Editing Conscience vote

{{Short description|Discretionary votes, particularly in parliamentary systems}}
{{Party politics}}
A '''conscience vote''' or '''free vote''' is a type of vote in a [[legislature|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 [[crossbencher|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aspg.org.au/pdf/Understanding%20conscience%20vote%20decisions.pdf|publisher=Australian Study of Parliament Group|title=Understanding Conscience Vote Decisions: The Case of the ACT|work=Australian Parliamentary Review|year=2013|access-date=2015-03-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150228003440/http://aspg.org.au/pdf/Understanding%20conscience%20vote%20decisions.pdf|archive-date=2015-02-28|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0809/09rp20|title=Conscience votes during the Howard Government 1996 - 2007|date=2 February 2009|publisher=Australian Parliament House}}</ref>  ''Free votes'' are found in Canadian and some British legislative bodies; ''conscience votes'' are used in Australian legislative bodies; ''personal votes'' can be held in the [[New Zealand Parliament]].

Under the Westminster system, [[Member of parliament|MP]]s who belong to a political party are usually required by that party to vote in accordance with the [[Party line (politics)|party line]] on significant legislation, on pain of censure or expulsion from the party. Sometimes a particular party member known as the [[whip (politics)|party whip]] is responsible for maintaining this [[party discipline]].<ref name="ukparl">{{cite web |last1=Priddy|first1=Sarah|title=Free votes in the House of Commons since 1997 |url= http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04793/SN04793.pdf |publisher=House of Commons Library|access-date=22 April 2017 |date=16 November 2016}}</ref> However, in the case of a conscience vote, a party does not dictate an official party line to follow and members may vote as they please. Sometimes a vote may be free for some parties but not for others. 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 that 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|prohibition of alcohol]], [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]] law reform and the legality of [[prostitution]] are often subject to conscience votes. 

==Practice in various countries==

===Australia===
Conscience votes have been held in the [[Parliament of Australia|Australian Parliament]] and in State Parliaments on issues of [[Republicanism in Australia|becoming a republic]], [[Abortion in Australia|abortion]], euthanasia, homosexuality, sex discrimination, prostitution, and bioethical issues like assisted reproduction and stem cell research,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Donaghey |first1=Corrie |last2=Galloway |first2=Kate |title=Analysing Conscience Votes in Parliament: Do Churches Influence the Law |journal=James Cook University Law Review |date=2011 |volume=18 |pages=84–112 |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2011/5.pdf |access-date=22 September 2019}}</ref> besides other issues.

===Canada===
The decision to grant a free vote lies with party leaders in Canada.<ref>{{cite web |title=Voters respect politicians who follow their conscience |first=Brian |last=Bird |date=7 August 2019 |url= https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2019/voters-respect-politicians-who-follow-their-conscience/ |work=Policy Options |publisher=[[Institute for Research on Public Policy]] |access-date=13 November 2024}}</ref> Sometimes a vote may be free for some parties but not for others. For instance, when the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government of [[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] [[Stephen Harper]] [[Members of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage|proposed a motion to re-open the debate on]] Canada's [[same-sex marriage in Canada|same-sex marriage laws]], his Conservatives and the opposition [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]] declared it a free vote for their members, while the [[Bloc Québécois]] and the [[New Democratic Party|New Democrats]] both maintained party discipline to defeat the measure.

===New Zealand===
In the [[New Zealand Parliament]], the [[Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives|Speaker]] decides if a vote will be a personal vote. They may do so after any MP requests it following a contested voice vote. The Speaker usually agrees to such a request, but not always. A personal vote differs from a party vote in that MPs must physically enter a lobby to vote on a motion, rather than a party's [[whip (politics)|whip]] calling out the votes on behalf of its MPs. Legislation that was treated as a conscience issue includes the [[Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986]], [[Prostitution Reform Act 2003]], [[Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007]], [[Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013]], [[End of Life Choice Act 2019]] and [[Abortion Legislation Act 2020]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/the-house/audio/2018670140/when-mps-go-with-their-gut-what-is-a-conscience-vote |title=When MPs go with their gut: what is a conscience vote? |publisher=[[Radio New Zealand]] |date=13 November 2018 |access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Flahive|first=Brad|date=2017-09-11|title=What is a conscience vote and why does it matter?|url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/96715488/what-is-a-conscience-vote-and-why-does-it-matter |access-date=2020-10-20 |website=Stuff}}</ref>

In the case of a party vote, a party can decide to allow its members to vote differently from one another, in a split party vote. Thus individual parties can allow their members a conscience vote even when the Speaker has not declared a personal vote.<ref>{{cite web |title=Conscience votes |date=19 October 2012 |url= https://www.parliament.nz/en/document/00NZPHomeNews20121019a1 |work=New Zealand Parliament |publisher= |access-date=14 November 2024}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
In the [[British House of Commons]] there used to{{When|date=September 2020}} 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 1998|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|date=September 2020}}

The proposed bans on [[fox hunting|hunting with dogs]] proposed by [[Tony Blair]]'s government were the subject of several free votes in Parliament from 2001.<ref name="ukparl" /> 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 Party (UK)|Labour]] [[backbencher]]s) forced through an amendment that 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|date=September 2020}}

Other decisions that were taken by a free vote include abandoning the experiment with permanent [[daylight saving time|summer time]] and bringing television cameras into Parliament.{{Citation needed|date=September 2020}}

=== United States===
In the United States, parties exercise comparatively little control over the votes of individual legislators. However, the parties' [[Whip_(politics)#United_States|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 [[Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Congressional_votes|potential disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kiefer |first1=Francine |title=Why some Democratic senators describe Iran deal as a 'conscience vote' |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0724/Why-some-Democratic-senators-describe-Iran-deal-as-a-conscience-vote |website=Christian Science Monitor |date=24 July 2015}}</ref> Similarly, when House Republican leadership decided not to whip votes against the [[Second impeachment of Donald Trump|second impeachment]] of [[Donald Trump]], [[Liz Cheney]]—the third-highest-ranking Republican—referred to the matter as a "vote of conscience".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Raju |first2=Manu |last3=Fox |first3=Lauren |last4=Mattingly |first4=Phil |title=Impeachment a 'vote of conscience' for GOP |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/republican-reaction-impeach-vote/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=12 January 2021 |date=12 January 2021 |quote=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.{{'-}}}}</ref> At other times the terms are used to describe a vote based on personal morals rather than political considerations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cutter |first1=Stephanie |title=Congress, let this be a vote of conscience |url=https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/opinion/cutter-obama-syria-conscience/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=12 January 2021 |language=en |date=9 September 2013 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Anderson |first1=Nick |last2=Simon |first2=Richard |title=For Dissenters, 'Nos' Were a Vote of Conscience |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-oct-11-na-dissent11-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=12 January 2021 |date=11 October 2002 |quote=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.}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Aisle (political term)]]
* [[Crossing the floor]]
* [[Party switching]]

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

[[Category:Voting]]
[[Category:Westminster system]]