Canadian History and Floor-Crossing in Politics
The terms used to describe MPs who switch parties vary widely: traitor, shameful, brave, principled. However, one label rarely applies to them — being re-electable. History reveals that politicians who change party affiliation often struggle to secure re-election.
Recent Examples and Political Reactions
The recent move of longtime Conservative Chris d'Entremont joining the federal Liberal caucus caused a stir in Ottawa, with Prime Minister Mark Carney suggesting others might follow suit.
Historical Context of Floor-Crossing
Floor-crossing in Canadian politics dates back to Confederation but has increasingly become a risky step. Political science research shows this phenomenon usually comes with electoral costs.
“Switching parties is an extremely risky move that almost always hurts a politician's chances of re-election,” said Semra Sevi, assistant professor in the University of Toronto’s political science department.
Research Findings on Electoral Impact
Sevi’s research, covering all MPs who switched parties from Confederation to 2015, found a significant shift in voter response over time:
- Before the mid-20th century, MPs who switched parties generally retained vote shares similar to those before switching.
- Since the 1970s, the success rate of floor-crossers has dropped sharply.
As political parties became more institutionalized, the electoral penalties for switching grew more severe, reducing politicians' chances of survival outside their original parties.
“There are rare instances of success,” Sevi noted, highlighting how uncommon it is for floor-crossers to thrive politically.
Author's Summary
Floor-crossing in Canadian politics, once tolerated, now carries high electoral risks, making political survival outside one’s original party a rare achievement.