The morality of switching parties

[Syzygys]

I am talking here generally when a politican switches parties, not just particulary about Specter. Also, I know mentioning politicans and morality together is an oxymoron, but anyhow....

The issue is rather simple. Any politican should know if he/she was elected for his/her own virtues/programs or just because he/she belonged to the favored party.

If the politican was elected because he/she was generally well liked and not because of his/her party affiliation, I don't mind the party switch, because people would have voted for him/her anyway.

But! If the politican got into office just because he/she wore the correct party colors, switching parties is a big no-no, because it is the betrayal of the voters' trust and wish. He/she still could switch parties but only AFTER he/she resigned from the office. (yeah, right)

That simple....

 

[Aerika]

I would rather a voter not vote than to vote by party line or popularity. Did Spector change his position on any of the issues? If not, then why does it matter?

 

[spidergoat]

You vote for the person, if they change parties, that is representative of their judgement. The voters will decide if they want to re-elect them. You can't do anything if you aren't elected.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Spector was promised many things if he switched I'm certain of that. He was in a problem where he lived as well so by doing this "maneuver" he assures himself of great rewards and his seat back in Congress. He is just like the rest of Congress, they will do whatever it takes to keep in power no matter how much integrity or money they spend.

 

[wynn]

It's interesting - How we are expected to just accept the changes of scientific theories. But when someone changes parties, this is frowned upon.

 

[cosmictraveler]

It's interesting - How we are expected to just accept the changes of scientific theories. But when someone changes parties, this is frowned upon.

You are confusing things as you are mixing apples and oranges as the same thing. As you well know they are not related at all.

 

[Syzygys]

Did Spector

Irrelevant, as we are discussing the issue GENERALLY.

You vote for the person,

...or not. Plenty of people vote according to party lines, doesn't matter who the politican is.

Spector was....

irrelevant, as there is a thread in Politics about him, if you wish to be specific. Here we are generic.

Oh boy, I knew people are s-l-o-w, but this much....

 

[Syzygys]

It's interesting - How we are expected to just accept the changes of scientific theories. But when someone changes parties, this is frowned upon.

Because politics is not science, obviously.

Alright, so far no worthy comment, well, there isn't too much to add to the original post...

 

[Aerika]

But it is relevant, if a politician has maintained the same position on the issues and merely switches parties, he hasn't mislead anybody.

 

[original]

I agree with Aerika. The only people who are fooled are those who vote based on the party lines.

 

[wynn]

You are confusing things as you are mixing apples and oranges as the same thing. As you well know they are not related at all.

What? Science is irrelevant to us, but politics isn't?

 

[Syzygys]

But it is relevant, if a politician has maintained the same position on the issues and merely switches parties, he hasn't mislead anybody.

Hm, it raises a few more issues, that might complicate the issue but doesn't necesserily solve the question:

-- Was the politican's position the same as his former party's line?
/ yes
Was it actually opposite to the other party's stand? (here, I am getting tired of the variations so I am going to stop)
/no If he kept opposing his own party, why was he in that party in the first place? (this takes us back to the main issue of getting elected on own virtues or party affiliations)

Also there are 1000s of issues so occasionally being opposite of one's partyline isn't such a big deal.

So as an answer to your comment, since there are so many issues and no voter agrees on each ones with his/her elected official all the time, it still boils down to the question why was the politican elected at the first place.

 

[original]

It's interesting - How we are expected to just accept the changes of scientific theories. But when someone changes parties, this is frowned upon.

You are confusing things as you are mixing apples and oranges as the same thing. As you well know they are not related at all.

What? Science is irrelevant to us, but politics isn't?

I think that changing a scientific hypothesis is just like changing a political philosophy - using your observations to reformulate your opinion. Of course science is more objective than philosophy. However, I think that people would frown on it if they felt mislead. Anyone who paid attention to Arlen Specter's philosophy would not be surprised, but those who think that all trees are the same might be upset to find there is quite a variety out there.

 

[Aerika]

Hm, it raises a few more issues, that might complicate the issue but doesn't necesserily solve the question:

-- Was the politican's position the same as his former party's line?
/ yes
Was it actually opposite to the other party's stand? (here, I am getting tired of the variations so I am going to stop)
/no If he kept opposing his own party, why was he in that party in the first place? (this takes us back to the main issue of getting elected on own virtues or party affiliations)

Also there are 1000s of issues so occasionally being opposite of one's partyline isn't such a big deal.

So as an answer to your comment, since there are so many issues and no voter agrees on each ones with his/her elected official all the time, it still boils down to the question why was the politican elected at the first place.

Well we could hypothetical this to death. But informed voters base their decision on the politicians stance on the issues that are the most important to them.

I

 

[Syzygys]

But informed voters base their decision on the politicians stance on the issues that are the most important to them.

Since the voter choses a fav party based on the same principle, it also means that they keep loving the politican as long as he keep close to the partyline.

Now a new issue rises: is there really a big difference between the switched parties? Because if there isn't, party affiliation should be irrelevant for the voters.

 

[original]

Since the voter choses a fav party based on the same principle, it also means that they keep loving the politican as long as he keep close to the partyline.

Now a new issue rises: is there really a big difference between the switched parties? Because if there isn't, party affiliation should be irrelevant for the voters.

I am one of those people who has a hard time using labels that generalize qualities. I agree that party affiliation should be irrelevant for the voters. Saying that one Republican politican is the same as all Republican politicans is just like saying one deciduous tree is the same as all deciduous trees. I say this again because people tend to generalize when it comes to politics. There is no set definition of what a party line is, as evidenced by the use of the word "liberal" or "football" in America versus Australia. The adage "actions speak louder than words" comes to mind.

 

[original]

As far as morality is concerned, if a person is not comfortable with an identity like that of Republicans or Muslims or carnivores, they have every right to be who they want to be so long as it does not do harm to another or their property, even in a representative democracy. Just don't vote for that person next time if you don't like their philosophy. It might suck for the people who voted for Specter because he was running as a Republican, but that is the danger of caring about a person's clothing instead of paying attention to their character.

 

[tuberculatious]

I think it is ok to go to another party if the one you went to originally stinks. Or they ran out of alcholic beverages.

 

[Syzygys]

I think it is ok to go to another party if the one you went to originally stinks.

It is not the "stinking" but what are the voters "thinking", what should count. Also, there is such a thing as being independent, if you just want to quit your party...

 

[Tiassa]

At least there's a Franken joke in there

Specter exists in one of those political gray zones; after all one of the reasons that he is making the switch is that he has alienated too many Pennsylvania conservatives with his "left-wing" voting record. He will essentially be the premiere Blue Dog in all of Congress.

The MSNBC evening crew tried to make a bunch out of the possibility of a filibuster-proof majority, but we shouldn't expect that as a regular standard. To the other, it allowed one of them to make the point that the future of Congress, and possibly the future of the nation, suddenly rests with Al Franken. And that joke was worth it.

Specter stated his political reasons up front. If voters in Pennsylvania say good enough, it's good enough for them.

There are deeper, more philosophical and metaphysical ways of looking at it that justify Specter's and some other party switches, but these are politicians, so those arguments are standby excuses at best. At least, so says the general rule. And politicians hate invoking those examples because they lead back to an increased expectation of personal integrity.