Google Ads


Site Stats

Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?

by: Inoljt

Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM EDT


This is the first part of two posts exploring the political consequences that would happen if Canada became part of the United States. The second part can be found here.

A note to all Canadian readers: this post was written for the intent of a good laugh, and some serious political analysis along with it. It is not meant to offend, and sincere apologies are offered if any offense at all is taken.

Now...onto the post.

More below.
Inoljt :: Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?
Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?

Photobucket

It is November 2nd, 2004. Election night. Incumbent president George W. Bush is nervously watching election returns, joined by his family. Early exit polls showed him losing massively, but the actual results are far more favorable to him.

As the night goes on, Mr. Bush begins to feel more comfortable. He's ahead in the key swing states. Florida is going for him far more strongly than anybody expected, and things are also looking good in Ohio. It also looks like Mr. Bush has picked up a couple of states from 2000.

Although opponent Senator John Kerry has yet to concede, the celebration at party headquarters has already started. Drinks are opened. People begin cheering.

Then chief strategist Karl Rove comes in, ashen-faced. He turns to the president. "We're in big trouble. Canada and California are just about to report, and I don't think that we have the electoral votes to overcome them."

Mr. Bush is befuddled. "What? Canada's part of the United States? I always thought it was a different country."

Mr. Rove looks puzzled. "No," he says extremely slowly. "It became part of the United States after the War of 1812.  Are you all right, sir?"

Mr. Bush laughs. "Of course I'm fine. Just wasn't thinking for a moment. Of course Canada's part of the United States. Always has been."

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's presidency is not fine. Deep into the night, as the Arctic territory of Yukon finishes voting, Canada reports. Mr. Bush loses badly, gaining only 35% of the vote. Canada's 50 electoral votes go to Mr. Kerry. Early next morning Mr. Bush telephones his opponent, conceding defeat. Senator John Kerry has just been elected president of the United States.

Canada in the Electoral College

How likely is this scenario?

Well, of course Canada will not probably not become part of the United States anytime soon. Most Canadians are perfectly happy being separate from America. There is little to suggest that this will ever change.

Nevertheless, it is still quite fun to think about the possibilities.

A state's electoral vote is based off the number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. For instance, California has 53 representatives and 2 senators, making for 55 electoral votes.

According to Canada's population clock, the nation has an estimated 34,400,000 people (as of March 2010). This is slightly less than California.

The United States Census estimates its population at approximately 308,745,538 individuals. The House of Representatives has 435 individuals, each of whom represents - on average - approximately 709,760 people. If Canada was part of the United States, this would imply Canada adding 48 (rounding down from 48.47) representatives in the House.

This is a simplified version of things; the process of apportionment is quite actually somewhat more complicated than this. But at most Canada would have a couple more or less representatives than this. It would also have two senators, adding two more electoral votes to its 48 representatives.

Canada would thus add around 50 electoral votes in the electoral college:

Photobucket

These votes would almost certainly be Democratic ones. Most people would agree that Canada is a more liberal place than the United States. This is fairly apparent in the policies Canada pursues; it has universal health care and is less skeptical of climate change than the United States. It would not be too unreasonable to suggest, therefore, that Canada would vote for the more liberal party.

Canada's Importance

Adding another California to the United States would definitely be a good thing for the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, one should not overemphasize Canada's importance. After all, it's population is barely one-tenth that of the United States.

Indeed, Mr. Kerry would have barely squeaked to victory with Canada's electoral votes. In this hypothetical scenario, Mr. Bush would have just needed nine more electoral votes to win.

Here is one such scenario:

Photobucket

Here Mr. Kerry loses Wisconsin - and suddenly George W. Bush is president again.

This is an entirely possible scenario. Mr. Bush lost Wisconsin by 0.4%. A shift of less than 10,000 votes would have given Mr. Bush the state.

While the addition of Canada would shift America leftward, it is easy to overstate the degree of this. The next post will explore this topic more.

--Inoljt
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States? | 82 comments
How did your hypothetical Bush win in 2000?

Well...
Originally Canada went for Gore 60-40.

But after a lengthy recount, Republicans found box of a million missing Bush votes in Canada, shifting the electoral college to Mr. Bush. :)

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
It is an interesting idea

Sometime I think about this.

Canada as a single state? Every state of Canada as a new state of a bigger union? Greenland?

I will read with interest your point about this.

Greenland
is a territory of Denmark. But I am a little confused about the provinces of Canada suddenly ceasing to exist.

23, liberal democrat, SSP Gay Caucus Majority Whip, IN-02 (home), IN-03 (birth), SC-03 (early childhood), IN-09 (college);   DKos: HoosierD42
[ Parent ]
Two Senators for all of Canada
is oppression.
[ Parent ]
As it is for California
I wish we could forcibly merge the entire Mountain West with the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma (which, btw, I think would still be less populous than California, but I'm not looking it up because seriously, fuck those states...okay, Colorado is cool and New Mexico is harmless).

We could call it "Red State."

Nevada can continue to be independent, however. We need gambling, prostitution and open containers to be legal somewhere in this Puritan country of ours.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

[ Parent ]
Leave Montana out of it
I want Tester to continue to be senator and Schweitzer to continue to be governor.

And while we're at it, can we have NoVA secede from the rest of Virginia, and then merge West Virginia with South Virginia? I would really love that.

Male, VA-08

[ Parent ]
"then merge West Virginia with South Virginia"
Maybe not the best idea.

West Virginia, after all, has two Democratic Senators.

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
Yes I know

But I think Greenland will not keep this status by long time. I would tell not more than 20-30 years.

It would be some chance of having Greenland in that union, or merging with Nunavut? Maybe.

[ Parent ]
What if
each province were a separate state, with two senators each?  I think that would on balance help Dems in the Senate and electoral college, but not all would be Democratic.  Alberta and Saskatchewan, in particular, seem like they'd be GOP-inclined, and who knows what Quebec would do; maybe they'd elect Bloc Quebecois independents who would probably lean the Democrats' way on most substantive issues.  (And would the territories be treated as full fledged states?  I think they should, if Alaska is.)

In the House, adding Canada would be a huge Democratic boost. With so much population, Ontario, British Columbia, and probably Quebec would elect Democrats or liberal-leaning members similar to those in urban areas of nearby, mostly blue US states that would probably be more numerous than Reps from more rural, conservative provinces.

35, Male, Democrat, MD-8

At least Alberta
Should be red here.  Maybe you're right about Saskatchewan too, but there's a prairie populism there that might make it very winnable for a Tim Ryan-type Dem.  Of course, all the major cities are automatic Dem locks.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Strongly disagree
I'm an Albertan. Let me assure you that Alberta would not be GOP -- Albertans would not embrace that kind of far-right conservatism. There's a caricature of Alberta that says we're basically a frozen Texas, but it's just not true; yes, people here are generally more conservative, but that's "Canadian conservative", not "American conservative". For instance, universal healthcare is a widely popular and cherished institution in Alberta; for the GOP, that's socialism at its most bonkers.

Don't believe me? Well, I have polls!

Even in the province where Obama was least popular - Alberta - respondents favoured him by a 28-point margin over McCain. Fifty-one per cent of respondents there supported Obama, and 23 per cent preferred McCain.

Even Calgary -- a very politically conservative city -- supported Obama over McCain by a whopping 79-21 margin.

So, please, let's not be so quick to paint my province red!

[ Parent ]
Respectfully, I think social conservativsm
and socialism are more compatible than you suggest.
[ Parent ]
Well
Two things:

A) Alberta isn't particularly socially conservative. Abortion, gay marriage/adoption, etc -- these are all non-issues here.

B) Since 1996, polling has shown Canadians supporting Democratic candidates for President by extremely wide margins; not coincidentally, I submit, that overlaps well with the increasingly rightward march of the Republican Party.

GOP just ain't gonna fly here; healthcare alone would kill them.

[ Parent ]
You are confirming my toughts

In many countries the local conservative political parties are a lot to the left of the GOP in many issues.

Just the GOP views on Healthcare and Social Security would be very unpopular in every european country and maybe Canada. The same if they talk about God, the Bible and about religion. And more...

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but a lot of conservative parties in other countries
are to the left of the DEMOCRATS on many issues. Look at how many Dems voted for the Stupak Amendment, the Hyde Amendment, FISA, DOMA, etc.

Just for perspective:

Calgary's 79-21 support of Obama puts it in line with "loony liberal" capital Portland, Oregon, which supported Obama 77-21.

In the poll James cites with Albertans supporting Obama 51-23, let's assume the undecided 26% splits 2-1 for Obama. That would give Obama a margin of about 68-31. For perspective, here are some 2008 results from so-called liberal bastions in the United States:

Vermont: 67-30 Obama
Rhode Island: 63-35 Obama
New York: 63-36 Obama
Massachusetts: 62-36 Obama
Illinois: 62-37 Obama

The only state Obama won with a higher percentage than he would've won Alberta is Hawaii, which was 72-27 Obama (DC is a city, not a state, and doesn't count). In other words, even VERMONT is more Republican than Alberta would be if this poll is accurate.  

[ Parent ]
On social issues that may be true
I saw the voting pattern of Calgary posted below, but how representative of the province is the big city.  Ditto Edmonton, especially the NDP strongholds (Edmonton-Strathcona, I believe), but don't we need to make a distinction between the relatively liberal-in-a-US-sense Progressive Conservatives and the prairie dominated Canadian Alliance voters?  I mean, Stockwell Day, really? (And yes, I know he reps eastern BC, not Alberta, but the climate might be similar in rural areas.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Meant to say
Canadian Alliance, which became Reform...

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Considering
That 16 out of Alberta's 28 seats in Parliament are given to Edmonton and Calgary, the big cities are a BFD, as Joe Biden might say. In 2006, the CMAs of Edmonton and Calgary contained 2.1 million people (the vast majority of those being within Edmonton and Calgary proper) out of a province-wide population of 3.3 million.

Yeah, it's possible you might see a Republican elected in, I don't know, Mormon country down in Cardston or in the reactionary sticks around Olds or some shit like that, but by and large, there are too many compelling policy reasons that would prevent the current version of the Republican party from cleaning up on a grand scale. Rural Albertans are, by and large, fiscal conservatives, but they're not teahadists -- you won't see them volunteering to sacrifice their healthcare entitlements at the golden altar of Ayn Rand. Let's be real here.

[ Parent ]
Social conservatism?
They've had gay marriage in Alberta for over half a decade. James is absolutely right, and there's just no question that every province in Canada, including Alberta, would go Democrat. I mean, maybe they'd elect a Republican congressman up in fucking Peace River or something, but that's about as far as it might go.

How the hell could a Republican get elected in Canada on an anti-healthcare platform? It's literally impossible. Maybe if you tell some alternate-universe history where the US took over all of Canada in the 1850s and everything for the last century and a half were different, okay. But then you're just making stuff up. This game involves taking present-day Canada and adding it to the United States. And if you do that, Canada would be blue through and through.

(BUT NOT TORY BLUE!)

[ Parent ]
Then what happened to Social Credit voters?
They were the dominant party in Alberta for decades.

David, I know we've had our differences, but it is no reason for you to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about what I write.

[ Parent ]
They became Progressive Conservatives
Lougheed was seen as a modern, urban, fresh alternative -- it was arguably a progressive choice for the time.

David's thoroughly right, though. The idea that AB or SK would be GOP is ludicrous.

[ Parent ]
Progressive Conservatives on econmics perhaps
But I suggest that their social conservative values remain. In a Canada suddenly having to join the US, I suggest that voters would take a fresh look at available alternatives.

And that would be based on core beliefs.

Most Albertans were at least for the longest time, members of the Social Credit party. And their philosophy, as I understand it was a strange (to us) amalgam of "redistribute the wealth" and social conservatism.

You're welcome to say that I'm wrong, but for David to say that I'm making stuff up is something I find personally offensive.

[ Parent ]
Hah
The SoCred movement was a populist curiosity born out of tumultuous times -- the Great Depression. It moderated over time, socially and economically.

To suggest that "most Albertans" still retain the SoCred social conservatism of the 1930s is off the mark. I mean, first of all, Alberta's population has boomed since the days of the SoCreds, in large part due to interprovincial migration. Moreover, allegiances change. Attitudes change. People die.

To suggest that Albertans, if presented with, say, Mike Huckabee at the top of the ticket, would have a eureka moment and say, "Gee, I sure like this southern-fried social conservativism, especially as it pertains to rolling back civil liberties that I didn't find at all controversial before we were annexed", is quite an odd submission! If Albertans were "voting" for Obama in hypothetical polls by margins of 30% or more over John McCain, you really think the GOP would make up ground by thumpin' their bibles here in an actual election?

I really don't know what to say to that!

[ Parent ]
You misunderstood me completely
The "you" in that sentence wasn't directed at you, tietack. It was "you" in the generic sense. I'll happily rephrase so as to eliminate any ambiguity:

I could imagine an alternate history told where the US continued to expand in the 1850s and annexed all of Canada. In that scenario, then I'm sure Canada's politics would have been different than they are today. However, the problem with making the "point of departure" so far back in history is that it's essentially impossible to know what the last century-and-a-half of Canadio-American politics would have looked like. Put another way, someone writing such a story could say almost anything they want and have it come out sounding at least semi-plausible - you could have Republicans in Canada, and it would be believable. This is what I meant by "making stuff up." You're filling in 150 years of history. It can look however you want.

However, the way that people are framing things here would be "What if Canada were suddenly (or had been recently) annexed to the United States?" That's a much more interesting question, because then we can look at contemporary Canadian politics and compare them to American politics, and see how they line up with one another. But if you go this route, the conclusion is inescapable: Canada as a whole, even its most "conservative" province, would still support Democrats.

Again, that whole second paragraph had nothing to do with you, tietack. It just happened to wind up in a comment attached to yours.

[ Parent ]
Er
What conclusions were those? You suggested Alberta was socially conservative... I merely pointed out that it wasn't. If I misinterpted that, then sorry. The rest of my comment was a general riff. It was not in response to what you said.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for that amazing link.
I've heard several people say that Alberta and maybe Newfoundland would have been carried by George W. Bush.

Not being very familiar with Canadian politics, I wasn't sure whether that was true or not. If Alberta would've voted for Mr. Bush, then by definition it would be more conservative than Pennsylvania and Michigan. I was kind of skeptical hearing that. Your exit poll link appears to bear my skepticism out.

I find it interesting how Canada was pretty swingy in 1988 and 1992, only turning Democratic in 1996.

I also wonder whether Canada would've voted more Democratic in 2004 or 2008 (the exit polls have it voting similarly both times). Obama generally did better than Kerry; on the other hand, Bush was extremely unpopular outside the United States, in places like Canada. Which effect would've been stronger?

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
Bush? Popular outside of the United States? I 2004?
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, that was the funniest thing I've heard all year.

[ Parent ]
The comment says 'unpopular', not 'popular'.


18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Durr

[ Parent ]
That's good to know
Alberta is conservative for a normal western democracy. But it's more Democratic than most American states. That shows how far out there the Republican party is.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
[ Parent ]
Few things
First, wouldn't it be more likely that Canada would be broken up into territories like it is right now?

second, wouldn't you need to re-apportion the electoral votes so that it added up to 538 in the end?

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

Especially since Quebec seceding would be the most likely impetus.
Saskatchewan and Alberta as previously stated would most likely be Republican.

British Columbia probably a soft Democratic area perhaps akin to Washington but I wouldn't be shocked to see it become even more of a swing state.

The Atlantic provinces I assume would be solidly Democratic based on how they lean in Canada.  But especially if you remove governmental largess a poor overwelmingly white area whose economies depend on the extraction of natural resources (even if just fish) seems like a potentially fertile ground for Republican inroads.

Yukon however I expect would resemble Alaska.  Northwest Territory and especially Nunavut on the other hand would probably be solidly Democratic due to their high aboriginal demographics.

Ontario being the base of the Liberals would probably be Democratic.  Though they after Quebec would be the most likely to hold out joining being in many ways the heart of Canada.

Quebec I assume wouldn't join since it would be the most likely catalyst for any collapse of Canada.  If it were to join it could literally do anything.  While there is hostility towards the current conservatives it is an area with conservative tendencies.  I couldn't hazard a guess except to say I don't see a scenario where they don't elect to remain independent in the event of a collapse of Canada.

On the other hand parts of Quebec may try to secede and join New Brunswick and Ontario.  And those voters tend to be more liberal leaning.

The big x-factor is whether those Canadians (even those who are more conservative) carry on Canada's commitment to stuff like universal healthcare.  Conversely if programs such as those aren't continued whether the lack of social welfare might inspire poor white canadians to vote purely on social issues like in the United States.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Re: SK and AB
"Saskatchewan and Alberta as previously stated would most likely be Republican."

No. Just... no.

Did you know that Canadian universal healthcare was created in Saskatchewan? That it has had left-wing NDP provincial governments from 1971-1982 and 1991-2007? And VERY left-wing CCF governments from 1944-1964?

Did you know that Alberta would have elected Barack Obama by a whoppingly lopsided margin?

Sorry if I sound touchy, but it bothers me when people paint my province (Alberta!) like it's as conservative as Texas. Trust me: it's not!

[ Parent ]
Is it like the
alternate universe Texas?

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Yeah, a liberal Texas!
Though with a very pro-resource development economic stance.

I think people have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that conservatism in Canada is, at the end of the day, liberal relative to the American political equilibrium. Analyzing Canadian politics without recognizing this truth will result in utter silliness.

[ Parent ]
A few things.
1) The collapse of the Progressive Conservatives and the confusion on the right until the Progressive Conservatives and Reform Party merger masked the strengh of the right.

Now of course the left is also in a confused state with three parties (Liberals, NDP, and Greens) splitting up the left of center vote.

But the right in recent years has performed strongly in those area.  And a right that is a lot more similar to our right than the Progressive Conservatives ever were.

2) How the popularity of different portions of the social welfare state of Canada affect politics there depends on whether the US parties actually want to adopt those programs.

If both the Republican Party AND the Democratic Party both opposed Canadian style health care with the main differences between the parties whether the state government should be required to have "exchanges" the details of which few people have a clue over or whether the state governments should be given block grants with few restrictions... then perhaps voters start dismissing the issue and start voting on other subject matters.

3) The increasing presense of energy companies and their money and their ability to present their issues as one of "jobs" against a federal government interested in "radical" environmentalism.  The United States has seen a rightward shift in states where resource extraction is a leading element of the economy.  And while it is not a given it would not be shocking to see that replicated in a province that became a state.

4) It's possible that Canadian provinces (particularly Ontario) retained a distrinctly Canadian sensibility.  But if they were to join a United States with parties that remained as they are now it's possible that they will start sooner rather than later acquire with an American style government, an American campaign finance system, and an American media also an American sensibility where their geography and demographics start taking on similar meanings to how they do in the lower 48.

Of course as Democrats we hope the opposite is true.  That like Vermont the "conservatives" see everyone drift so far past them that rather than re-adjusting to the new conservative consensus they redefine themselves as liberals.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
You're right on both counts.
I was just too lazy to do both things. ;)

http://mypolitikal.com/
[ Parent ]
I did an estimate of this awhile ago.
Assuming the House remained the same size, and all the other states lost reps (which would happen without changing the rules), we would end up with:

Ontario - 17 reps
Quebec - 10 reps
British Columbia - 6 reps
Alberta - 5 reps
Manitoba - 2 reps
Saskatchewan - 1 rep
Nova Scotia - 1 rep
New Brunswick - 1 rep
Newfoundland & Labrador - 1 rep
Prince Edward Island - 1 rep

As to how each province would lean, I think all of them besides Alberta would vote for the Democrats.  The Conservatives are dominant in Canada in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but they still don't get a majority of the vote there (Also, keep in mind the Conservatives are far less right wing than the Republicans - arguably more similar to the Democrats).  For president, it's pretty clear a Democrat would be favored, and Republicans could only be elected if something like the NDP continued to act as a spoiler.  

[ Parent ]
Okay, once again,
going by James' numbers only, Calgary's support of Obama is two points more Democratic than Portland, Oregon, and Alberta as a whole is a point more Democratic than Vermont.

I posted the full breakdown upthread, but it got lost in the shuffle.  

[ Parent ]
Congressional apportionment
Let's assume that all the provinces and territories of Canada are admitted as states. That means each of them get at least one representative and two senators. In order to ensure that the house doesn't become grossly unrepresentative, I propose a new version of the Wyoming rule, known as the Nunavut rule. Under this proposal, the average house seat would be set to the population of Canada's smallest territory, Nunavut, pop 33,000. Under this rule, California would have 1,121 representatives. I pity the redistricting commission that has to draw over a thousand districts in California.  

Male, VA-08
Yep
I also pity the ethics commission that would be in charge of such a large congress.

21,Democrat, NY-02, male
[ Parent ]
There would be some surprises
First, in Canada, Yukon, and the two other Northern Territories are just Territories in Canada. I doubt they would have standing to join as states. They'd more likely become more like Guam or Puerto Rico.

This assumes the left of center parties in Canada joins the Democratic party (Liberal, NDP, Greens)

This assumes something of a vote distribution similar to http://threehundredeight.blogs... , with exceptions

BC would be as heavily D as Washington/Oregon

Alberta is sort of like TX with Midwestern SoCons. A district or two in Calgary or Edmonton might be competitive.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba are more like the Dakotas, with a island of liberalism in Winnipeg. But there would be a couple of surprising rural districts with Bernie Sanders types of prairie populists.

Ontario would be a significant state, a bit bigger than Illinois. As the combined left of center vote in Ontario approaches 60%, I suspect it would vote more like NY, with a bit of the politics of the MN Iron Range in Sudbery and environs.

Then there's Quebec. About the population of VA, I suspect they would align differently as part of the US. There would be some islands of R around Quebec City, Ds in the city of Montreal, and separatists remaining elsewhere.

The Atlantic Provinces, no question, would be solid D (with the possible exception of PEI). Newfoundland, IIRC, nearly joined the US back in '48.

Pretty good analysis
But, does the "prairie populism" of Manitoba and Saskatchewan extend federally anymore?  They have strong provincial NDP forces, but the Conservatives are always sweeping the federal races. Why is that?

21,Democrat, NY-02, male
[ Parent ]
In terms on Manitoba
I mean outside Winnipeg of course.

21,Democrat, NY-02, male
[ Parent ]
Haven't looked at detailed voting lately
but I think enough Liberal voters would accept a Sanders type to keep out --some-- of the Steve King type alternatives that happen in the rural part of the Canadian Praries.
[ Parent ]
What happens is...
Conservatives win a vote percentage in the 40s, while the Liberals and the NDP both get roughly a quarter of the vote.  
[ Parent ]
The NDP currently has 3 Manitoba seats
It lost one in Winnipeg to the Liberals in a by-election last year (that'll probably be recaptured this election), otherwise it's NDP/Lib in Winnipeg, NDP in the far North, and Conservative everywhere else (including the outer areas of Winnipeg).

The NDP used to have 10/14 seats in Saskatchewan after the 1988 election, its previous historical high water mark (they'll probably pass it up this time around), but began to drop seats during its low point in the 1990s/2000 election, to the point that its remaining 2 incumbents in 2004 lost and they've been shut out since. That being said, they have a great chance of electing 1-3 NDPers this time around. There's also Ralph Goodale (Liberal) in Wascana. The biggest problem, IMO, other than the general drop in the NDP vote share since the 90s and the reuniting of the 2 conservative parties, is that the Saskatchewan map right now heavily favors conservatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... . As you see, Saskatoon and Regina are both split up 4-ways, taking a 1/4th of the city, its major suburb-city (Qu'Appelle, Rosetown, Moosejaw, etc.) and a bunch of rural area too. If the NDP were taking ~35% per election, this would actually favor them, but with them taking ~25% each election, they've basically failed to seal the deal in a particular riding.

[ Parent ]
The way some of these seats are gerrymandered...
...is just weird. I mean, Edmonton's districts used to be wholly within Edmonton -- which is why we'd been able to at least sometimes elect Liberals (in 1993, Edmonton elected four Liberal MPs to only two Reform MPs). Granted, some of that change is also due to the consolidation of the right, but at least a district like Edmonton-Mill Woods (formerly Edmonton-Southeast) used to be very competitive until it was weirdly expanded to include suburban areas outside city limits.
[ Parent ]
LOL
"Alberta is sort of like TX with Midwestern SoCons. A district or two in Calgary or Edmonton might be competitive."

Man, you vastly underestimate Alberta. See above.

[ Parent ]
Just wondering
How do you feel about these elections coming up James? I mean, you gotta be feeling pretty good if you're a Tory or an NDP supporter, not so good if you're a Lib :P. What's the mood over in Alberta (which is solid blue outside of one NDP riding in Edmonton-Strathcona :P)? What're your predictions, etc.
[ Parent ]
It's hard to say!
I think the consensus is that Iggy hasn't run all that bad of a campaign (though I suppose the expectations were pretty low...), but the effect is being blunted by the NDP surge. My gut read is that the NDP surge in the polls will die down in the closing days, or at least won't be as pronounced on election day. That's just my hunch, though I think similar patterns have happened in past elections for the NDP.

As for Alberta, well... we really only have 1.5 competitive seats -- one being the aforementioned Edmonton-Strathcona (my home riding! Represent!), and the other being Edmonton-Centre, which used to be held by the Liberals in one form or another for over a decade. I'd rate Edmonton-Strathcona as Tossup or maybe even Lean NDP, in large part thanks to the Liberals' graciousness in putting an utter dud on the ballot instead of their usual decent recruits. Linda Duncan's been winning the sign war in my 'hood, at least!

Edmonton-Centre is interesting, but I'd slate it as Likely Tory (whereas all other seats in Alberta are Safe Tory). The Liberals seem to be running a stronger campaign than last time with Mary MacDonald at the helm, but so are the NDP. Hawn will probably win, but I'm guessing he may end up with only around 45% of the vote.

[ Parent ]
What do you think about this NDP Québec surge?
The NDP now being #1 in Québec, and the possible spill-over into the ROC? Who woulda thought that the NDP, after being at 1 seat, would be outpolling everyone including the Bloc, and will end up being the Separatist-Slayer? Interesting stuff there, with a good enough vote-split, the NDP could end up with 30 or 40 seats there, 50 even, if they get into the 40s in support.
[ Parent ]
It's pretty remarkable
I haven't had time to really follow it too closely (in the middle of law school exams), but one piece of analysis I read says that their QB support doesn't appear to be geographically concentrated -- i.e., with first past the post, they may not get the number of seats that they deserve in QB. Unlike the Tories, who could garner, say, 10% in QB and still win a bunch of seats in the Quebec City region based on their strength there.
[ Parent ]
I suspect even 1 or 2 of the Tory seats in QC to go
Like Beauport-Limoilou. Conservatives weren't popular after not building a hockey rink in QC, and that riding in particular shows the NDP within striking distance. I find it funny how people are STILL saying that they don't know if all those votes are to be translated into seats. It's on the edge  of ridiculousness, the Bloc got 38% of the vote last time around and got 48 seats, the Conservatives got 21% and 11 seats (1 was won in a by-election i suppose). You'd think that if polls started to say that the NDP is at 36% in Québec, that they'd win somewhere around 30 seats rather than asking "can you win more than 5 seats in Québec?" like they have. But I guess those kinds of arguments are par-for-course in trying to keep the NDP from overtaking the Liberals :P
[ Parent ]
I
was just watching a speech by NDP leader Jack Layton in Edmonton touting the fact they knocked off a Conservative MP in Edmonton in 2008.



19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
NDP campaign kick-off at the Art Gallery of Alberta
Right in the heart of downtown Edmonton at Sir Winston Churchill Square. :)
[ Parent ]
If Canada & Mexico were added...
To The US, our entire political system would undergo a radical change. Both are more accustomed to parliamentary democracy, so there are multiple parties with different ideological breakdowns. IMHO it would be very possible for The Green Party to combine with Canada's Greens & NDP, and with Mexico's PRD, and start winning for real in British Columbia and Mexico City, and maybe even Quebec should they make a deal with Bloc Quebecois on home rule. Democrats might have to consider forming a coalition government with the Greens/NDP/Bloc/PRD (akin to what Canada's Liberals have already had to learn, and what PRI & PRD may have to do in the future in Mexico) to gain power in the future.

Republicans, meanwhile, would face a very difficult choice of whether to moderate on social issues to win more Canadian votes and/or drop the anti-immigrant xenophobia to win more Mexican votes.

It would certainly be interesting to see Presidential campaigns get totally upended. Would candidates actually have to campaign in English, French, AND Spanish? In addition to all the usual bowing to Iowa farming interests, Ohio/Michigan industrial concerns, and Florida seniors, would they also have to deal with a whole new set of swing state concerns by addressing the drug cartel violence in Baja California, rebel forces in Oaxaca, and Native Canadian concerns in Manitoba?  

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

Mexico too?

Uhh, I see it a lot more difficult.

[ Parent ]
A GOP-PAN Alliance
Would be quite natural, even more so than a GOP-CPC one. They basically are the same party on both economic and social issues, and immigration would not be an issue if all Mexicans would be citizens anyway.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent
[ Parent ]
It might at first glance...
But honestly, the "immigration issue" for the radical right here in The US stems from more than just concerns about "border security". Would teabaggers here really welcome Felipe Calderon with open arms? I'm sure mainstream conservatives and moderate R's would, OTOH.

If anything, I suspect our GOP would fracture over "TEH CUL-CHURRR WARZZZ!!!" as one faction would merge with Canada's Conservatives and Mexico's PAN, while the other morphs into more of a European style radical right nativist party (think BNP, Jean Marie Le Pen, and the Finnish party that finished 3rd in their recent election).

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
As European native I can tell you this would be the reality now

The GOP sound like these groups.

Even many of these far-right european groups call not to destroy the Social Security.

[ Parent ]
What country are you from?


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
he's from
spain. basque, i believe

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)
[ Parent ]
I've wondered that for sooo long.


23, liberal democrat, SSP Gay Caucus Majority Whip, IN-02 (home), IN-03 (birth), SC-03 (early childhood), IN-09 (college);   DKos: HoosierD42
[ Parent ]
Like previous commenters tell I born in the Basque Country

[ Parent ]
An interesting question
Is how history would have changed had we annexed all of Mexico in 1848. There was a large Northern lobby who felt that simply taking the West would help the South in the Senate, but that adding a large anti-slavery population in Mexico would have balanced them out.

Would their have been a civil war? Would Mexico have left? Would the US remain a major oil producer?

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
You've got it backwards
Many Southerners felt that adding the free states and territories of the West would help the North, and they wanted to annex Mexico and/or Cuba, which would be slave states.

The idea of the U.S. eventually taking possession of Cuba was mooted up until the Castros overthrew Gen. Batista in the 1950s, though it wasn't really given much credence after Washington and Madrid ultimately decided to leave the question of ownership of Cuba off the table while negotiating an end to the Spanish-American War.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
P by P ; Mex
I think this post is fascinating BUT one similar to this one in the future should do the Canada calculation province-by-province so a more exact view may be seen.

Also, I hope you do a Mexico post.

Canada that liberal?
I don't know a whole lot about Canada politics but I think it's impossible that Canada is THAT liberal. Also, I think that if Canada gets to be part of the Union they may get more conservative. For example, Fox News/James O'Keefe may uncover corruption or wrongdoings in the Canadian healthcare system.
It's actually illegal
To impersonate a pimp in Canada, thanks to the strong pimps' rights movement there.
[ Parent ]
Would you say they have a...
Strong Pimp Hand?

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
[ Parent ]
Had to pick on Wisconsin, didn't you?
:P
Well, you guys were the closest state in 2004!
Your fault for being so swingy ;)

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
You mean it's our fault for having the decency to go democratic?
As opposed to say, Ohio? :P
[ Parent ]
After re-electing Prosser, I can't give you guys the benefit of the doubt
Sorry. Maybe if Wauke$ha secedes and forms its own state, I will forgive Wisconsin. But until then, sorry.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Waukesha can go to hell.

[ Parent ]
It'll be a short drive


21,Democrat, NY-02, male
[ Parent ]
Also, while I'd love it if Waukesha was it's own state as a Wisconsinite
As an American, I don't want the rest of you guys to have to deal with the Senators and House Members they'd elect.
[ Parent ]
I propose a solution
let's just make them a territory and give them nonvoting delegates. Then once they learn not to be so douchey, they can maybe get statehood.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Fun, but who knows
In this thought experiment Canada was absorbed by the U.S. in 1812. There would be no gay marriage or universal health care, well maybe there would, but who knows? So Alberta could very well be lean GOP as history progressed.

Fun to think about though.  

Snowbirds
As someone is somewhat bitter at all the growth in my Sunbelt state, I have no doubt that their 50 would diminish a little each decade as they move south.  If it's part of the USA, they won't need any visas or whatever.  There's no way they'd stay put; already the vast majority of Canada lives in the extreme southern tier.  I wonder how this would all factor in in years to come.

28, male, NC-13 formerly NC-01, 04, 05, 07, 11
Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States? | 82 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox