Bingo. That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question. Right now Canada is a functioning (if somewhat Balkanized) democracy with a relatively laid-back attitude to drugs, support for gay marriage, a federal government which seems to care about balancing the books, a distinct voice in world affairs (even if that voice is bit ineffectual at the moment), and a large number of political parties which cater to a wide array of voters. We’ve got our problems, but you haven’t named one which would actually be solved by joining the Union, nor one benefit that would outweigh giving up most of the items on that list above.
That, at least, is not a problem. Louisiana also has a civil code.
[stanley kowalski]
Y’see, in Louisiania we got da Napoleonic Code, which sez what’s da husband’s da wife’s and what’s da wife’s da husband’s . . . Under da Napoleonic Code, a husband’s gotta take an interest in his wife’s business . . . especially when dey got a baby comin’.
[/stanley kowalski]
Exactly. PR would not get that concession from the rest of the US, but Quebec would ***demand ***it.
Come on BG. Unless you’re calling for Canada to become a single state, the provinces would wind up aligning along region lines and thus any collective influence would diminish and disappear. “Canada” would have zero influence since it wouldn’t exist anymore.
Make Canada a single state and it has the relative influence of California or Texas. Large maybe, but hardly a fair exchange for its own sovereignty.
Oh well then I guess those 260 million Americans are such good sports they’d simply accomodate them then. You think the SW might suddenly find a number of people demanding Spanish equality?
You shoudl ask a mod to change that last post. You attributed my post to BG.
Damn. :smack:
I rate the odds of Canada joining the US as somewhat less than that of the Dems going Libertarian (as has been suggested in several threads) in 2008…which is to say the snowball would have a better chance in hell.
Now, Mexico…thats got a bit better of a chance than that snowball in hell. Not a lot better, but a bit better. There are distinct advantages to Mexico by joining the union and giving up its sovereignty. There are even some advantages to the US of bringing Mexico into the union, though they are all long range (think East Germany officially joining West Germany).
-XT
While the idea has appeal (the US could use an influx of smart folks 
), I must point out that Canada has enough problems uniting with Quebec as it is. Trying to merge with two dozen states that just voted for four more years of Bush would be too much for our northern neighbors to handle, I fear.
The other problem besides getting Canada to agree, would be getting the** US to agree**. The OP asks if it would “help” to unite with Canada, assuming that the US needs “help” to extricate itself from the Republicans. But it’s the very same people who voted the Republicans in who would have to vote to let Canada join us. Why would they do that? Many “red state” Americans probably overestimate, if anything, how much more liberal Canada is than the US. Why would these people vote to let Canada in the Union if they expeced that those very Candadians would reduce their political clout?
Looks like a lose/lose situation for most Canadians and most Americans.
Interesting.
I ran a few numbers giving every province 2 senators while the three territories snagged 1 each. I’ve discounted Washington DC since I have no idea how that fits in to the EC. So you wind up with a Senate/House breakdown of 123/538. That gives an Electoral College of 661 votes with 331 making a majority.
Now every state/province gets its share of reps based on population with 1 being the minimum. I’ve also assumed that all Canadian provinces voted for the democrats and all states that went blue go blue again.
Final numbers:
Demoracts 347 EC votes 52.5% of EC votes
Republicans 314 EC votes
Now if Alberta had gone republican the Democrats still win 340 to 321 (51.4% of EC votes). It’s hardly a massive shift and definitely not one that would lead to the collapse of the Republican Party.
Maybe something like this is in order…
Obviously, in Canada were to vote in the U.S. election, John Kerry would have won. If Canada were all one state it would be worth about 53-54 electoral votes - it would be the second most populous state, a hair behind California - and would have gone Kerry. If you break it up by province, even if you combined some, you get more electoral votes. Alberta might have gone Bush, but maybe not; Alberta is conservative by Canadian standards but moderate by American standards and most of its population lives in two very large cities.
However, it’s not so much of an impact that the Republicans would be doomed. After all, Reagan carried every state but Minnesota in 1984 (and just barely lost that) and his victory in 1980 and Bush’s victory in 1988 weren’t close at all. Furthermore, both those men would have likely carried Ontario, Alberta and some Maritime provinces at an absolute minimum; Reagan in 1984 might have taken them all. Reagan in 1984 might have taken Neptune if we’d counted the votes from there. The last two elections would have been different - but that’s assuming the Republican Party would be the same and behave the same if the United States was twice as large as it is now and had an extra 32 million citizens who vote the way people in Massachusetts do.
However, Canada isn’t going to become part of the USA tomorrow or anytime in the next century. Canadians don’t want to join the USA. Hard to believe, but it’s true.
Furthermore, it’s unlikely many American movers and shakers would be thrilled about diluting their political power; to reiterate what I said above, you’re either adding another California or ten more states, or something in between. If it had always BEEN part of the USA, then the political history and dynamics of the Super-USA would be different, and it’s impossible to say what would be happening now.
As much as I think the two countries will not form a union in our lifetimes, I would like to see trade barriers and immigration barriers dropped as much as possible. It’s possible to live in different political systems but still let people and goods flow freely across the border.
I thought NAFTA was suppose to lower the trade barriers. Is there anything (apart from easing immigration) that it left undone?
I probably wasn’t clear. I was thinking something more like Australia and NZ. I’d like anyone who wants to move to the other country and work to be able to do so. No Visa req’ts at all. And there are still lots of special interest trade restrictions after NAFTA.
So, I’m interested in eliminating the barriers, not just lowering them.
BrainGlutton, I generally like your political philosophy and agree with you on most things, but this is dangerous territory you’re treading into.
We might be viciously ironic and self-mocking sometimes, but this is a real country and most of us like it. And frankly the US doesn’t really have anything to offer except its markets, and we get those (or at least we’re supposed to) through NAFTA.
We’re already too dependent on your economy, and our own culture is already flooded with yours. At this point, many of us (myself included) are trying to look for ways to disentangle the two countries, not lock them closer together.
It’s not that we hate you as neighbours or anything, but that’s a far cry from wanting to move in together.
[QUOTE=HamishWe might be viciously ironic and self-mocking sometimes, but this is a real country and most of us like it.[/QUOTE]
OK, I can respect that. I was just thinking, if we had Canucks in Congress, maybe America wouldn’t go to war quite so often, eh?
Hah! You can have Greenland when you pry it from our dead cold fingers! Actually it’s more likely going to be the other way round!
True, but maybe we’d go to war more often.
A country is a delicate alchemy – it’s also an idea. There’s no guarantee that what makes Canada Canada would survive the transition.
Nations aren’t physical things, in spite of all the physical infrastructure built to support them. Canadians don’t come with Canadian genes. What we have is a unique history and set of circumstances that goes specifically into making us what we are.
Melt us into the United States, and what’s left? Whose dream – and a country is a dream, really, or more often severla dreams – dominates?
America is fighting a war with itself because its three dreams are becoming increasingly incompatible. It cannot continue to be New Jerusalem, the Land of (financial) Opportunity, and Land of the Free. Something’s got to give, and since democracy and freedom are the elements that require the most effort, they’re the most likely to go. Doesn’t have to be that way, though.
Your country is going to redefine itself in the next couple of decades. Its future shape is up to you guys, but it’s not going to be the America you started with. If you want to remodel your country on ours, feel free. Most of us like it, you might like it, too.
But don’t try to absorb us, take us in. You’d just destroy what makes this country unique and beautiful, even if that’s the opposite of what you intend.
Well, I certainly with the New Democratic Party had some analogue here. I mean, with that level of prominence on a national level.
Not at all. Except for a few distinctive public institutions like the Mounties and the maple-leaf flag, nothing Canadian would be destroyed by unification. There would be no flood of settlers across the former border in either direction. Canadians would go on living their lives as they do now and speaking with their distinctive regional accents. The only changes would be political.