Should Floor-Crossing MPs Face Voters? Report Says Yes

VANCOUVER, BC – May 20, 2026 – A provocative new essay from the Fraser Institute is reigniting a long-standing debate in Canadian politics, arguing that Members of Parliament who cross the floor to join a different party should be required to face their constituents in a by-election. The paper contends that such a move is essential for democratic legitimacy, citing polling data suggesting that a mere 6 per cent of voters are motivated by the individual candidate on the ballot.

The essay, authored by former federal and provincial NDP parliamentarian Nathan Cullen, posits that the act of switching parties mid-term breaks a fundamental pact with voters and contributes to growing political cynicism.

"Politicians mistakenly credit their merit alone for their electoral victories, but that's a self-serving myth," Cullen states in the report. "Most voters choose the party, leader, or broader issues, rather than the personal qualities of the individual candidate on the ballot."

The Mandate in Question

The core of the argument presented in "Why Floor Crossing Reveals the Character Flaws of Our Politics and Makes Us All a Little More Cynical" is the concept of the voter's mandate. When an MP changes their party allegiance, the essay argues, they are making a personal decision that may not align with the reasons they were elected in the first place, thereby jeopardizing public trust.

This debate is not merely academic. It has tangible consequences for the balance of power in Ottawa. In late 2025, the stability of Prime Minister Mark Carney's minority government was significantly bolstered when two Conservative MPs, Chris d'Entremont and Michael Ma, crossed the floor to join the governing Liberal Party. These moves brought the Liberals to within a single seat of a majority, dramatically altering parliamentary arithmetic and the government's ability to pass legislation.

While the new Liberal MPs received standing ovations at party conventions, the events highlighted the very issue Cullen's essay addresses. Critics argue that voters in ridings like Acadie–Annapolis and Markham–Unionville cast their ballots for a Conservative representative, and the subsequent switch nullified that choice without their consent. The Fraser Institute's proposed solution is for an MP who leaves their party to either sit as an independent until the next general election or resign their seat to trigger a by-election, allowing voters to directly affirm or reject the change.

Party, Leader, or Person? Deconstructing the Canadian Vote

Underpinning the call for mandatory by-elections is compelling data on Canadian voter behaviour. The polling cited in the essay paints a clear picture: the local candidate is far from the most important factor in the voting booth for the vast majority of Canadians.

The numbers break down voter motivation as follows:

• 39 per cent are motivated by the party leader.
• 24 per cent are motivated by the party itself.
• 15 per cent are motivated by specific policies or issues.
• 13 per cent admit to voting strategically to prevent another party from winning.

This leaves just 6 per cent of voters who say their primary motivation is the personal qualities of their local candidate. These figures, consistent with other recent polling on electoral behaviour, suggest that a candidate's victory is overwhelmingly tied to the party banner under which they run. The fact that more people vote strategically than vote for a specific person underscores the argument that a candidate's personal mandate is secondary to the party platform they represent during a campaign.

Cullen argues this data dismantles the notion that an MP has the individual authority to take their seat to another party. "Elected officials must remember that their duty is to serve the communities which elected them, not their own personal ambition," he said. "Anything else is self-delusion and not only poor judgement but erodes public trust."

A 'Waka Jumping' Moment for Canada?

The idea of legislating consequences for floor-crossing is not without international precedent. The Fraser Institute report points to New Zealand's rules against what is colloquially known as "waka (canoe) jumping." Enacted to enhance political stability and party integrity, New Zealand's legislation allows for a parliamentary seat to be declared vacant if an MP leaves the party they were elected to represent.

This mechanism ensures that the party-based results of an election are largely preserved throughout a parliamentary term. The essay highlights that Canadian polling indicates strong public support for similar restrictions or penalties on floor-crossing, suggesting a public appetite for reforms that would bolster accountability.

Adopting such a measure in Canada would represent a significant shift in parliamentary tradition, which has historically prioritized the independence of an individual MP. However, proponents argue it is a necessary adaptation to modern political realities where party brands and leaders dominate electoral contests. The debate pits the principle of an MP's freedom of conscience against the principle of collective voter mandate.

As political parties navigate a landscape of shifting allegiances, the positions on such a reform are often influenced by circumstance. Parties that lose members to floor-crossing often decry the practice as a betrayal of democracy, while those who gain members tend to welcome their new colleagues as individuals who have bravely followed their conscience. This proposal aims to take the decision out of the hands of party strategists and place it back into the hands of the electorate. Reaffirming mandates when changing parties, Cullen concludes, would be a concrete step to "help restore trust in an era of deepening political cynicism."