Floor-crossing is fundamentally corrosive to democracy
Yes, it's legal. That's the problem.
It’s holiday season in Canada, and I can’t imagine many people want to pay attention to politics at a time like this. Regardless of background, Canadians want to spend this time with family and friends, and they really don’t want to engage in any cynical or negative attitudes until we’re in the new year.
And I get that sentiment, enough to take a little holiday break myself and not publish for a few days. But then I caught the flu—yes, I was vaccinated—and a few days became a few more days, and suddenly I’ve gone nearly two weeks without publishing any writing. Now, it’s the afternoon of December 29th, just over two full days left before we hit 2026, and I’m worried about the opposite problem:
Are we paying enough attention to Canadian politics right now? Are things happening over the holiday break that could significantly change Canadian politics, and are we ignoring those important things to instead smother our thoughts in Yuletide?
Yes, yes we are ignoring them. So let’s get back to focusing.
Right before the holidays, two “Conservative” MPs crossed the floor from their former caucus, to join the Liberals instead, bringing the governing party one seat shy of the majority government threshold. Now, there is open speculation as to who is being courted over this holiday break by the Liberals, in order to gain a third member and push over the threshold.
And the thing is, going from a minority to a majority government through floor-crossing has never happened before in Canadian politics. For one, it’s something that can only happen when the margins between caucuses are already close. And while the hypothetical might make floor-crossing seem even worse than normal…the truth is that it’s already pretty bad in isolation. Because Canadians vote for candidates, yes, but those candidates are partisan.
Now, before you scream at me about the few MPs who are successfully elected as independents, yes, we’re all aware. But even they have the word “Independent” in place of the party name on Elections Canada’s ballot. Their “independence” becomes an identity in itself, like how atheism is technically a religious identity.
And the ties between a candidate and their partisan descriptor are tightly-wound. A party’s riding association can fundraise before an election, and then pass money onto their candidate once the writ drops; independents cannot source any funds before the writ drops.
Political parties maintain strict control on who is permitted to run under their banner, calling the process “greenlighting” because presumably it’s less polite to say “purging my enemies from the politburo”. And while the heavy hand of party discipline is itself a problem for our politics, floor-crossing is fathoms away from anything resembling a solution.
Yes, parties have too much control over their candidates and their members, and I’m happy to reduce that with measures like the Reform Act. But while the exact balance between an individual MP and their partisan affiliation can be better-calibrated to suit our democracy, it’s an undeniable fact that the name of a person on a ballot is tied to their partisan identity.
Don’t take my word for it: Study of the 2015 Canadian federal election demonstrated that a voter’s opinion of local candidates versus their opinions on their larger parties was only decisive for a mere 4% of the electorate. It is an undeniable fact that for the vast majority of Canadians, we are voting not for the local candidate, but instead for the party they belong to.
And that makes sense! MPs join together in caucuses to provide confidence to a government of their preference! Voters don’t actually want to pick someone they’re worried will suddenly do a 180-degree turn from the policy platform that attracted them! They want the stability of knowing that if they voted for a partisan banner, they get that partisan banner!
That is why floor-crossing is corrosive to our democratic order. Because people see “Conservative” on a ballot, a “Conservative” is elected as an MP, a “Conservative” spends months repeating the Conservative platform, only to suddenly announce they’re a Liberal now and that the voters can’t do jack shit about it.
Of course that’s corrosive to democracy! You voted for one guy, and then you find out it’s another guy, and then he says “sucks to suck lol” and spends the rest of the term voting for legislation completely opposite to what he said he would! It’s not a surprise that people see this and then lose faith in voting at all.
And without fail, the Liberals and Conservatives will swap places, bemoaning it when it happens against them, but cheering it when it happens for them. The beneficiaries simply gloat that “these are the rules”, when the whole problem is that these are fucking awful rules!
There’s a valid argument to be made that if an MP joins a different party than the one on their ballot, they should have to run in a by-election under that new party banner. I do not think such a thing should apply to an MP who is involuntarily kicked out of their caucus, but that must be on the basis that they don’t join another caucus until winning another general or by-election.
And such a law would have some precedent in the way that by-elections have previously been triggered in Canadian history. Until 1931, if a backbench MP was appointed to join the Prime Minister’s cabinet, they were actually required to resign and immediately run in a by-election to prove they had their riding’s mandate to be a minister, rather than just a backbencher.
We don’t do this anymore, clearly. Carney’s cabinet appointments didn’t trigger a slew of by-elections across the country. But while requiring it of an MP to enter cabinet may be a little silly, requiring it to change parties seems downright reasonable.
And holistically? I think voter participating will improve, when voters know they’re less likely to be scammed by a lying con artist!