[Canada] Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu crosses floor to Liberals

If the statement is that "one thing is more or less than another," why would you not look at the current state?

>People elect someone to represent them. The person then does that to the best of their ability. Just for context most people/voters care about this: [https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/democracy-canada.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/democracy-canada.html) >**Canadian MPs almost always or typically belong to a political party:** **Political parties help Canadians understand** the views of local candidates and their elected MP by presenting voters with a set of priorities the political party will pursue, known as a “platform”. **Platforms can indicate what Governments will d**o when they are in power, for example, what types of laws they will introduce and how they will handle certain issues. Canadian MPs who do not have a political affiliation are referred to as **independents**. >In Canada’s system, the Prime Minister and Cabinet sit in the House of Commons: This allows MPs to question the Prime Minister and Government ministers directly in the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians. stay in power, the Government must have the support of a majority of MPs, also known as having the “confidence” of the House of Commons. Also this isn't my main argument or probably for most according to the polls but for the last time: When you say "We don't have a majority rule!" Right no sh!t, otherwise we would have elections every few months like in France/nordics or US in some places. To keep it short the system is intended to be a lot simpler at the local level to invite people to run and to vote but higher up it's intended to form a majority consensus. Two main arguments I and from some i've seen making are 1) I'll use your own words here people elect someone **based on their past and their ideas up to a certain point** which is the election and the candidate SHOULD keep this in mind over most other things. There is a reason why a majority support is required in the House of commons, this principle should apply here thats all 2. it encourages opportunistic motivations and simply **corruption** . this is the opposite of "representing to their best of their ability" so how do you know what is what? you can't so this goes back point 1: election because something else like an investigation is inconclusive and probably just as expensive. Also I just remembered that major sports leagues have anti-tampering laws. Like every time this comes up I'm even more convinced that this shouldn't be allowed at the very least it needs something like a confidence check.