Whither the floor-crosser?

I have an idea. Maybe, rather than elect Members of Parliament as standard-bearers for their respective parties, we should let them decide their party affiliation after the election. Maybe, instead of the voters deciding how many members from each party to send to Ottawa, we should leave the final composition of Parliament to the political marketplace. Maybe we should just elect 308 free agents, and let them auction their talents to the highest bidder.

Then the parties would set about trying to lure them onside -- like a giant game of Red Rover, or the NHL draft. They'd offer whatever cabinet posts or other emoluments they had at their disposal, perhaps under the constraint of some sort of salary cap. Then the various competing “teams” or “ministries” would see who could command the confidence of the House, and we’d form a government that way.

Or, at the other extreme, maybe we should ban MPs from switching parties altogether, as the latest such defection, that of Liberal MP Wajid Khan to the Conservatives, has provoked some to suggest. Maybe we should insist that, as they were elected solely on the strength of their party affiliation, so they must dance with the party what brung them -- even if the party’s principles or leadership have grown repugnant to them. Any other arrangement, on this view, amounts to a breach of faith with their voters.

Or maybe we should get real. If floor-crossing is to be banned outright, then what about free votes? Isn't an MP who votes against the party line just like one who crosses the floor? Shouldn't that be forbidden, too, in the name of holding MPs accountable to the voters who elected them?

The question, like the modest proposals that preceded it, invites us to think there are only two, mutually exclusive possibilities: either MPs vote the party line, or they vote their conscience. But most voters, I submit, want their MPs to do both. It's true that MPs are elected mainly by virtue of their party affiliation. But they are also chosen partly for their individual judgment (some more than others), else we’d need no MPs at all.

Probably MPs should have to vote the party line on platform issues, for that reason. But outside of confidence motions -- and very few bills need be matters of confidence -- they should be free to vote their conscience, or their constituents' wishes, as they see fit.

How's that different from crossing the floor? Because when a member switches parties, he does not become a free agent. He rejects one party's whip, and accepts another's. Exercising his judgment on particular votes was part of the understanding on which he was elected; binding himself to an altogether different party was not. That part of the bargain has been fundamentally altered. Which is why it’s useful to consider whether members should have to seek a new mandate from their constituents in such cases, by resigning and running in a byelection.

In all such cases? What about the MP who leaves his party to sit as an independent? What about an MP who is expelled from his party, as Garth Turner was? What about when two parties merge? Are we then to have 75 byelections?

I don’t see why you couldn’t. But let me put another case to you. Suppose an opposition MP crosses over to the government side in return for a cabinet post, or some other reward. There's no deep question of principle that impels the switch. He’s taking a bribe, basically. Or at any rate, it is unclear to what degree he was motivated by principle, and what by venality.

In that case, it's clear, at least to me: he must immediately submit his decision to the voters' approval. Quite apart from the issue of floor-crossing, we want to be sure at all times that MPs are acting on principle, and not for personal gain. It's always possible that a member may wish to join the government side out of genuine principle, and for that reason I don't think you want to ban floor-crossing outright. But there needs to be some test applied to it, some means of winnowing principle from self-interest. That is a judgment probably best left to the voters.

Must they make that judgment immediately, though? Couldn't it wait, as Tom Flanagan suggests in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, until the next election? But in a general election the fate of the individual MP is swept up in any number of other issues: the parties, their platforms, the leaders etc. In a byelection, it is much easier to focus on the particulars of the case at hand.

And that's as it should be. Integrity in those we elect is not just another issue like the rest, to be weighed against their positions on health care or fiscal policy. It is, or should be, a basic prerequisite of office. If ever that comes into doubt, it is the MP’s responsibility to resolve any doubt, immediately.

So I'm certainly comfortable with a law requiring MPs who cross from opposition to cabinet (or who are elevated to cabinet within x number of months of having crossed), to first obtain their constitutents' approval. But whether the same stricture should apply more broadly I rather doubt.