“There is a real chance of [the Liberal Party of Canada] forming a government next time,” writes Andrew Coyne in a recent Globe and Mail column, “even if they don’t win the most seats: finishing behind the Conservatives, that is, not only in the popular vote, but also in seats won.”

Coyne sees this as a potential legitimacy crisis. I share the concern—the next election could play out entirely as he foresees here—but I can’t help but see any discussion about legitimacy that does not also make an effort to reset expectations more generally as a missed opportunity.

Here’s two points about legitimacy that I’d like to see the media do a better job of qualifying for Canadians before the next election:

First, there is no popular vote in Canada. We do not practice direct democracy. Just because we can aggregate the total number of votes per party across the country does not mean that number played a role in determining the overall outcome, nor does that number affirm any sort of national mood and therefore mandate.

Second, legitimacy is maintained by whomever holds the confidence of the House—and, yes, that can include a party who wins fewer seats than another. That may not feel legitimate but it is until the House says otherwise. If a party calls legitimacy itself into question (and perhaps also provokes the Governor-General into intervening) that party can be held to account by voters during the next election.

The concept of legitimacy exists to forestall crises. If we remind ourselves that both rules and recourse exist for a reason, we can reset the bar on what actually qualifies as a crisis and therefore deserves our attention outside of an election.