Randy McDonald has embarked on mentally weighing the question of whether or not other nations, in their attempts to persuade the US to change its policies, might not be better served to join the US and use their votes to participate in the elections and influence the policy then. After all, the elections are often close run things, especially for the office of president these days, and the balance of power would be relatively easy to shift. He started pondering this after reading the Letter from America.
In some ways, this isn't that different than what Claudia Muir is saying about considering changing her citizenship in order to help influence the policy. Rather than merely complaining, she is talking about doing. I have to admire her for this. I wouldn't consider changing my citizenship. However, her beliefs are getting to be so strong on certain matters that she is considering the leap. I hope she makes the right decision for her.
It's not a secret that I am an expansionist. If I had my druthers, I'd be annexing right and left. There are a few countries that I would like to add to the American fold more than others and there are definitely priorities. The top two that I would want to annex, actually, would be Canada and Mexico. These two alone would resolve the issues with the gobsmacknormous borders we have with them: the remaining borders with Guatemala and Belize are far, far less. Just imagine...the border patrol restricted to southern now-Mexico. *Dreams* (sorry, don't care much for them...a few bad experiences now and again living in the NM/M border region).
I haven't wrapped my head around the idea of what the voting would look like with Mexico included in the States, but Canada is an easier problem. So let's take a look at Randy's and in a tangential way Claudia's idea. We need a little more solid situation though to drive the differences and influences home. I think it would be an excellent example if we had included Canada in the 2000 Presidential Election. How would the results been influenced? First we need to look at what the government representation would look like. How much influence would the provinces now states have?
State: Population:
So, Ontario has the pull power of Illinois or Pennsylvania, so call it about 22 electoral votes for Gore. Quebec has the weight of about Virginia, so that's another 13 votes for Gore. British Columbia has the strength of South Carolina, so that puts another 8 votes to Gore. Alberta comes in at around the same class as Connecticut, and at one time James Nicoll convincingly argued that Alberta might be a 'red state', so let's toss those votes to Bush: 8 votes. Manitoba has the same throw weight, approximately, as Hawaii....but not as pretty. The question is then which way would they swing? Would it be for Gore or Bush? James argued that they'd be a traitorous red state. I think they'd be a purple/swing state. I'll give James a benefit of a doubt and call it red: 4 votes for Bush. Saskatchewan would have 4 votes and it too would probably be a purple state, so defering to James, I'll call it 4 votes for Bush. Nova Scotia would also come in with about 4 votes and I'm going to override to say that the Maritimes are pro-Gore in this case: then 3 votes from New Brunswick; 3 votes from Newfoundland and Labrador; and 1 vote from Prince Edward Island. The native tribes seem to be a bit more friendly to the Democrats, but I can't really say for sure, but we'd end up with the Northwest Territories (1), Yukon (1), and Nunavut (1) all going to Gore.
So what's the new total?
It would be 323 Gore and 287 for Bush. Even if we peeled off the Maritimes and polar states to paint them red, it would then be 309 (G) to 301 (B). With 306 being the victory dance number, I'd have to say that Gore would have been president. If the Canucks had been Americans. And voted. That appears to give the appearance of some nontrivial influence on the elections...and course of history.
So come'on, Randy! Join the Darkside. I know that result would have been more to your liking.
In some ways, this isn't that different than what Claudia Muir is saying about considering changing her citizenship in order to help influence the policy. Rather than merely complaining, she is talking about doing. I have to admire her for this. I wouldn't consider changing my citizenship. However, her beliefs are getting to be so strong on certain matters that she is considering the leap. I hope she makes the right decision for her.
It's not a secret that I am an expansionist. If I had my druthers, I'd be annexing right and left. There are a few countries that I would like to add to the American fold more than others and there are definitely priorities. The top two that I would want to annex, actually, would be Canada and Mexico. These two alone would resolve the issues with the gobsmacknormous borders we have with them: the remaining borders with Guatemala and Belize are far, far less. Just imagine...the border patrol restricted to southern now-Mexico. *Dreams* (sorry, don't care much for them...a few bad experiences now and again living in the NM/M border region).
I haven't wrapped my head around the idea of what the voting would look like with Mexico included in the States, but Canada is an easier problem. So let's take a look at Randy's and in a tangential way Claudia's idea. We need a little more solid situation though to drive the differences and influences home. I think it would be an excellent example if we had included Canada in the 2000 Presidential Election. How would the results been influenced? First we need to look at what the government representation would look like. How much influence would the provinces now states have?
State: Population:
[note, pop fig more current than Y2K]
California 36,132,147
Texas 22,859,968
New York 19,254,630
Florida 17,789,864
Illinios 12,763,371
Ontario 12,541,400
Pennsylvania 12,429,616
Ohio 11,464,042
Michigan 10,120,860
Georgia 9,072,576
New Jersey 8,717,925
North Carolina 8,683,242
Quebec 7,598,100
Virginia 7,567,465
Massachusetts 6,398,743
Washington 6,287,759
Indiana 6,271,973
Tennessee 5,962,959
Arizona 5,939,292
Missouri 5,800,310
Maryland 5,600,388
Wisconsin 5,536,201
Minnesota 5,132,799
Colorado 4,665,177
Alabama 4,557,808
Lousiana 4,523,628
South Carolina 4,255,083
British Columbia 4,254,500
Kentucky 4,173,405
Puerto Rico 3,916,632
Oregon 3,641,056
Oklahoma 3,547,884
Connecticut 3,510,297
Alberta 3,256,800
Iowa 2,966,334
Mississippi 2,921,088
Arkansas 2,779,154
Kansas 2,744,687
Utah 2,469,585
Nevada 2,414,807
New Mexico 1,928,384
West Virginia 1,816,856
Nebraska 1,758,787
Idaho 1,429,096
Maine 1,321,505
New Hampshire 1,309,940
Hawaii 1,275,194
Manitoba 1,177,600
Rhode Island 1,076,189
Saskatchewan 994,100
Nova Scotia 937,900
Montana 935,670
Delaware 843,524
South Dakota 775,933
New Brunswick 752,000
Alaska 663,661
North Dakota 636,677
Vermont 623,050
Newfoundland and Labrador 516,000
Wyoming 509,294
Prince Edward Island 138,100
Northwest Territories 43,000
Yukon 31,000
Nunavut 30,000
So, Ontario has the pull power of Illinois or Pennsylvania, so call it about 22 electoral votes for Gore. Quebec has the weight of about Virginia, so that's another 13 votes for Gore. British Columbia has the strength of South Carolina, so that puts another 8 votes to Gore. Alberta comes in at around the same class as Connecticut, and at one time James Nicoll convincingly argued that Alberta might be a 'red state', so let's toss those votes to Bush: 8 votes. Manitoba has the same throw weight, approximately, as Hawaii....but not as pretty. The question is then which way would they swing? Would it be for Gore or Bush? James argued that they'd be a traitorous red state. I think they'd be a purple/swing state. I'll give James a benefit of a doubt and call it red: 4 votes for Bush. Saskatchewan would have 4 votes and it too would probably be a purple state, so defering to James, I'll call it 4 votes for Bush. Nova Scotia would also come in with about 4 votes and I'm going to override to say that the Maritimes are pro-Gore in this case: then 3 votes from New Brunswick; 3 votes from Newfoundland and Labrador; and 1 vote from Prince Edward Island. The native tribes seem to be a bit more friendly to the Democrats, but I can't really say for sure, but we'd end up with the Northwest Territories (1), Yukon (1), and Nunavut (1) all going to Gore.
So what's the new total?
It would be 323 Gore and 287 for Bush. Even if we peeled off the Maritimes and polar states to paint them red, it would then be 309 (G) to 301 (B). With 306 being the victory dance number, I'd have to say that Gore would have been president. If the Canucks had been Americans. And voted. That appears to give the appearance of some nontrivial influence on the elections...and course of history.
So come'on, Randy! Join the Darkside. I know that result would have been more to your liking.
Just keep in mind that Debray's narrator died as a result of his unification with the US. ;-)
ReplyDeleteyeahyeahyeah...
ReplyDeleteJust pointing out that Canada's provinces would have a pretty profound change in the course of US policy if they had been States back in Y2K. I really ought to go do balance of power in the Senate and House as well to help drive the point home.
It's also related to one of the things that seriously pisses me off whenever an election comes about these days. People talk of leaving or leave instead of fighting for change. Frex, if gays leave the States for Canada because of the Fundie Bunch around here, then the more rstrictive it becomes for those left behind. Every person leaving is one less vote, one less voice, one less bit of balance to the scales.
*sighs*
Tangents aside, come over to the darkside...just imagine the impact that Canada could have on the 2008 elections! The Great White North vs the South. heh heh heh.
There is definitely that risk of things turning out worse with the departure of moderates, true, but from the Canadian perspective there's also the risk of Canadians becoming subject to this sort of phenomenon if Canada--in whole or in part--joined the Union.
ReplyDeletefrom the Canadian perspective there's also the risk of Canadians becoming subject to this sort of phenomenon if Canada--in whole or in part--joined the Union.
ReplyDeleteTrue. There is a risk, yet from my perspective, the balance is more to the contrary. The conservatives have much more to fear from Canada joining the Union than Canada does from the conservatives. The youth vote ought to be something telling there.