Their local MPP votes for the party leader, if their party wins the majority or minority than their leader gets to be Premier and the MPP holds their seat in the legislature and votes on legislation. It's how it works provincially, and it's how it works federally. While people may vote for "leaders" most vote for party platforms (platforms that have been created and agreed upon by multiple members of political parties).
Riiight.....So, why do all parties have conventions to select their respective leaders prior to the elections? The post election selection is a rubber stamp formality.
Also, those party platforms are driven by the leader, so yes, the party may temper things, but it's the leader of the party that drives the final decisions. Regardless, it's party policies that make people decide their choices, not their local MPP in most cases.
And again, the resigning during the term and appointing a new leader is called the Tory Regeneration technique and has been used for years. To use it only as an insult to the Liberal party is disingenuous. If you're going to be upset about this tactic, be upset when any party uses it, but also understand how ludicrous it would be, given the way the Premier is chosen to have a general election when the Premier resigns. That would put everybody's ridings at risk because one person resigned as leader of a party.
Let look at this supposed PC regeneration technique:
Leslie Frost - Last elected, 1959. resigned 1961. Served ~ 50% of his term. PC's were re-elected.
John Robarts - Last elected, 1967, appears to have served entire term and passed the torch to Bill Davis for next election. So he served 100% of his term. PC's were re-elected.
Bill Davis - Last elected, 1981. Passed the torch to Frank Miller months prior to election (and he lost to Peterson). So he served almost 100% of his term.
Mike Harris - Last elected 1999. Handed off to Eves in 2002. Served just under 75% of his term (and Eves lost to McIdiot)
Dolton McIdiot - last elected 2011, resigned one year later. Serving just 25% of his term.
1. There may be a PC regeneration technique, but appears to only work half of the time - and not in the last 30 years.
2. All of above PC leaders served at least 50% of their term before resigning. McGuinty barely lasted a year, or 25%. See the difference now?
3. When did I ever say there should be elections every time a leader resigns? Most ethical politicians intend to serve their full terms, and the 'PC technique' was just a logical way to transition power at an appropriate time. And from above, it seems to not be a technique to achieve anything, when it only works 50% of the time.
4. I'd be just as pissed if a party I supported did this after only serving 25% of their term. It would still be the same party but the policies would change - see Wynne changing parts of what McIdiot wanted. Obviously health issues of the leader would be an exception to this.
eta: If you believe people vote for the Leader of the party and not the party, would you be just as offended at the Leader of the Official Opposition stepping down half way through their term?
I'd be fine with it, they control nothing. In fact, when you're in opposition, it is better to do it early, to give the person more time to show what their policies would be. But, the fact remains, McGuinty barely hung on for a year - and it was an entirely miserable 12 months for him.
