Google Ads


Site Stats

Part 2: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?

by: Inoljt

Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 2:42 AM EDT


This is the second (more serious) part of two posts exploring the political consequences that would happen if Canada became part of the United States. The previous 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.

More below.

Inoljt :: Part 2: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?
How Important Would Canada Be?

The previous post looked at what would have happened in the 2004 presidential election if Canada had been part of the United States:

Photobucket

Democratic candidate John Kerry wins, but barely so. If 6,000 votes had shifted in Wisconsin, here is what would have happened:

Photobucket

Suddenly President George W. Bush is re-elected again.

This example probably overstates the importance of Canada. Canada's Democratic vote would probably have sent Vice President Al Gore to the White House. But before that, one has to go all the way back to 1876 to find an election when the result would have been changed by Canada voting Democratic. Indeed, before 2000 the last time it matters which way Canada votes comes in 1916.

America's presidents would mostly have been the same with or without Canada.

Here is another way to look at the picture. In the 2008 presidential election, a total of 131.2 million Americans voted. In the same year Canada held federal elections, in which 13.8 million Canadians voted. If one assumes that the same number of Canadians would vote in an American presidential election, one can make the table below:

If Canada Votes... Then Barack Obama Gains:
100% Democratic 9.53%
90% Democratic 7.70%
80% Democratic 5.83%
70% Democratic 3.93%
65% Democratic 2.96%
60% Democratic 1.98%
55% Democratic 1.00%

To be fair, these are not bad figures for Democrats. An increase of three percent in one's popular vote is nothing to sniff at. At the same time, however, it is nothing world-altering.

Let's take a look at the 2010 midterm elections. 87.8 million Americans voted for a congressional representative, and Republicans won that vote nationally by 6.8%. One can run the same numbers with Canada's 2008 federal elections to get:


If Canada Votes... Then Republicans Win By:
100% Democratic -6.81%
90% Democratic -4.24%
80% Democratic -1.60%
70% Democratic 1.12%
65% Democratic 2.51
60% Democratic 3.92%
55% Democratic 5.35%

This indicates that Democrats would have needed around about three-fourths of the Canadian vote to tie in the 2010 popular vote.


Conclusions


A Canadian 51st state of the United States would not change American politics enormously. Ultimately Canada is just not populated enough to fundamentally alter the status quo.


To be sure, the Democratic Party would probably do a bit better initially. Liberal policies would be a bit more popular; conservative policies a bit less so. Canada would help Democrats in the House of Representatives, probably giving them around two dozen extra representatives (although Democratic strength would probably be diluted by the Quebec independence vote). On the presidential level, Democrats would need the Midwest a bit less. They could win with the John Kerry coalition - but barely so.


The beauty of the two-party system, however, is that the Republican Party would eventually adjust. It would move leftwards, much as it did after the New Deal or Democrats moved rightwards after the Reagan years. Eventually, after adopting more liberal policies, the two parties would again approach equilibrium.


Now...it's a whole different story if Mexico was part of the United States (and not necessarily one that Democrats would like).


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

Except
if you went all the way back to 1876 the American political system was different enough that large parts of Canada would be solid Republican, particularly the northeast. Remember, the Democrats used to be the policy of white Southern slavery, which definitely wouldn't have gone over well in most of Canada (aka fugitive slave central) at the time.

As for the rest, I'm not entirely convinced that your conclusion is accurate. As I said when I crunched the numbers James provided in your last Canada thread, Calgary's 79-21 Obama landslide puts it on par with Portland, Oregon (77-21) and Alberta as a whole would've been about 68% Obama, which is one point more Democratic than Vermont. Canada (and the rest of the world, for the most part) is pretty solidly liberal in a way that Americans can't really comprehend because our Overton window has shifted so far to the right. I think having those 50-odd electoral votes on our side would really help things, assuming, of course, that Canada remained as liberal as it is now if it had become a part of the US, which is a very big assumption to make.  


Nice point about 1876.
Canada probably would be voting Republican back then.

I do see your point about how Canada would be voting extremely Democratic; when I wrote this post, I didn't have access to those poll numbers.

I should add a caveat: the numbers I did are probably less accurate with respect to the mid-terms. This is because Canada's turn-out is at "presidential level," instead of being adjusted for the inevitable turn-out decline that occurs in mid-terms. So the influence of Canada here is inflated.

I decided not to continue adjust the turn-out, however, since doing so involves so many subjective decisions and simply applied Occam's razor.

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
You must have some unclosed tag
That is making the comments go nuts. Could you kindly check the HTML in your diary? Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Fixed it
The HTML used for the tables was seriously wonky.

[ Parent ]
Oh, sorry about that.
I don't totally understand how HTML works, so when I post tables it's been pretty touch-and-go with that.

I didn't know it could affect stuff outside the comments.

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
It's rare
But something about your code was... special. :)

Anyhow, use this never-fail tool to make tables in the future:

http://www.bagism.com/tablemaker/


[ Parent ]
As part of the electoral college,
I think Canada would get about the same attention as New York or California. Although its 50 or so points would be a big win, I don't see Republicans spending their time trying to win there.

23, flaming Male, currently in WA-07, raised in UT-02  

Canada would get a lot of attention in the primaries, though.


[ Parent ]
Which begs the question
If Canada were a state, that would mean 50-something extra Democratic electoral votes (assuming it were admitted as one).  The GOP of course would never allow this unless other countries were annexed giving them a roughly equal number of congressmen and EV's.  What might those countries-turned red states be?

35, Male, Democrat, MD-8

[ Parent ]
This assumes that Canada is one big state
Alberta and Saskatchewan would be dark red states. Manitoba and British Columbia would be swing states, maybe Ontario would be in play too.  

This was discussed in the first part.
Dark red (or blue in this case) for Canada is not the same as Republican. Just because Alberta and Saskatchewan vote Tory does not mean they'd vote Republican.

23, liberal democrat, SSP Gay Caucus Majority Whip, IN-02 (home), IN-03 (birth), SC-03 (early childhood), IN-09 (college);   DKos: HoosierD42

[ Parent ]
AB and SK as "dark red states"?
Manitoba and BC as swing states?

Analysis fail.

Canadian politics is a little more nuanced than looking at some results on Wikipedia and making the erroneous assumption than Tory voters = Republicans.


[ Parent ]
I don't see how
that is any worse than your assumption that Liberal and NDP voters will be Democrats. Ideologically and demographically, those areas would probably be inclined towards the GOP.

[ Parent ]
Maybe because there have been polls of those regions showing that they'd favor Obama over McCain by fairly substantial margins?
I think you fail to realize how far to the right of Canadian politics American politics is. If anything, the conservatives probably line up most closely with blue dog democrats.

[ Parent ]
You really, really
Need to read all of James's comments - and check out his links - in the first thread. This zombie story about Alberta needs a shotgun taken to it.

Absolutely no one has come up with any convincing response to James's very clear, careful, and well-supported arguments that no Canadian province could support Republicans. Period.


[ Parent ]
Actually
The correct URL is here. Just control/command-F for James L. :)

[ Parent ]
I don't mean to slight you
But what you say reveals a very, very incomplete understanding of the Canadian political equilibrium. Not that I blame you; our political consensus has evolved in a significantly different way than America's. (Yes, not only am I Canadian, but I'm an Albertan, as well.)

The most obvious issue is healthcare. Universal healthcare is a very cherished institution here, even in Alberta and Saskatchewan -- so-called "dark red states" under your analysis. (Incidentally, did you know that Canadian single-payer healthcare was first implemented by a provincial CCF government in Saskatchewan?) The GOP's utter ideological incompatibility with Canadian values on healthcare would make them a non-starter in every single province and territory in this country.

Moreover, I pointed to several examples of public opinion polls in the previous thread which showed that Albertans favored Obama over McCain by Vermont-like margins. (In Calgary, Stephen Harper's home turf and the most conservative major city in Canada, Obama rocked McCain by a 79-21 margin. One commenter remarked that this is Portland, OR-style voting behavior.)

I'm going to be repeating these things until this zombie myth finally dies.


[ Parent ]
I get that Alberta is politically nothing like the GOP
And thank you James for explaining that.
But is Alberta (and western Canada) still culturally similar to the American western states, like Montana, Idaho and Colorado? Is The Nine Nations of North America accurate?

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

[ Parent ]
Not sure
I would certainly not say that Alberta is culturally similar to Montana or Idaho. For one thing, Alberta has two pretty big cities -- Edmonton and Calgary, which dominate both the population and the politics of the province. That urban focus, which is lacking in Montana and Idaho, ensures that our politics are relatively moderate and pragmatic. Where we may share some similarities are a sort of "hinterland insularism" and fiercely protectionist attitude, particularly with regards to our resource-dependent economy. Albertans constantly feel they are being ignored and/or exploited by the federal government, which produces a naturally reactionary tendency in its voting behavior.

But the people of Alberta are not culturally aligned with GOP-style values. Yes, individualism and limited government have arguably their highest appeal here, but we're not talking about teabagger-style politics of bleeding the government to death. If we shared the fundamental values of the Republican base, we'd be destroying our healthcare system in favor of privatization. Yet we're not -- and conservative governments in this province have not touched that third rail for a reason.


[ Parent ]
I wish we could have Canadian political views here
Once people have universal health care, they like it. And they never vote for politicians as conservative as the GOP ever again. That's why the Republican strategy is to make Americans afraid of universal health care. And they have succeeded all these decades.
Also Canada managed to mostly escape the financial collapse because their markets are well-regulated. But in America Republicans successfully convinced a lot of voters that the financial collapse happened because of too much government regulation.
Here's another map for you. Would you say Edmonton and Calgary are Front Range cities, despite being far away from the core of that region?

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

[ Parent ]
We may be closer than you think...
"Once people have universal health care, they like it."

Which can also be seen to some degree in the US; notice the hell that many Republicans are deservedly catching over their plans to undermine Medicare for future retirees while further cutting taxes for the rich.  Same story with Social Security and the failed attempts to privatize it (which is now apparently a bridge too far even for Paul Ryan.)  If Obama's (more or less) universal health care plan survives that may well, eventually, prove true also; even current polls show most Americans unwilling to repeal it in favor of a GOP alternative (whatever that might be--quite possibly nothing) or defund it.

As for the financial crisis, I don't think most Americans believe that too much regulation was the cause of it.  More likely it could have been avoided with more vigilant oversight of the banking and financial services industry--but of course that would be too much to ask from the dimbulbs and ideologues that were in power from 2001-08.

35, Male, Democrat, MD-8


[ Parent ]
You think the NDP will gain in Alberta?
I hear that some projections show them picking up Edmonton East, and some mention of a possible victory in Edmonton Centre (although the Liberals are running there too). Think it'll happen?

[ Parent ]
NDP gains in Alberta
I don't see it happening.

Edmonton-Centre, no. Lewis Cardinal is a strong candidate for the NDP, but so is Mary MacDonald for the Liberals. At best, I see that as a 40-30-20 type of race. I suppose you never know, though, but the Conservatives have a floor in the mid-40s here, and it's hard to see MacDonald or Cardinal cracking it. It's too bad, though -- provincially, this area elects Liberals or NDs.

As for Edmonton-East, Ray Martin, the former leader of the official opposition in Alberta, is as strong a candidate as the NDP can hope for, but, again, I'm not holding my breath. Last time it was something like 50-30 for the odious Goldring. Maybe it'll be more like 45-35 this time, but that's just my hunch. Would love to see that fucker lose -- he sure deserves it.


[ Parent ]
But as for Edmonton-Strathcona
That's my home riding; it should be close, but I'm guessing the NDP will hold it. The Tories seem utterly incensed that we dare misbehave by electing a New fucking Democrat in Alberta, but Duncan has impressed -- Hastman has not.

Of course, you can't take that to the bank -- Duncan only won by 500 votes last time and the Tories/Reform have held this riding for decades with 40-45% of the vote -- but the Liberal candidate is such a dud that vote-splitting should be minimal this time.

Looking forward to voting for Linda Duncan on Tuesday!


[ Parent ]
I'm aware that Saskatchewan was the breeding ground of Canadian socialized healthcare
But that was a long time ago, back when the South was solidly Democratic. Politics changes. Somehow I doubt that the Saskatchewan of today would champion such a program.

If you have a better metric for judging Republican reservoirs of strength in Canada, I would like to hear it. But if you are only interested in lashing out at me and calling me ignorant of Canadian politics, then I have nothing to say to you.

I don't accept the apparent implication that Canada's integration into the USA (all else equal) would realign the political spectrum in favor of the Democrats (even if, as the diary points out, it wouldn't necessarily be decisive). The Republicans would change their message and try to appeal to Canada or they would try to expand their viability in light-blue states like Wisconsin and such to compensate. Our political system ensures that each party stays near the center so that they can stay competitive. Republicans in Canada would adapt their message and tone to the area, allowing them to stay competitive there as they are in almost every part of the country.

As for that poll, it's fairly well-known that Obama received glowing praise from the international press during 2008 and was seen as the pro-internationalism candidate. I wonder how those numbers would've looked with an election that had real consequences for Calgary, rather than a poll with as much relevance as a poll over whether Brad Pitt should have stayed with Jennifer Aniston instead of Angelina Jolie.


[ Parent ]
You might be right, but
despite the fact that your party's homophobia and xenophobia are at odds with the demographic trends of the country, you guys keep electing people who are further and further to the right. So who knows?

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 ]
Here's what I suspect Rs would have to do to appeal to Canada
1) Accept the Obama health care plan. With the public option, that would pass for the "privatization" that Harper's Conservatives are being accused of wanting.
2) Expand and encourage immigration. While Canadian Tories do push enforcement, they have a number of special immigrant programs. As such, they may win the immigrant vote in this election. If Rs were to do the same, I suspect they could make inroads at least among Asian immigrants.
3) Drop social issues. Harper is reportedly a closet evangelical. His "God bless Canada" statement in '08 was I gather taken like a "dog whistle" to Canadian evangelicals.

One thing that Canada does (at least some provinces) that US conservatives would love is fund religious education.


[ Parent ]
Publicly-funded Catholic schools.
Of which I am a graduate of, grades K-12.

Speaking from my firsthand experience, they are not exactly a hotbed of dogmatic culturally and politically conservative inculcation. I had plenty of lefty teachers. :)


[ Parent ]
If the US were to use tax money for religious schools
I don't think that most US parochial teachers would be nearly so lefty.

[ Parent ]
saying "God bless (country)" is baggage?
I wish I lived in a country like that.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

[ Parent ]
...
But that was a long time ago, back when the South was solidly Democratic. Politics changes. Somehow I doubt that the Saskatchewan of today would champion such a program.

That was when the Democratic Party, at least in the South, was the conservative party.

And voters across Canada, including in Saskatchewan, continue to strongly support socialized medicine, to the point that even the furthest right major political party won't touch it. The idea that they'd just start voting for a party that views Obama's modest reforms as "death panels" because they're used to voting for the party on the right side of the political spectrum is ludicrous.


[ Parent ]
LOL
But that was a long time ago, back when the South was solidly Democratic. Politics changes. Somehow I doubt that the Saskatchewan of today would champion such a program.

Wow. If this is what you really believe, I have nothing to say to you, either! Not only do the good people of Saskatchewan "champion" such a program, they live and cherish it to this day!

If the GOP would want to adapt and compete in Canada, they would have to accept that universal healthcare is untouchable. Do you really think that today's GOP is capable of such tolerance?


[ Parent ]
They would probably have to move to the left on healthcare some, yes
But your analysis is otherwise baseless. Most voters aren't single issue people. Medicare is widely popular, yet Paul Ryan's budget, which essentially privatizes Medicare, hasn't destroyed the GOP. And in any case, this diary didn't presuppose that Canadian socialized healthcare transferred to the United States. Single-payer is massively unpopular in the US, and if the Democrats tried to position themselves as in favor of it to capture Canadian votes, it would cost them dearly elsewhere. Look how much they suffered because of Obamacare, which is essentially an early 90s center-right policy.

[ Parent ]
Universal healthcare, as the term implies
Is a much, much more robust and important part of the Canadian way of life than Medicare. We all interact with it, rely on it, and benefit from it at many, many times in our lives. Voters may not be "single issue people", but this is perhaps the biggest fonkin' issue imaginable. In Alberta, the Tories tried to introduce market-based reforms in healthcare in the 1990s, but reversed course after massive public protests. There exists no political capital to fuck with single-payer, anywhere in Canada.

And what other issues could the GOP do well on in Canada? Bible-thumping social conservative pablum has little currency here, even in the prairies.

The question is whether the GOP, as it exists today, which regards even mild forms of publicly-funded healthcare as socialism at its most perverse, could compete in Canada. The answer is no.


[ Parent ]
Doesn't Canada also have a sizable immigrant population?
Hard to see the GOP's homophobia and xenophobia playing well up north.

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 ]
Immigration
Is the only way we're sustaining our population. Our birth rate is another attribute of ours that is European-style.

[ Parent ]
Also
As an example, Alberta funds gender reassignment surgery (though they say it will be de-listed in the future as a "cost-saving" measure). It was never a controversial issue here in Alberta.

Could you imagine the GOP response to a policy like that? Glenn Beck would fucking convulse with rage.

There's a pretty big gulf between Republicanism and the political equilibrium in other Western countries.


[ Parent ]
And moreover
Medicare is widely popular, yet Paul Ryan's budget, which essentially privatizes Medicare, hasn't destroyed the GOP.

Jesus, the Ryan budget vote was April 15th - two weeks ago. Do you really propose that the only way to meet your test is that a single vote must "destroy" a party overnight? Something that's never happened in the history of ever? Even so, it's already caused considerable harm and squirming and backing away by members of the GOP. And just wait: It's going to get worse.

Single-payer is massively unpopular in the US....

Dude, you yourself just said that Medicare is "widely popular." You do realize that Medicare is a single-payer system, right? And Americans widely favor creating a Medicare-for-all system? See this Kaiser poll:

"Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all"

Favor: 58
Oppose: 38



[ Parent ]

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

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox