Canadian History and the Risk of Floor-Crossing
Throughout Canadian history, members of Parliament who have switched political parties have provoked mixed reactions. Words like traitor, shameful, brave, and principled are often used, but rarely re-electable.
The recent defection of longtime Conservative Chris d'Entremont to the federal Liberal caucus surprised Ottawa. Prime Minister Mark Carney hinted that more similar moves could come.
A Tradition with Consequences
Party switching — or floor-crossing — has existed since Confederation. However, analysis of historical voting patterns shows that this decision has grown riskier over time.
“Switching parties is an extremely risky move that almost always hurts a politician's chances of re-election,” said Semra Sevi, assistant professor at the University of Toronto’s political science department.
Sevi's research, which examined all MPs who changed parties from Confederation to 2015, found that before the mid-20th century, such politicians often retained much of their voter support. That trend shifted dramatically after the 1970s.
“As parties become institutionalized, the electoral cost of switching has risen dramatically. So that makes political survival outside of one's party increasingly unlikely,” Sevi said. “There are rare instances of success.”
Historical Patterns and Modern Pressures
While past crossers may have survived electorally, today's party-loyal environment leaves little room for independent maneuvering. The balancing act between conviction and career continues to define those who cross the political floor.
Author’s Summary
Canada’s history of floor-crossing shows that as political loyalty hardened after the 1970s, switching parties became a near-certain path to electoral defeat.