Politics: legitimate majority?

Self-tutoring about Canadian politics: the tutor mentions the idea of “legitimate” majority.

The following is according to my understanding.

The last Canadian federal election was back in April 2025: the Liberals, under Carney, won 169 seats. Next came the Conservatives, with 144 seats, the Bloc Quebecois, at 22 seats, the NDP, with 7 seats, and the Greens, with 1. There are 343 seats in Canada’s House of Commons; a simple majority requires 172 seats.

The Liberals, though without a simple majority, seemed safe at the time. Even the Bloc and Conservatives, working together, couldn’t challenge them. Therefore, albeit a minority government, it seemed relatively stable.

What happened next was interesting, and something I can’t recall occurring before. MPs started defecting from their previous parties to join the Liberals. They called it “crossing the floor.”

The first floor crossing was back in November; the fifth happened last week. Since 169+5=174>172, the Liberals now have a majority in the House of Commons.

Yet, there is controversy about the Liberals’ majority: some people point out that those floor-crossing MPs weren’t elected as Liberals, but rather as members of their previous parties. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the voters didn’t give the Liberals a majority, but rather it’s the result of the free will of the defectors.

As I understand, in the practical sense, the genesis of the Liberals’ majority doesn’t matter; they’ve got it, and now they can use it. The philosophical question herein seems to be this: Does a voter vote for the person, or for the party? I’ve personally known people on either side of that question: some who would always vote for a certain party, no matter what, but then others who said “You vote for the candidate, not their party.”

Some people think, to settle the matter, a byelection should be run in a riding when its MP crosses the floor. You be the judge.

Source:

halifax.citynews.ca

newsinteractives.cbc.ca