Ronan Lee joins the Greens
Indooroopilly MLA Ronan Lee has defected from the Australian Labor Party and joined the Queensland Greens as its first, and sole, representative. Citing the Bligh government’s lacklustre performance on environmental issues (the Traveston Dam for one) Lee maintains that his environmentalism is well known and the voters of Indooroopilly are not getting a raw deal. When pressed on the issue of fighting within the party to have his causes adopted, Lee says that it’s well known that he’s been fighting for the environment within the ALP caucus but the government just isn’t interested.
The balance of power hasn’t changed in Queensland’s parliament with Lee’s defection. The ALP still control the vast majority of the seats to the point where a backbench revolt could probably be survived. Lee will be able to use his position outside the ALP tent to ask the hard questions on the environment that the Liberal-National Party aren’t interested in asking. The ALP have been fighting only from the right against challenges from parliamentary parties such as the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation. With a challenge coming externally from the left, Bligh will have to do some serious work on environmentalism and public transport. Commenters on the Courier Mail’s website are calling for Lee to resign and fight a by-election but with a general election due within a year, I can’t see what this would achieve; the voters will have their say.
Should Lee be returned at the next state election, this would be the first seat won by any Australian Greens party candidate at a general election (edit: in a single member electorate). With representation in the parliament now, the Greens have the chance for much more media exposure than before and this will no doubt influence the public’s perception of the party. No doubt this will put a lot of pressure on those seats with high Greens votes from the last election such as Mt Coot-tha (Treasurer Andrew Fraser’s seat) with 21%, South Brisbane (Premier Anna Bligh’s seat) with 22% and Brisbane Central (former Premier Peter Beattie’s seat) with 19% (33% at 2007’s by-election).
While it will take some effort for the Greens to jump past one of the two major parties and hopefully collect a few preferences from the excluded major party, dissatisfaction with the ALP and a probable unwillingness to embrace the new LNP may see the left-leaning voters of the above electorates change their vote to the Greens to see something different. Fearing, naturally, that the left vote may be split, it would be worth all voters remembering that Queensland has a preferential voting system.
Interestingly, the Qld Greens’ State Council has unanimously voted to run a “Just Vote 1″ campaign, denying the ALP (and LNP) their preferences. This is unlikely to change unless the ALP have an epiphany and decide to protect the environment. Given that recent polls show Labor relying on Greens preferences to just sneak in with 51% of the 2PP, the ALP may have to swallow their pride and ditch the Traveston Dam, enact mandatory renewable energy targets, create a solar feed-in tariff, invest in public transport rather than roads, make North Bank a more livable development that doesn’t stretch out over the Brisbane River and commit to reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
While I have no problem at all with defections, I do think they should trigger a by-election.
That should ensure that he is elected based on his personal policies, rather than those of a party he is no longer affiliated with. People do vote on party lines, and they would feel a little bit aggrieved if they voted for him on the basis that he was a member of the Labor party only for that to be taken away from them (it’s similar to my stance on politicians voting against party policy, which we’ve discussed before).
If he wants to be a member of the Greens, he should be forced to win a campaign as a Greens member. While I’m sure he would, it’s only fair to give the members of his electorate a change to accept this change. It would make his position in the Parliament much more tenable as well, so it works for both the member and the electorate.
What if a party member chooses to be an independent? What if someone elected as an independent takes on a party affiliation?
With an election due within a year, is it worth having a by-election and then a general election so soon afterwards?
Absolutely. In all of the cases you listed. It’s the only fair thing to do.
And like I said, it benefits all parties involved.
You seem to love by-elections, Chris.
Is it not a fair point? After all, the members of the constituency voted for a member of the Labor party. I’d question how many of them could tell you about his personal politics at the time of the last election.
This is changed now, of course, and it would only be fair to give the constituency their say. I’ve no doubt that he’d win, but this would give him a mandate to act on behalf of the Greens party, rather than the mandate he received from the voters, which was to act on behalf of the Labor party. Right now, he has absolutely no voter mandate to act on behalf of the Greens party.
A by-election would legitimise his position, which benefits him, and give the constituency an opportunity to vote given the new situation, which benefits them. Who loses?
You’ve got to be kidding. Ronan Lee is one of the most active MPs and I would hazard a guess that most people in his electorate know of his environmentalism and Catholicism. Ronan Lee’s politics are well known.
Considering Indooroopilly was not a traditional Labor seat, it is fair to say that the electorate has been voting for Ronan Lee, the MP, rather than the Labor Party in general. Climate change seems to be a growing issue, particularly in the inner-city, where less older, dyed-in-the-wool supporters of specific parties live. I think there will still be a lot of support for Lee, and a by-election is just unnecessary red tape so close to an election. Whilst it does seem unethical for an elected MP to switch parties during term, it’s been going on since early-20th century PM Billy Hughes did it several times in office. It is also intriguing though, considering Lee’s personal conservative social views, but he obviously feels his environmental views take precedence.
Chris, if you want a by-election every time a politician changes party, how about all the Liberals who are now members of a party that appears to be run by the Nationals, who have no track record in winning in Liberal strongholds, even in the era when they tried?
Do you think the entire opposition should have resigned when they changed parties?
You could argue that the differences between the Libs and Nats are at least as big as the differences between the Greens and ALP. As a Greens member he can easily pursue an agenda that fits within Labor’s claimed policies, if not their de facto policies. So which is more honest? Doing what he was elected to do under a different brand, or failing to deliver on his promises while maintaining loyalty to the brand?
In any case, allowing ALP a year to find another candidate is hardly opportunistic. Small parties usually do better at by-elections. Had Ronan sat out his term, he would have had a higher superannuation entitlement, as he will be on a lower salary until the next election, and state members’ entitlement is based on their average income. (Ordinary MPs get less than parliamentary secretaries.)
So other than a principle that hardly anyone observes, why do feel so strongly on this issue? There would probably be a slight advantage for the Greens to force a by-election because he would do better than in a general election, when he must compete for resources with other candidates but the downside is that we’d have a waste of public funds on two elections in quick succession.
As a constituent of Indooroopilly I agree with Sam. Ronan Lee’s policies were well known before we elected him. He has been a very active member and you’d have to be trying really hard not to know his ideals.
I personally don’t think we need a by-election. We voted for an individual; that’s who we’ve got.
You can’t go deciding these things on a case-by-case basis. It has to be one rule for everyone.
Ronan Lee needs a mandate from his constituency to represent the Greens Party. He campaigned as a member of the Labor Party, and won a mandate from his electorate to represent them in Parliament as a member of the Labor Party.
It would be even less clear cut in many other seats, because lots of people vote purely along party lines. Some political aficionados may be aware of individual policies, but the vast, vast majority of voters do not. Most people can’t even name their state member, although they probably know which party they voted for. In these seats, it would be very unfair for a politician to campaign as a member of a party and then defect. In the interests of fairness, you really need one rule for all.
I have no doubt that he’d win a by-election, but in the interests of legitimacy, I think he has to win an election as a Green. Until he does, he has absolutely no public mandate to act as a member of the Greens party. If it’s the foregone conclusion it seems to be, then he has nothing at all to fear in facing up to the polls.
You’re out of your depth here, Chris. Had you even heard about Ronan Lee before the weekend? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn’t be making assumptions about his constituents’ knowledge of his track record.
I’m nothing of the sort. I believe it on general principles.
You can’t make exceptions for one person, just because HE happens to be well-known. It has to be a general rule, applied across the board. You can’t deny that if a similar situation were to happen in most seats, the populace wouldn’t have had a clue about the policies of the individual. The vast, vast majority of people in Australia vote along party lines.
Just because Ronan Lee is an exception, it doesn’t mean he should get an exemption. If any individual changes party affiliation, as a general principle, they should have to face the polls again, to give people a chance to have their say. Ronan Lee isn’t special just because his policies happen to be well-known. It just means he’d win the by-election easily.
So should all the LNP members, by the same logic, have to resign from their seats and face re-election because they’ve changed party affiliation?
If your argument about changing party membership, based on the fact that people voted a certain way at the election, is to be logically consistent I ask you this: Should a general election be automatically triggered if a Premier stands down? Given that Australian voters vote based not just on parties but on the leaders of those parties, it’s not too far a step to make from your current argument.
1. I think they probably should, although a merger may be different, because technically they’re still members of the same party – it’s simply joined with another one. I’d have to think quite hard about it, and see the administrative details involved with merging a party, because they’d be quite important.
2. Again, I think they probably should, although again it’s a bit more complex, so I’d have to think hard about it. It’s probably a fair conclusion though. It’s probably a good idea – I know many people harboured resentment against Gordon Brown in the UK because he was described as governing without a mandate. Gerald Ford is another who faced similar accusations.
I think my position is reasonably consistent.
1. The party has a constitution distinct from the two former parties’ constitutions. They are a brand new party, registered with a new name. While they are a division of the Liberal Party of Australia, most of the parliamentary members are former Nationals MLAs. Perhaps only the former Nats need stand for a by-election?
2. But if people are voting on a party basis then it’s the party they’re giving the mandate to, not the leader. What if the Premier/PM is ousted due to a leadership spill a la Paul Keating beating Bob Hawke? Ford was elected to the Vice Presidency on Nixon’s ticket and the American constitution and electoral law is pretty clear on what happens when the President is no longer the President. Ford had a mandate to take over if anything happened to Nixon.
Do you see why I like MMP so much?
1. Possibly, although to be consistent, you’d probably need all of them to be up. It’s not like it’s an every-day occurrence.
2. That’s why I said possibly. I’d need to really think it over. It’s a tricky one.
Chris,
Repeating your arguments doesn’t make them convincing.
You’ve said a couple of times now that you need to think these things over. No-one will protest if you do.
Well, I wish Ronan would come and stand for the seat of South Brisbane.
It’s unfortunate that the seat with what would have been the best chance of getting a Green up ( the inner city soy-mil-eco-chino-late phenomenon, evidenced by 4101 having the highest uptake of PV installation in the nation) happens to be over-burdened by not just the huge encumbency effects of being Premier and Prime Ministerial seats, but, in the State contest, with probably quite a sizeable residual genderist agenda: the vote for a woman premier because she is a woman premier.
Thus, I reckon, it’s going to take a very special candidate and campaign to get the undoubted Green constituency the representation it might have otherwise achieved, and in other cities will.
IE and EG, Ronan. No aspersions on Gary, at all.
Here’s the campaign strategy, a version of the howard/costello 2 for 1, which just because it didn’t work for them, doesn’t mean it’s a complete dud;
Ronan says: Look, I’ve had experience in the Colliseum that is Qld Parliament, and I’ve been in the Gladiators change room, I know how they work. The fact that the Greens in Qld don’t have that experience is one of the reasons people can’t make the leap of faith and get them over the line.
To prove this isn’t about me and my career, as is claimed, I undertake to take, for instance, Jo Bragg or another entirely plausible South Brisbane female green, on as an apprentice in dark arts of parliamentary tradecraft, and I further undertake to resign from the seat, for that prepared female candidate to contest at a by-election, say 2 years in. This is not part of the deal, but if things go well, the timing will be just right for me to achive the Qld Greens senate seat that is so richly deserved.
Like I say, it’s a 2-for-one plan. No doubt noses will be put out of joint, and certain ambitions thwarted, but getting qld, with its blackest of economies to allow a green light is going to demand something special.
Ronan might be the one to pull the sword from the stone.
You have to float the meme “Rona Lee Labor”, those who came for the Light on The Hill, true believers who when they got up close found it produced more waste heat than useable light, and now pragmatically realise there’s a better way, that doesn’t require razing the landscape for fuel to keep it’s meagre lite going, who can be brave and honest enough to loose their tribal shackles and vote Green 1. The target is 6% of Anna first preference vote, that takes her to preferences, and the Greens harvesting Libs preferences, that’s if they run, or it could be like Brisbane Central by-election, and Mayo.
Yeh. yeh, I know, that’s crazy talk.
Quote – “Should Lee be returned at the next state election, this would be the first seat won by any Australian Greens party at a general election.”
If you are talking about state lower house general elections, the Tasmanian Greens currently have 4 MPs returned at the last Tasmanian state election, and the Party has been in a balance of power situation twice in the past. We have a long track record of returning MPs at general elections.
My mistake, Ms Cassidy, I had meant in a single member electorate at a general election.
I’m a bit sceptical of how well danny’s plan would work. Ronan Lee has a following in Indooroopilly, not South Brisbane, and would find it very hard, as someone with quite conservative views on sexual issues, to get the support of the voters. There’s also the issue of choosing to elect a Labor defector in order to oust the Labor Premier, I don’t know how many Labor voters in South Brisbane would be keen on that.
“elect a Labor defector in order to oust the Labor Premier,”… when you put it like that, you’re right, it’ll never play on Peel Street, not till they’re down to the last brown paper bag.
Still, Anna was down to 51.5% primary last time and greens were well within striking distance of getting second.
I’m always surprised at how big, reletively, these “sexual issues”, usually conscious vote stuff, play in decision making.
Ah well, it looked good on paper.
Cheers.
Bligh’s personal vote may suffer, particularly with all this Hale St Bridge and overdevelopment stuff. Her government’s not all that popular and it’s entirely conceivable that she’ll be pushed to preferences.
If her vote drops by the 2-3% necessary to go to preferences, the Greens may be able to pick enough votes up to leap over the Liberal National candidate. They’d need every single preference, though, and I can’t see the LNP preferencing the Greens even if it means kicking the Premier out of her seat.
The likely outcome is that Bligh gets upwards of 40% and the Greens’ voters will preference Bligh more often than the LNP’s candidate, keeping her ahead.
To beat Bligh, the Greens would basically need to get preferences actively directed from the LNP and any independents and rely on Bligh’s vote collapsing to the point where she’s only in the low to mid 40s.
Weiss, I may be repeating, but there has still not been a convincing argument against my point.
Some of the complaint letters in the Courier Mail in the last few days seem to indicate that not everyone in Indooroopilly was quite as aware as people who post on a political blog.
And the important thing here is that, even if the majority of people in his seat were area, it doesn’t matter in the least. The fact that there are some people who do feel disenfranchised by the move is, in itself, enough to justify the fact that he needs a fresh mandate.
But the important thing, and the thing that nobody has countered, is that it’s not a matter of the individual. It’s a general principle. Because there would certainly be cases where an individual changing party allegiance would beyond any doubt be considered betraying the people who voted for them.
A politician is responsible to uphold their election promises. One of the implied promises in an election is that the individual will be representing the people under a particular party affiliation. To break this party affiliation is deception, even if it was unplanned.
All of this could easily be resolved with a by-election. He gets his mandate, nobody feels disenfranchised, and the voters are treated with the respect they deserve. The only possible reason to be against this the suspicion that maybe he might just not win?
*area = aware
Chris = tired.
“To beat Bligh, the Greens would basically need to get preferences actively directed from the LNP and any independents and rely on Bligh’s vote collapsing to the point where she’s only in the low to mid 40s.”
Exactly.
“I can’t see the LNP preferencing the Greens even if it means kicking the Premier out of her seat.”
Well, you never know, “kicking the premier out of her seat” is pretty strong cordial, and you won’t know till you put it to ‘em. They can’t be as stupid as they look.
Gosh, all you’d have to do is put on a skippy sausage sizzle fundraiser at Kangaroo Point cliffs, invite all the residents from the towers there, the kangaroo point booth liberal voters ghetto, with a “help the GetRidOfAnnaNow (GROAN) campaign” flyer, explain the plan, and they’ll do the rest of getting LNP massively onside. Make sure you have Ronan there to speak, with the promise of an ALP dirt stories consciousness lowering session.
It’s not a convincing argument that under your proposal the entire LNP would have to resign from their seats, triggering 30 by-elections across the state?
You’d also be setting up a situation where an ALP member crossing the floor (and losing their party endorsement) would have to face a by-election whereas an LNP member crossing the floor wouldn’t. I think it’s ridiculous to allow parties to set up automatic triggers for by-elections in their own rules.
No, no, no , just next election, just for the seat of south Brisbane, which even they must admit that haven’t the proverbial’s chance of winning anyway you cut it, because of how big the green vote is there, and how greens voters actually preference.
Think of it as a delayed “thank You” note from the pineapples to the greens for their assistence in getting Borbidge into the big chair.
I’m not asking for a by-election every time someone crosses the floor (although you know my feelings on the issue of crossing the floor itself, which is another discussion entirely). Simply when they change their party affiliation, which is a much stronger stance.
And no, it is not a convincing argument. We established in my answer that I don’t think that is unreasonable. I don’t see why anyone would want to trigger a by-election though – when you change affiliation, you risk only your own seat. So I don’t see any way it could play to their advantage to stage an affiliation change to force a by-election.
I think it is ridiculous that a member of Parliament could affiliate with a party that they were not elected as a member of. It’s deception, even if it wasn’t intentional at the time.
I have still yet to see a convincing argument that a by-election hurts anyone, but it helps all parties involved. The only way it could possible hurt Lee is if he loses his seat, and you all seem to be assuring me that this can’t possibly happen. And if it could happen, he shouldn’t be in the Parliament for that very reason.
I don’t think you’ve read what I said; either that or you’re unfamiliar with the way the ALP enforces party solidarity. An ALP member crossing the floor will be disendorsed from their party. That is, they are no longer allowed to sit as an ALP member. As a result, their party affiliation has changed from “ALP” to “Independent”. You are saying, then, that because they’re now an Independent they should have to face a by-election.
We’d be faced with a situation where ALP members going against their party would be essentially triggering a by-election as opposed to LNP members who don’t have to deal with solidarity clauses in their party’s constitution.
In New Zealand they previously had legislation which forced an MP to resign from the Parliament if they switched parties (although I think it only applied to list MPs, not local electorate MPs). But they didn’t include parties that had merged. Personally I don’t think it’s anywhere the same to compare Ronan Lee to the LNP. After all, even if they were different parties, they were closely identified with each other and I think it’s a matter of emphasis whether the Nationals dominate a coalition with the Liberals or dominate a single party.
Although I don’t think you can make an argument about it being unethical for someone to not resign when switching party when you work in a single-member electorate system. It’s not that Greens voters are more deserving because they are more under-represented. It’s just that the system places no value on party proportionality, thus you can’t expect MPs to do so. Either your electoral system is designed to provide proportional results, which should mean that MPs respect the proportionality of the Parliament, or they don’t, in which case there is no obligation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waka-jumping
Also, a few countries have actually enacted legislation on this front. I’m not sure how all of them implement it, but I know in NZ there is an obligation that the MP rejects the party, not the other way around. So if a party expels an MP, then I don’t think they regain the seat. Although of course that might lead to MPs provoking the party into expelling them with outrageous behaviour.
Also the legislation lapsed and was not renewed.
Waka-jumping, as they call it in NZ, is rather common. Four of the six minor parties in Parliament are led by former major party MPs (Peter Dunne, Tariana Turia, Jim Anderton and Winston Peters), and ACT was founded by waka-jumpers, the most prominent of which will likely return to Parliament after this election.
Only the Greens (ironically, when considering this situation) are free of such party swapping. The Greens in Canada, on the other hand, seem to have gone through a similar experience to the Qld Greens. They accepted former Liberal MP Blair Wilson as an MP just before the last parliament was dissolved. They used his membership as justification for being allowed to participate in the leaders’ debate. Although this was only done after extensive public debate and disagreement from other party leaders.
Also, Blair Wilson, unlike Ronan Lee, didn’t have a promising career in the Liberals. He had been kicked out of the Liberals over some alleged dodgyness and had been serving as an Independent. I feel a lot better about Lee when I consider that he gave up a promising future ministerial career as a Labor MP to join the Greens.
I can understand nations with list election systems having laws regarding party affiliation and resignation. If you’re elected specifically on a ticket, you’d rightly be expected to continue as part of that ticket. Given that Queensland’s electoral system calls for single member electorates and there are no party lists, just mentions of party affiliations on ballots, I don’t see any compelling reason to introduce such laws.
It appears I would. If they were disendorsed by their party, they should have to face a by-election. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t see that either party can really use it to their advantage, so I have no problems with it.
You don’t think the ALP could use such laws to their advantage by booting out a bit of a stirrer in a safe seat and relying on the strength of the party vote to get their new MP elected.
Cate Molloy was disendorsed over the Traveston Dam issue and at the next state election was not elected even though she had stood up for her constituents. The ALP weren’t elected, either, though.
Here’s the view of one of Ronan’s constituents: http://todaysapatheticyouth.blogspot.com/2008/10/ronan-lee-for-greens.html
Could they not do so anyway, if they really wanted?
A party can disendorse a candidate if it chooses to, surely? If both sides can do it, I don’t think that either gets an advantage.
As for the specific situation, I presume she had the support of her constituents? If the constituency supported her, then she would have had nothing to fear from an election as an independent, so all that would happen is the ALP would lose an by-election, and she’d pick up her seat as an independent.
I still don’t see any problems. And the individual case doesn’t matter so much to me – much less the view of one single constituent – I’m talking about a general principle. Although, as a brief aside, if he loses his seat in the next election, it’ll make all the arguments that his constituents know and agree with his policy positions look a bit stupid.
The difference is that one party automatically disendorses their MPs that cross the floor. Both can do it, yes, but disendorsing a candidate in the LNP is totally different to the way the ALP does it.
Throwing aside all the specifics of individual cases like Lee’s and Molloy’s, do you believe it’s right to set up a general system where the parties’ constitutions essentially dictate how often their members are subjected to the regulation?
If, knowing the way the system was structured, parties elected to set up their constitution that way, then I don’t have a problem with it at all.
If there were “by-election for change of party affiliation” rules, the parties may reconsider the way they set up their constitution. But even if they didn’t, I don’t have a problem with that at all.
Out of curiosity, how many individuals have been disendorsed by the ALP in recent years? Is it just the one? Or are there a few more? It can’t be all that many, otherwise there would be a lot more independents in Parliament. But either way, if the ALP want to disendorse their members, that’s entirely their perogative – they’d only be costing themselves seats*.
*And, in the by-election, if they didn’t cost themselves seats (ie. they won the by-election over the incumbent), then disendorsing the candidate gets the rubber stamp of approval from the constituency, and they’re justified in their actions.
The ALP organisational structure is incredibly resistant to change, so you’re not likely to get any backdown on the issue of caucus solidarity. The idea that the ALP can just disendorse a member for failing to tow the party line and have a by-election automatically trigger so they can get their new candidate up has the potential to end up as a revolving door where what the ALP look for in a candidate is someone who will shut up and do as they’re told.
So, in the absence of the parties updating their constitutions to keep up with this radical change to our electoral system you’re proposing (which really doesn’t do anyone any favours if it weakens the power of individual members in the face of the party machine even further) do you actually wish to answer my question? Do you have a problem with parties gaming the electoral law to the advantage of the party over its elected MPs?
As for disendorsed ALP candidates I can only think of Molloy off the top of my head. A bit of a dig reveals that Terry Martin MLC was disendorsed in Tasmania after voting against Paul Lennon’s attempts to fast track the Gunns pulp mill.
No, I don’t have a problem with that. It is the right of the party to disendorse members who are not complying with the party aims.
If that leads to a by-election (which is only fair, in my opinion) then so be it. That will determine whether the constituents really want a member of that party, or whether they want someone with the particular goals and ideas of the disendorsed member. The constituents should be permitted to make that choice, rather than have it made for them.
If the disendorsed member couldn’t win an election without their party affiliation, they shouldn’t be representing their constituents when they lose that affiliation.
If you don’t have a problem with governments attempting to game the system by booting out the MPs that don’t sympathise with Cabinet’s plans, then I think you’re ignorant of what Queensland politics is capable of. Can you imagine what would’ve happened if Bjelke-Petersen could force the ousting of an MP who had a bit too much of a conscience? We’d end up with a state parliament full of yes men who wouldn’t stand up to their parties for fear of disendorsement and then subsequent by-electoral loss.
But surely, if the member is truly representing the interests of their constituents, they’ll win their by-election. So the only group losing is the party doing the disendorsing.
And if they can’t win a by-election, what right do they have to represent the constituents?
You’re deluding yourself if you believe the interests of the constituents and the interests of the party are the same thing more often than not. Just look at Anna Bligh and her not standing up against Campbell Newman over the issue of the Hale St Bridge. Hell, Helen Abrahams had to seek permission from David Hinchliffe to vote against the Hale St Bridge without jeopardising her party endorsement. ALP members can not stand up for their communities without getting disendorsed.
And you want to force people who stand up for their communities to face by-elections when they’re disendorsed for doing so? You’ve been talking about how people vote for their local MP based on party affiliation rather than what they actually do.
Party policy is entirely the perogative of the party. Even if party policy was “we will disendorse anyone who even insinuates disagreement”, then my point still stands. I may not like or agree with the party policy, but it is certainly their right to set it that way, should they choose to.
And yes, I do want to force people who are disendorsed for standing up for their communities to face by-elections.
If an individual has been disendorsed for standing up for their perception of the community interest, many of the constituents may recognise that they were acting in their interests (or not, of course), but others may be quite passionate about wanting a member of a certain party to represent them. They should have the choice put back in their hands.
If they choose to vote based on party affiliation, then that is their right, and it should be respected. But they should have the opportunity to do so. If the disendorsed member really was doing the right thing, it should be reflected in the polls – if it isn’t, then it was the wrong thing to do.