Canada’s electoral system has long been criticized for failing to reflect the true will of its citizens. In the most recent election, a majority of voters did not want the Liberal Party to form government. Many believed the solution was simple: if you don’t want the Liberals, vote Conservative. Yet the outcome proved otherwise — despite widespread opposition, the Liberals emerged victorious with less popular votes. This result feels deeply unfair to many Canadians.
Michael Ma’s recent floor‑crossing has made these structural weaknesses impossible to ignore. In a system where a single MP can overturn the expressed will of tens of thousands of voters overnight, without consultation (as much as he claimed he had) and without consequence, the democratic deficit becomes undeniable. At a community meeting held last weekend, staff and volunteers who had worked alongside him during the campaign described a profound sense of betrayal. Others spoke about how he appeared during the campaign for photo‑ops, promised to be a role model for immigrant youth, and then disappeared after being elected — ignoring emails, skipping community events, and abandoning the commitments he made to residents who had worked hard to help elect him. Their stories reflect a broader concern about how fragile voter trust becomes under our current rules.
I have mentioned many times that Canadian voters’ strategic voting doesn’t work. Casting a ballot against one party by defaulting to another is not a reliable strategy. Our system forces voters into a binary choice, where supporting either of the two dominant parties can still produce an outcome that most citizens oppose. And when an MP stops engaging with constituents after the election and then switches parties without warning, it reinforces the feeling that voters’ voices matter only on election day — and not a moment after.
Improving representation and accountability requires more than one fix.
Electoral reform certainly is one of the ways. Introducing proportional representation or ranked‑choice voting would ensure every vote counts and break the binary trap — which I had previously written about. Canada’s first‑past‑the‑post system routinely produces false majorities, wasted votes, and distorted regional outcomes. A party can win a majority of seats with far less than a majority of votes, while millions of ballots end up having no impact on representation. Proportional systems correct this distortion by ensuring seat counts reflect voter support, while ranked‑choice voting reduces vote‑splitting and frees voters from the fear of “accidentally helping” the party they oppose.
But floor‑crossing exposes a second, equally serious flaw: the absence of mid‑term accountability. Constituents at the meeting were clear — democracy depends on trust, and trust depends on respecting voters. Several residents pointed out that if an MP can change parties overnight, especially when the government is only one seat away from a majority, then the meaning of their vote collapses. Others emphasized that voters, not MPs, form the mandate — and that switching parties without returning to the electorate breaks the fundamental principle that representation must reflect the people’s choice.
Tightening misconduct rules for MPs is probably another. At present, MPs can only be removed mid‑term if they resign, are convicted of certain offences, or are found ineligible under the Canada Elections Act. This narrow threshold leaves voters powerless when misconduct or foreign influence is suspected but not criminally proven. Expanding disqualification criteria, introducing recall mechanisms, and empowering independent oversight would close this gap. As one neighbour noted, rights come with obligations — and elected officials should not be exempt from that principle. Another resident put it plainly: if an MP believes their constituents support their decision to cross the floor, they should prove it in a by‑election.
Canada could give citizens a direct tool to hold MPs accountable between elections. This would ensure that misconduct or serious breaches of trust do not linger unchecked until the next general vote. It would also restore a basic democratic principle that many residents voiced last weekend: voters, not MPs, determine the mandate.
Electoral reform addresses how votes translate into seats. Misconduct rules — including recall petitions — address how MPs behave once they hold those seats. Together, they form a more complete vision of accountability: fairer representation at the ballot box, and stronger safeguards against abuse of office between elections.
Canada’s democracy should not hinge solely on whether an MP has committed a crime, nor should it force voters into a binary choice that distorts representation. By pursuing both electoral reform and stricter misconduct rules — including recall petitions — we can strengthen trust in Parliament and safeguard national interests. And most importantly, we can honour the principle that every neighbour articulated in their own way: democracy begins with the voter, and it must end with the voter too.
Create Your Own Website With Webador