"Only a dozen"?! Really? A dozen tortured is a dozen too many tortured in my books. Plain and simple.

Good points.

a) Are you suggesting that every time a part renegs on a promise they should seek a new mandate from the electorate? (If so we would sure have a lot of elections!) I don't think forming a coalition government is different from changing any other policy promise.

b) I agree that MPs should be free to vote differently than their party and this bill doesn't stop that. MPs would still be free to leave a party and sit as an independent. The bottom line is Emerson had two choices if he disagreed with Liberal policy - sit as an independent and vote for Conservative bills, or join the CPC, get a cabinet post, and pocket a nice pay raise. It seems to me that his decision wasn't just about policy... This bill removes other factors besides votes.

Of course, that ignores the importance of caucuses. But I don't know if that influences the essential argument.

and the input into a caucus and the resources of a party.

Part of my point is that since (as I understand it) most Canadians vote based on party and the party's leader -- shouldn't we then be respecting that basis for their decision? Your right in that's not how the system is meant to function, but if we continue to treat the system based on its intention and not on the actual Canadian's intent behind a vote we are doomed to a malfunctioning system.

In a coalition government it is implied that the end result is not a different point of view, but a sort of "merging" of the two parties philosophies. The policies, per se, aren't changing completely they are just being mixed with another parties to come up with a compromise. In my view then, the MPs don't need a new mandate because they aren't really changing their philosophy just working together to actually ensure it's furthered more effectively.

However, with a floor crossing there is a complete change in the policy that the MP's votes will support. They are supporting a completely different set of policies; arguably ones that they don't have a mandate from voters to support.

I would agree if the conventions of parliament would allow for more free votes. As it stands now, an MP is only a number to be counted in a party. As such, there party membership is extremely important to the electors.

Kady: “Interestingly, there is relatively little variation across supporters of different parties for [a mandatory voting]
initiative..." (from the link)