what Davies said. Since 1972, party affiliation is listed on the ballot. Thus, that is a focus of what people are voting for. The NDP have always felt that the electorate should be the ones making decisions on both the member and the party affiliation that represents them. So, the NDP did not indulge in the old practice of "leader's courtesy" that other parties often engaged in. Backroom deals such as this is close to gerrymandering (so naturally the author, who's flirted with the Green Party, has no problem with this sort of thing. Refer back to the May & Dion deal regarding Central Nova and Saint-Laurent—Cartierville in 2008).Also, Davies was reflecting this longstanding respect for the electorate that the NDP has. Take note of this bill from 2011:https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/41-1/C-306Do note that the bill does allow for a member to leave a party and sit as an independent. That way, if a member feels a party is betraying its ideals or platform (a common occurance with the Liberal Party -- why these lying snakes even bother to release a platform is puzzling to me -- but I digress), then they can leave and sit as an independent. But switching to a completely different party is basically switching to a completely different ideology. For that, I believe they need to get a new mandate from the voters.Anyway, Davies was consistently representing New Democrat values.
