Conscience vote

Last updated

A conscience vote or free vote is a type of vote in a legislative body where legislators are allowed to vote according to their own personal conscience rather than according to an official line set down by their political party. In a parliamentary system, especially within the Westminster system, it can also be used to indicate crossbench members of a hung parliament where confidence and supply is provided to allow formation of a minority government but the right to vote on conscience is retained. [1] [2] Free votes are found in Canadian and some British legislative bodies; conscience votes are used in Australian and New Zealand legislative bodies.

Contents

Under the Westminster system, MPs who belong to a political party are usually required by that party to vote in accordance with the party line on significant legislation, on pain of censure or expulsion from the party. Sometimes a particular party member known as the party whip is responsible for maintaining this party discipline. [3] However, in the case of a conscience vote, a party declines to dictate an official party line to follow and members may vote as they please. In countries where party discipline is less important and voting against one's party is more common, conscience votes are generally less important.

In most countries, conscience votes are quite rare and are often about issues which are very contentious, or a matter on which the members of any single party differ in their opinions; thus making it difficult for parties to formulate official policies. Usually, a conscience vote will be about religious, moral or ethical issues rather than about administrative or financial ones. Matters such as the prohibition of alcohol, abortion, homosexuality law reform and the legality of prostitution are often subject to conscience votes.

Sometimes a vote may be free for some parties but not for others. For instance, when the Conservative government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed a motion to re-open the debate on Canada's same-sex marriage laws, his Conservatives and the opposition Liberals declared it a free vote for their members, while the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats both maintained party discipline to defeat the measure.

Practice in various countries

Australia

Conscience votes have been held in the Australian Parliament and in State Parliaments on issues of becoming a republic, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, sex discrimination, prostitution, and bioethical issues like assisted reproduction and stem cell research, [4] besides other issues.

New Zealand

In the New Zealand Parliament, conscience votes differ from party votes in that MPs must physically enter a lobby to vote on a motion rather than a party's whip calling out the votes on behalf of its MPs. A personal vote can be requested after a contested voice vote by any MP, but whether a personal or party vote is held is at the discretion of the Speaker. Pieces of legislation which were treated as conscience issues in New Zealand include the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, Prostitution Reform Act 2003, Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007, Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 and the present End of Life Choice Bill and Abortion Legislation Act 2020. [5] The most common topic for conscience votes in New Zealand has been alcohol; a conscience vote relating to alcohol has happened every decade since the 1890s. [6]

United Kingdom

In the British House of Commons there used to[ when? ] be a conscience vote every few years on the restoration of the death penalty, which had been abolished in 1964 (except for treason, for which it was abolished in 1998 in the Human Rights Act). It had always been rejected and this practice has now been abandoned. In Britain, laws concerning abortion have always been subject to a free vote.[ citation needed ]

The proposed bans on hunting with dogs proposed by Tony Blair's government were the subject of several free votes in Parliament from 2001. [3] On each occasion the Commons voted for a ban and the House of Lords rejected it. In 2004 the Government, trying to placate the Lords and other opponents of a ban, proposed only restriction and licensing of hunting but anti-hunting MPs (mostly Labour backbenchers) forced through an amendment which would effect a total ban. Seconds after the vote on the amendment, the Government bowed to pressure and agreed to force the ban through the Lords under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. It passed in November 2004.[ citation needed ]

Other decisions which were taken by a free vote include abandoning the experiment with permanent summer time and bringing television cameras into Parliament.[ citation needed ]

United States

In the United States, parties exercise comparatively little control over the votes of individual legislators. However, the parties' whips offer varying amounts of incentives or disincentives to unite the party on major votes. As an extreme case, Democrat James Traficant was stripped of his seniority and committee assignments in 2001 when he voted for a Republican, Dennis Hastert, to be Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

When a party's leadership declines to whip votes in a situation where they normally would, this is sometimes called a "conscience vote," "vote of conscience," or members "voting their consciences." For instance, an aide to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said that "Decisions about war and peace are conscience votes and they aren’t whipped traditionally," regarding the potential disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement. [7] Similarly, when House Republican leadership decided not to whip votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, Liz Cheney—the third-highest-ranking Republican—referred to the matter as a "vote of conscience". [8] At other times the terms are used to describe a vote based on personal morals rather than political considerations. [9] [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

House of Commons of the United Kingdom Lower house in the Parliament of the United Kingdom

The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the upper house, the House of Lords, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England.

Parliament of the United Kingdom Supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom

The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and the overseas territories. Parliament is bicameral but has three parts, consisting of the sovereign (Crown-in-Parliament), the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Both houses of Parliament meet in separate chambers at the Palace of Westminster in the City of Westminster, one of the inner boroughs of the capital city, London.

Party discipline is a system of political norms, rules, and subsequent respective consequences for deviance; that are designed to ensure the relative cohesion of members of the respective party group. In political parties specifically the essential purpose of party discipline is to get all its parliamentary members, to maintain the party line and vote in support of policies agreed to by a majority of the parliamentary members or of the party leadership.

A private member's bill is a bill introduced into a legislature by a legislator who is not acting on behalf of the executive branch. The designation "private member's bill" is used in most Westminster system jurisdictions, in which a "private member" is any member of parliament (MP) who is not a member of the cabinet (executive). Other labels may be used for the concept in other parliamentary systems; for example, the label member's bill is used in the Scottish Parliament and the New Zealand Parliament, and the term private senator's bill is used in the Australian Senate. In legislatures where the executive does not have the right of initiative, such as the United States Congress, the concept does not arise since bills are always introduced by legislators.

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They try to ensure that their fellow political party legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to their party's official policy. Members who vote against party policy may "lose the whip", being effectively expelled from the party.

ACT New Zealand New Zealand political party

ACT New Zealand, known simply as ACT, is a right-wing, classical-liberal political party in New Zealand. According to former party leader Rodney Hide, ACT's values are "individual freedom, personal responsibility, doing the best for our natural environment and for smaller, smarter government in its goals of a prosperous economy, a strong society, and a quality of life that is the envy of the world". Young ACT is its affiliated, albeit unofficial, student wing.

New Zealand House of Representatives Sole chamber of the New Zealand Parliament

The House of Representatives is the sole chamber of the New Zealand Parliament. The House passes laws, provides ministers to form Cabinet, and supervises the work of government. It is also responsible for adopting the state's budgets and approving the state's accounts.

Crossing the floor Term for changes to political allegiance

In parliamentary systems, politicians are said to cross the floor if they formally change their affiliation to a second party after being elected as a member of a first party, or voting against the approved party lines.

Elfyn Llwyd is a Welsh barrister and politician. He was a Member of Parliament, representing Meirionnydd Nant Conwy in the House of Commons from 1992 to 2010 and Dwyfor Meirionnydd from 2010 to 2015. Llwyd was Plaid Cymru's Westminster parliamentary group leader.

The Chief Whip is a political leader whose task is to enforce the whipping system, which aims to ensure that members of the party attend and vote as the party leadership desires.

Diana Johnson British Labour politician

Dame Diana Ruth Johnson is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Kingston upon Hull North since the 2005 general election.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 United Kingdom legislation

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced by the Labour government, which grants civil partnerships in the United Kingdom with rights and responsibilities very similar to civil marriage. Initially the Act permitted only same-sex couples to form civil partnerships. This was altered to include opposite-sex couples in 2019. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married couples, the same exemption as married couples regarding social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to exercise parental responsibility for a partner's children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving civil partnerships, akin to divorce.

The Christian Democrat Party of New Zealand was a Christian socially conservative political party established in 1995. It contested the 1996 general election as part of the Christian Coalition with the Christian Heritage Party.

Abortion Act 1967 United Kingdom legislation

The Abortion Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom legalising abortions on certain grounds by registered practitioners, and regulating the tax-paid provision of such medical practices through the National Health Service (NHS).

Sexual Offences Act 1967 United Kingdom legislation

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It legalised homosexual acts in England and Wales, on the condition that they were consensual, in private and between two men who had attained the age of 21. The law was extended to Scotland by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and to Northern Ireland by the Homosexual Offences Order 1982.

Section 28 British anti-LGBT law

Section 28 or Clause 28 was a legislative designation for a series of laws across Britain that prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities. Introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, it was in effect from 1988 to 2000 in Scotland and from 1988 to 2003 in England and Wales. It caused many organisations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student support groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor.

Crimes Act 1961 Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Crimes Act 1961 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that forms a leading part of the criminal law in New Zealand. It repeals the Crimes Act 1908, itself a successor of the Criminal Code Act 1893. Most crimes in New Zealand are created by the Crimes Act, but some are created elsewhere. All common law offences are abolished by section 9, as are all offences against Acts of the British Parliaments, but section 20 saves the old common law defences where they are not specifically altered.

Justin Amash Former U.S. Representative from Michigan

Justin Amash is an American lawyer and politician who served as the U.S. representative for Michigan's 3rd congressional district from 2011 to 2021. Originally a Republican, Amash joined the Libertarian Party in April 2020, becoming the party's first member of Congress.

LGBT conservatism refers to LGBT individuals with conservative political views. It is an umbrella term used for what is bifurcated into two specific sub-categories, each with its own term and meaning. The first sub-categorical term, Pre-Stonewall LGBT Conservatives, refers to LGBT individuals embracing and promoting the ideology of a traditional and often anti-LGBT conservatism in either a general or specifically-LGBT social context or environment. The second sub-categorical term, Post-Stonewall LGBT Conservatives, refers to self-affirming LGBT persons with fiscally, culturally, and politically conservative views. These post-Stonewall conservatives' social views, though generally conservative too, at the same time reflect a self-determination-stemmed and more recent socio-historical "gay-affirmation" on issues like marriage equality for same-sex couples, gay family recognition, civic equality generally for LGBTs in society, and also a positive role for (gay-affirming) religion in LGBT life, though there is not complete unanimity of opinion among them on all issues, especially those regarding the dynamics and politics of the closet and "identity management," and various legal and political issues The first term can include LGBTs who are actually opposed to same-sex marriage or other LGBTQ rights while the second term, contrastingly, usually refers to self-affirming gays who unequivocally favor marriage as a legal institution for both heterosexuals and gays and who simultaneously prefer economic and political conservatism more generally. The number of self-affirming LGBT advocates for conservative ideas and policies became more apparent only after the advent of the modern LGBT civil rights movement in the 1970s even as many gay conservatives then did remain closeted in areas where (antigay) socially conservative politicians led the most organized opposition to LGBT rights. The Realpolitik and ideology situations for LGBT conservatives today vary by their own self-definition, and each country's sociopolitical, cultural, and legal LGBT rights landscape.

Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Act 2022 Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Amendment Act 2022 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that will provide a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities on a case-by-case basis. The Bill passed its third reading on 16 March 2022 and received royal assent on 18 March.

References

  1. ↑ "Understanding Conscience Vote Decisions: The Case of the ACT" (PDF). Australian Parliamentary Review. Australian Study of Parliament Group. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-02-28. Retrieved 2015-03-26.
  2. ↑ "Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996 - 2007". Australian Parliament House. 2 February 2009.
  3. 1 2 Priddy, Sarah (16 November 2016). "Free votes in the House of Commons since 1997" (PDF). House of Commons Library. Retrieved 22 April 2017.
  4. ↑ Donaghey, Corrie; Galloway, Kate (2011). "Analysing Conscience Votes in Parliament: Do Churches Influence the Law" (PDF). James Cook University Law Review. 18: 84–112. Retrieved 22 September 2019.
  5. ↑ "When MPs go with their gut: what is a conscience vote?". Radio New Zealand. 13 November 2018. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
  6. ↑ Flahive, Brad (2017-09-11). "What is a conscience vote and why does it matter?". Stuff. Retrieved 2020-10-20.
  7. ↑ Kiefer, Francine (24 July 2015). "Why some Democratic senators describe Iran deal as a 'conscience vote'". Christian Science Monitor.
  8. ↑ Herb, Jeremy; Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Mattingly, Phil (12 January 2021). "Impeachment a 'vote of conscience' for GOP". CNN. Retrieved 12 January 2021. House Republican leaders won't whip their colleagues and tell them to vote against the impeachment resolution on Wednesday, according to leadership aides. Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 in GOP leadership [...], did not tell her members how to vote Monday, but she called the impeachment vote a 'vote of conscience.'
  9. ↑ Cutter, Stephanie (9 September 2013). "Congress, let this be a vote of conscience". CNN. Retrieved 12 January 2021. Voting your conscience – standing up for what you believe in – is not only the safest way to ensure you can articulate a defense for your vote, but it's also your duty as an elected official.
  10. ↑ Anderson, Nick; Simon, Richard (11 October 2002). "For Dissenters, 'Nos' Were a Vote of Conscience". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 12 January 2021. Still, many of the dissenters made clear that the vote was one of the toughest of their careers. They said they relied more on conscience than ideology in making up their minds.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.