|Part of the Politics series|
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. Free votes are found in Canadian and some British legislative bodies; conscience votes are used in Australian and New Zealand legislative bodies.
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. 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.
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, besides other issues.
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. 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.
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.
The proposed bans on hunting with dogs proposed by Tony Blair's government were the subject of several free votes in Parliament from 2001. 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.
Other decisions which were taken by a free vote include abandoning the experiment with permanent summer time and bringing television cameras into Parliament.
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. 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". At other times the terms are used to describe a vote based on personal morals rather than political considerations.
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.'
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.
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.