Canadians have never before seen a minority government become a majority government through a combination of floor crossing and byelections.
A small increase in the number of Liberal caucus members has given the government sweeping power, all without voters having a say in a general election.
Current conversations about the appropriateness of floor crossings are an opportunity for a broader discussion about electoral reform. If Canada used some form of proportional representation where the percentage of votes for each party reflected their percentage of seats in the House of Commons, floor crossings would be unnecessary.
Forcing a byelection
Official opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, has argued that floor crossing amounts to winning majority status through “dirty backroom deals.”
He advocates for recall, or the ability of constituents to sign a petition to force a byelection, “to put people back in charge of our democracy” — even though the Conservative party itself argued against such measures in 2011.
NDP leader Avi Lewis has also argued that getting a Liberal majority largely through floor crossings “just feels wrong.”
Read more: The Lewis dynasty makes a third bid to shape democratic socialism in Canada
Canadians seem to agree; just one in four surveyed in a recent public opinion poll said floor crossers should be able to complete their term with their new party.
But achieving a majority through a general election — or via byelections in the electoral districts of floor crossers — does not address a more fundamental shortcoming of how democracy is practised in Canada.
The current system
Even in general elections, Canada’s single-member plurality electoral system almost never produces a majority government that’s also supported by a majority of voters.
The last one was in 1984, when Brian Mulroney won a landslide 74.8 per cent of seats and 50.03 per cent of the popular vote. While there have been five majority governments elected since 1984, each of them has been supported by less than 50 per cent of voters.
With single-member plurality, the local candidate with the most votes (a plurality) wins each electoral district. Each MP represents all constituents in the electoral district, even if that MP is supported by fewer than 50 per cent of the voters in their riding.
As a result, in most elections, more Canadians vote for parties that do not form the majority. Does this really resolve the perceived democratic legitimacy gap left by floor-crossing?
Floor crossing: Symptom of a bigger problem
A cynic might say floor crossers are opportunistic. MPs choose to ride the coattails of a popular government into the next election, seeking rewards for their electoral districts or personally benefiting from “carrots” in the form of future committee appointments or other perks.
But floor crossing is also a symptom of the difficulty of working collaboratively in Canada’s version of parliamentary government, characterized by incredibly strict party discipline.
A 2020 report by the Samara Centre for Democracy found that Canadian MPs voted with their party 99.6 per cent of the time between 2015 and 2019.
When toeing the party line trumps constructive debate, floor-crossing can serve as one of the few available ways to express defiance when MPs are unhappy with the party’s direction or leader and feel neither are serving their constituencies.
Read more: Another MP jumps to Carney’s Liberals, igniting concerns about the health of Canada’s democracy
Alternative solution
Proportional representation, an electoral system where the percentage of seats a party has in the legislature closely mirrors the percentage of people who voted for that party, is the most popular electoral system in the world, employed by 130 countries.
Because proportional representation more accurately reflects how people voted in an election, it overcomes the single-member plurality system’s tendency to create majority governments supported by a minority of voters.
It also promotes cross-partisan collaboration and deliberation. Unlike with single-member plurality, strategic voting by constituents is not commonplace.
Proportional representation is not a “winner take all” system. Voters will no longer feel the need to choose the more palatable of the two leading candidates in tight races, even if neither is their preferred candidate.
In the absence of strategic voting, a greater number of political parties have smaller portions of seats, and must negotiate among themselves to form a coalition majority government or support a minority government on a case-by-case basis. Political authority remains tethered to voters’ choices, but parties must work with each other to solve policy problems.
With this culture of collaboration built into the system, MPs would not have to resort to floor crossing to work with others outside their parties.
Parties in charge have the most to lose
In Canada, the provinces of British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, New Brunswick and Québec have all considered moving away from single-member plurality towards some form of proportional representation.
Electoral reform was part of Justin Trudeau’s campaign platform in the 2015 election. But his Liberal government rejected a House of Commons committee’s recommendation that Canadians chose between proportional representation and single-member plurality in a referendum.
Read more: Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system highlights once again the need for reform
Unfortunately, the parties that have formed governments under single-member plurality have the most to lose if Canada adopts some form of proportional representation.
Because of strong party discipline and floor crossings, Mark Carney’s Liberal government is now assured to pass its policy agenda through the House of Commons.
But Canadians should push for more than immediate byelections after floor crossings to strengthen the country’s democracy — they should turn their attention once again to broader electoral reform.
Julie Simmons does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
