perfidy

The United States has twice invaded Canada in the course of prosecuting wars against Great Britain. Despite this violent start to US-Canadian relations, on many occasions over the last two hundred years, people have proposed with varying degrees of seriousness that various bits of Canada be annexed to the United States. But for some people, that sort of piecemeal aggrandizement just isn’t enough.

For example, this website argues that there should be a complete merger of Canada and the United States. Given that Canada has only 10% of the population of its southern neighbor, they recommend that the Canadians adopt wholesale the political system and constitution of the United States. (And argue as well that the American Federal system will serve to preserve large measures of Canadian independence.

Among the benefits of such a merger would be the creation of, geographically, the largest country in human history. Most of the new territory is of course arctic wasteland, but it’s still land. The ten percent increase in population would narrow slightly the margin with China, which will be important in a couple decades when China goes imperialistic and attacks. Also, the added GNP will put us in a better position with regard to the EU. Dropping unnecessary border installations, customs, and redundant government installations will surely result in a savings for the taxpayer.

While this has absolutely no chance in Hell of ever happening, it is interesting to contemplate. (We’d have a better chance, I think, of picking up bits of Canada if Quebec ever decided to secede.) The most significant impact would be political, considering the close margins between Republicans and Democrats in the last few elections.

Consider: of the ten provinces, nine are big enough to become states, population wise. (Prince Edward Island only has 127,000 people – it would have to be rolled into New Brunswick or Newfoundland.) Of these provinces, now states, most would, thanks to their low populations, get the minimum three electoral votes. As we know, states with low populations get a disproportionate impact in the US Electoral College.

Bush won the 2004 election by five electoral votes. If Canada had been assimilated before the election, what would the result have been? Assuming that each province adopted the traditional winner-take all approach of most states, and that everyone who voted in the 2006 Canadian federal election for Liberal or NDP candidates voted for Kerry, this is what would have happened: Bush would have taken Alberta (6), Saskatchewan (3) and Manitoba (3), and lost by a whisker in British Columbia, for a total of 12 electoral votes. Kerry would have won in all the other small provinces, and gained BC (8) and Ontario (19), for a total of 36 electoral votes, throwing the election decidedly to Kerry no matter how Quebec voters went.

But, what if the provinces adopted the Maine method of determining their electoral votes? If so, then all the smaller provinces with three electoral votes would be unchanged, as would Alberta which went decidedly conservative. But, assume that Bush edges Kerry in BC, for a 5/3 split. And in Ontario, Bush would pick up six of the seventeen congressional districts for a 13/6 split. Both Kerry and Bush would likely pick up to districts apiece in Quebec, which gives us a total of 25 for Bush, 27 for Kerry. Bush would be up by three overall, and the last nine electoral votes would be in the hands of the Parti Quebecois.

The French would at last have their wish, control over America.

[wik] Ran into some other interesting sites in reading about the above: The Apportionment Paradox, Congressional Apportionment, and Thirty-Thousand.org.