It would be the world’s largest nation beating Russia by ≈1.89 million square km.
Combined GDPs would be 27.6 Trillion ≈10 Trillion higher than Chinas 17.9 Trillion
I don’t think many Americans would think too much of it but I don’t think the majority of Canadians would be thrilled with such a plan.
> Combined GDPs would be 27.6 Trillion ≈10 Trillion higher than Chinas 17.9 Trillion
It would probably be WAY higher. The more sparsely populated northern and western parts of each nation near the border are more populated in this timeline, we could negotiate better trade deals, tariffs, and port access working instead of one unit instead of competitors, take advantage of free interstate commerce between the nations instead of import/export costs cutting into economic activity, and Canada wouldn't have been forced to give the British Empire such a sweetheart deal on its resource extraction, particularly copper. Not to mention the higher tax/resource base could be spread more evenly across all territories, all boats lifting with the rising tides.
The numbers I'm using are just the combined GDPs of Canada and the US. But let's be real, if they joined forces, it wouldn't suddenly turn Canada's frozen north into a bustling metropolis. It's always been pretty empty up there, for reasons that have nothing to do with the US being next door. Sure, a mega-nation might have more sway and a fatter GDP, but who knows when or if that'll happen? I'm just assuming we're crunching the numbers right after the merger or a deal, to keep it grounded.
About the same as I said above. Neither country did much in the 30 years after Independence would materially impact the effects I described.
Politically, the admission of Canadian provinces as States could upset the free/slave balance. Given that slavery was dying out naturally prior to the popularization of the cotton gin bringing it back in full force, there is a chance that the USA abolishes slavery peacefully in the 1830's, similar to when the UK/Canada banned it.
Almost 350 million people would immediately lose certain civil rights, as they aren't as specifically enumerated or protected in Canadian law to the extent they are in the US, or at all. These do include the right to own, carry and use firearms; as well as freedom of speech, protest and worship. We can debate for weeks or decades about whether that is good or bad, but ultimately that's not the point here.
Most Americans would probably balk hard and loud if their nation was subsumed into another. Too much national pride and the old "Screw You! I'll do what I want!" American mentality.
We do but It’s referred to as freedom of expression in our charter of rights and freedoms so a lot of Americans like to pretend it doesn’t count for some reason.
It's because the government can suspend it anytime they want by passing a law. If our government passed a law to suspend the first amendment it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional and struck down
It would require an amendment to repeal an amendment which requires 2/3rds of the states on board. Itll never happen , especially one as sacred as the first amendment
Yep you are correct. For it to happen it would be astronomical. But I think it's actually 3/4 of state to agree. 2/3 to call the convention together (if done by the states, if by Congress still 2/3).
It's like a quarter landing on its side. It's not zero chance, it's near zero.
Does it require the states to support it or just the representatives of the states?
Cause representatives can be easily swayed or threatened by a possible authoritarian government.
Keep in mind that all non-socialist parties voted for Hitlers enabling act in Weimar Germany.
Your government literally [proposed a bill this year](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/) that would give people life in prison for saying mean things on the internet...
The only thing standing between you and that bill becoming law is the will of a couple MP's. In America, where we actually have free speech, such a bill would be DOA and is not a concern.
I also wouldn't pretend the Canadian bill is so unrealistic, considering your fellow crownlands [are passing it left and right.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/europe/scotland-hate-crime-law.html)
Man, I’m born in Pennsylvania and lived here my whole life, and I’m here to tell you that the only thing standing between you and the Bill of Rights being functionally dissolved is a few Supreme Court justices that just came back from their upteenth fascist-sponsored vacation.
We don't have life imprisonment? And if an individual is spreading hate speech that leads to violence or mass shootings should there not be consequences?
> We don't have life imprisonment?
"Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include a new hate crime offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the most serious cases."
> spreading hate speech that leads to violence or mass shootings should there not be consequences?
No, because arresting people for otherwise free speech "that leads to" actions done by completely unrelated third parties is a disgustingly authoritarian standard that has no role in a modern liberal society.
Mark Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye told him to murder John Lennon. Should J. D. Salinger be arrested for hate speech? If someone sees a bunch of Palestinian protestors chanting how Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, so goes and shoots up the Canadian Centre for Israeli and Jewish Advocacy's headquarters, should we round up the Palestinian protestors for hate speech?
>"Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include a new hate crime offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the most serious cases."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_the_United_States
there's a material difference in capital punishment between Canada and the US. Canadian life imprisonment is not like American life imprisonment and if someone commits high treason or directly aids in a murder they probably should get life.
>No, because arresting people for otherwise free speech "that leads to" actions done by completely unrelated third parties is a disgustingly authoritarian standard that has no role in a modern liberal society.
>Mark Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye told him to murder John Lennon. Should J. D. Salinger be arrested for hate speech? If someone sees a bunch of Palestinian protestors chanting how Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, so goes and shoots up the Canadian Centre for Israeli and Jewish Advocacy's headquarters, should we round up the Palestinian protestors for hate speech?
So how about people inciting others to violence directly? Say Chris Barber goes on social media and says to bomb the liberal convention then someone who's directly involved with Barber online goes and does it should there not be some form of punishment or is what you say online supposed to be free from consequences in your mind?
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Not sure what else to tell you.
We recognize there is an amount of such freedoms that Canadians have, but they are not the exact same as those same freedoms would be in the US. The degree and flavor of those freedoms is different between the two countries. There are also freedoms in both countries that one nation would consider a core right bestowed by God which cannot be restricted or revoked, but the other is more of a privilege or allowance which CAN be limited or deleted entirely by the Government at large or by a single executive's whim decree.
Almost like we're talking about two different countries with two separate histories, national cultures and needs.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
lol to even compare the US’s first amendment to British and Canadian freedom of expression is ridiculous. British police regularly arrest people for what they deem offensive tweets.
I didn’t make the original comparison lol. Person I replied to implied that Americans freedom of speech and religion is limitless which it is not. That’s all I had to say lol
It doesn't count because the [Canadian government can order banks to freeze the savings accounts](https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649) of anyone who dares protest against them.
You have had that in the states for even longer than we have. America got it as part of the Patriot act in the early 2000s. The Canadian law was the PC(ML)TFA act of 2014. So not sure what you're saying here bud?
Good news everybody! Contrary to popular belief, Canadians are actually pretty free. From the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html):
>Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
>
>(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
>(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
>(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
>(d) freedom of association.
These are freedoms are upheld by British law, on which the government in many former colonies and all former dominions is based, by the constitution, and in principle by the Commonwealth of Nations.
It's worth noting that in the list of most democratic countries, Canada also scored 8.69 at 13th place according to [World Population Review'](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries)s democracy index. The United States, at 29th place, scored 7.85. Australia scored 14th and the UK 18th.
I think that's a victory for the Westminster System.
That's a questionable methodology when the UK ranks so high. They have a king and a non-democratic house of lords. Their revolving door of prime ministers and the numerous brexit fiascos makes it hard to see why they'd be ranked higher than the US if you're judging it by results either.
And here we go: one more person that believes that monarchies can not be a democracy. Let me guess, you think that absolutism still exist in European royalties?
I think it would be fair to ding them a couple points for an unelected head of state. It is a position of power, even if it's unclear to the public when and how much they try to wield that influence.
My bigger issue is the house is lords. Admittedly as an American I only have a passing understanding of the institution, but it strikes me as something closer to aristocracy than democracy.
It seems to work for them, but it's hard to accept a ranking that lists America is a "flawed democracy" because people didn't like COVID restrictions and the UK gets counted as a "full democracy" when it's actually a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy wearing a trench coat.
I agree with you on that. United States isn't a flawed democracy. Maybe with some issues, but every country has their own internal problems.
About the UK's House Of Lords, in my understanding, act as a revising chamber, meticulously examining and debating proposed laws. They can propose amendments to improve legislation and identify potential flaws the House of Commons might have missed.
They question ministers, debate policies, and can propose votes of no confidence. This keeps the government on its toes and ensures transparency. Unlike the Commons, membership in the Lords isn't solely based on elections. Lords can be appointed for life due to their expertise in various fields, bringing valuable knowledge and experience to the table.
The thing is: is it necessary?
The House of Lords is criticized for being undemocratic as most members aren't directly elected by the public. The hereditary system of appointing some peers is seen as outdated and out of touch with modern society (tho they forget that just like a Crown, it means tradition).
The House of Lords' role is debated. While some argue for a fully elected upper house, others believe the current system provides valuable checks and balances.
And this American can confirm, we like Canada where it is; out of American politics and keeping us from floating into the Arctic.
I love Canada ... just from a distance. As the old adage goes; we'll stay with our kind, you stay with your kind :)
A significant number of Americans would be happy to give the Jersey Shore to Canada or an independent Quebec right now, as long as they promise to keep it.
I would argue that most of those Americans don’t realize what a treasure they’d be giving up. The Jersey beaches have this amazing gradually sloping configuration that gives you a great combination of recreational area, safety, and decent body surfing. And they’re close enough to the Gulf-stream, that you don’t get instant blue lips like you do off Nantucket.
If you’re talking about the TV show, then, yeah
Assuming each province is a state, Democrats would gain 17ish senators and 36ish reps, Republicans would gain around 3 senate seats and 10 in the house.
Assuming the change happens in 2024, Republicans would be understandably pissed. Assuming the country sticks together, Republicans would be urged move left in order to appeal to a broader base. Instead they'd embrace Make North America Even Greater as a slogan.
Globally, not much changes as both countries are fully aligned on foreign policy and already have an FTA, but domestically both countries political systems get totally overhauled. Canada would completely break the American system due to its uneven population distribution and much more left wing electorate. Funnily enough, the new country would more likely adopt the Westminster style system of Canada which is more malleable. The MAGA wing in America would also be totally frozen out of power which could have some interesting ramifications too.
Yeah, there's a lot of good that both would bring to the table, but considering how dysfunctional American politics is today, I think we'd all be better off adopting more of Canadian government.
It depends. Would America absorb Canada, or would Canada absorb America?
I'd be happy if Canada was part of the US: more places to travel to! But not the other way around (although free healthcare sounds nice...).
The new North American nation would throw English monarchy out again unless Canada was on top in which case the US Constitution's founding spirit would be stretched over a barrel while redshirts and royalists have their way with it and its citizens and its economy and its destiny on Earth.
If Canada wanted to become part of the US, we'd welcome them and appreciate the many more liberal values they would bring. It would change the US senate greatly by having so many more liberal senators. It would also expand trade between the areas with no national border. Many Canadians have served in our armed forces, so anyone complaining about them joining us can go to hell.
Not zero chance because Canada would boost our economy on the whole, but some would be reluctant. Look at how they've dragged feet in turning either DC or PR into states.
I also don't think adding more leftist senators, and especially ones who are more to the left, is as important as removing the fossils who have held office since before Eisenhower won the Big War. And then holding the new ones accountable with an iron grip of the Constitution. Far too many laws currently in force are so blatantly idiotic, nonsensical, racist, classist, and/or generally are illegal themselves.
Plus you'd have the Quebecois trying to seize control and force everyone and everything to speak their bastardized French! Just ask any Canadian from any other province about how Language Nazi they are in Montreal. Mon grille-pain ne sera pas obligé de parler Français!!
Don’t worry, if you look at the gop, they have tons of young lunatic fossil replacements. It’s about the powers they serve, and those powers have never been more motivated to keep things the way they are or worse.
This would require quite a dramatic PoD, perhaps Britain joins the Axis and Canada joins the USA for security? Back in the 1940s, there wasn't so much political difference between the two countries as there is now.
Had Britain, in Churchill's words, fallen under the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, I think Canada would seek closer relations with the US. We did see Australia seek closer relations with the US "free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom" following the loss of Singapore so I think Canada would do the same.
That said I'm not sure if it would be in a merger with the US, or simply the British government continuing the war from exile in Canada.
I'm not sure if the war could be won or not, but I do think in that timeline, even with an allied victory, the United States would be even more dominant in the Free World following the war since the British Empire would be much weaker.
It would be the world’s largest nation beating Russia by ≈1.89 million square km. Combined GDPs would be 27.6 Trillion ≈10 Trillion higher than Chinas 17.9 Trillion I don’t think many Americans would think too much of it but I don’t think the majority of Canadians would be thrilled with such a plan.
> Combined GDPs would be 27.6 Trillion ≈10 Trillion higher than Chinas 17.9 Trillion It would probably be WAY higher. The more sparsely populated northern and western parts of each nation near the border are more populated in this timeline, we could negotiate better trade deals, tariffs, and port access working instead of one unit instead of competitors, take advantage of free interstate commerce between the nations instead of import/export costs cutting into economic activity, and Canada wouldn't have been forced to give the British Empire such a sweetheart deal on its resource extraction, particularly copper. Not to mention the higher tax/resource base could be spread more evenly across all territories, all boats lifting with the rising tides.
The numbers I'm using are just the combined GDPs of Canada and the US. But let's be real, if they joined forces, it wouldn't suddenly turn Canada's frozen north into a bustling metropolis. It's always been pretty empty up there, for reasons that have nothing to do with the US being next door. Sure, a mega-nation might have more sway and a fatter GDP, but who knows when or if that'll happen? I'm just assuming we're crunching the numbers right after the merger or a deal, to keep it grounded.
I also assumed we united in 1776, not 2024.
What about if the US won the War of 1812 and annexed Canada?
About the same as I said above. Neither country did much in the 30 years after Independence would materially impact the effects I described. Politically, the admission of Canadian provinces as States could upset the free/slave balance. Given that slavery was dying out naturally prior to the popularization of the cotton gin bringing it back in full force, there is a chance that the USA abolishes slavery peacefully in the 1830's, similar to when the UK/Canada banned it.
lol all is well. It’s all make believe anyways it’s not serious:))
Am Canadian can confirm, not being American is the one thing we got going for us
What if instead... the Americans became Canadian?
Almost 350 million people would immediately lose certain civil rights, as they aren't as specifically enumerated or protected in Canadian law to the extent they are in the US, or at all. These do include the right to own, carry and use firearms; as well as freedom of speech, protest and worship. We can debate for weeks or decades about whether that is good or bad, but ultimately that's not the point here. Most Americans would probably balk hard and loud if their nation was subsumed into another. Too much national pride and the old "Screw You! I'll do what I want!" American mentality.
Wait Canadians don't have freedom of speech, protest or worship?
We do but It’s referred to as freedom of expression in our charter of rights and freedoms so a lot of Americans like to pretend it doesn’t count for some reason.
It's because the government can suspend it anytime they want by passing a law. If our government passed a law to suspend the first amendment it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional and struck down
But we could repeal every amendment if we really wanted to. It's possible. Highly unlikely. But technically we could vote out rights away.
It would require an amendment to repeal an amendment which requires 2/3rds of the states on board. Itll never happen , especially one as sacred as the first amendment
Yep you are correct. For it to happen it would be astronomical. But I think it's actually 3/4 of state to agree. 2/3 to call the convention together (if done by the states, if by Congress still 2/3). It's like a quarter landing on its side. It's not zero chance, it's near zero.
Does it require the states to support it or just the representatives of the states? Cause representatives can be easily swayed or threatened by a possible authoritarian government. Keep in mind that all non-socialist parties voted for Hitlers enabling act in Weimar Germany.
Your government literally [proposed a bill this year](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/) that would give people life in prison for saying mean things on the internet...
Yes, our terrible government proposed a terrible bill. What’s your point?
The only thing standing between you and that bill becoming law is the will of a couple MP's. In America, where we actually have free speech, such a bill would be DOA and is not a concern. I also wouldn't pretend the Canadian bill is so unrealistic, considering your fellow crownlands [are passing it left and right.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/europe/scotland-hate-crime-law.html)
Man, I’m born in Pennsylvania and lived here my whole life, and I’m here to tell you that the only thing standing between you and the Bill of Rights being functionally dissolved is a few Supreme Court justices that just came back from their upteenth fascist-sponsored vacation.
And your government passed the Patriot and Freedom Acts that have done more to undermine Patriotism and freedom in your country.
We don't have life imprisonment? And if an individual is spreading hate speech that leads to violence or mass shootings should there not be consequences?
> We don't have life imprisonment? "Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include a new hate crime offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the most serious cases." > spreading hate speech that leads to violence or mass shootings should there not be consequences? No, because arresting people for otherwise free speech "that leads to" actions done by completely unrelated third parties is a disgustingly authoritarian standard that has no role in a modern liberal society. Mark Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye told him to murder John Lennon. Should J. D. Salinger be arrested for hate speech? If someone sees a bunch of Palestinian protestors chanting how Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, so goes and shoots up the Canadian Centre for Israeli and Jewish Advocacy's headquarters, should we round up the Palestinian protestors for hate speech?
>"Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include a new hate crime offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the most serious cases." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_the_United_States there's a material difference in capital punishment between Canada and the US. Canadian life imprisonment is not like American life imprisonment and if someone commits high treason or directly aids in a murder they probably should get life. >No, because arresting people for otherwise free speech "that leads to" actions done by completely unrelated third parties is a disgustingly authoritarian standard that has no role in a modern liberal society. >Mark Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye told him to murder John Lennon. Should J. D. Salinger be arrested for hate speech? If someone sees a bunch of Palestinian protestors chanting how Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, so goes and shoots up the Canadian Centre for Israeli and Jewish Advocacy's headquarters, should we round up the Palestinian protestors for hate speech? So how about people inciting others to violence directly? Say Chris Barber goes on social media and says to bomb the liberal convention then someone who's directly involved with Barber online goes and does it should there not be some form of punishment or is what you say online supposed to be free from consequences in your mind? Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Not sure what else to tell you.
Who gets to decide though? That’s the slippery slope
So those protesters didn’t have their bank accounts frozen? Was that made up
We recognize there is an amount of such freedoms that Canadians have, but they are not the exact same as those same freedoms would be in the US. The degree and flavor of those freedoms is different between the two countries. There are also freedoms in both countries that one nation would consider a core right bestowed by God which cannot be restricted or revoked, but the other is more of a privilege or allowance which CAN be limited or deleted entirely by the Government at large or by a single executive's whim decree. Almost like we're talking about two different countries with two separate histories, national cultures and needs.
They have different rights that do the same basic thing but aren't baked into the inherent governmental structure
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
But when you can be censured, fined, or jailed for your beliefs and speech, is it really a freedom?
Plot twist there are restrictions on both of those in America.
lol to even compare the US’s first amendment to British and Canadian freedom of expression is ridiculous. British police regularly arrest people for what they deem offensive tweets.
American police regularly kill people for... Take your pick. There's a whole menu of options.
I didn’t make the original comparison lol. Person I replied to implied that Americans freedom of speech and religion is limitless which it is not. That’s all I had to say lol
But if it doesn't say constitution it doesn't count! /s
It doesn't count because the [Canadian government can order banks to freeze the savings accounts](https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649) of anyone who dares protest against them.
You have had that in the states for even longer than we have. America got it as part of the Patriot act in the early 2000s. The Canadian law was the PC(ML)TFA act of 2014. So not sure what you're saying here bud?
Good news everybody! Contrary to popular belief, Canadians are actually pretty free. From the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html): >Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: > >(a) freedom of conscience and religion; >(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; >(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and >(d) freedom of association.
These are freedoms are upheld by British law, on which the government in many former colonies and all former dominions is based, by the constitution, and in principle by the Commonwealth of Nations. It's worth noting that in the list of most democratic countries, Canada also scored 8.69 at 13th place according to [World Population Review'](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries)s democracy index. The United States, at 29th place, scored 7.85. Australia scored 14th and the UK 18th. I think that's a victory for the Westminster System.
That's a questionable methodology when the UK ranks so high. They have a king and a non-democratic house of lords. Their revolving door of prime ministers and the numerous brexit fiascos makes it hard to see why they'd be ranked higher than the US if you're judging it by results either.
And here we go: one more person that believes that monarchies can not be a democracy. Let me guess, you think that absolutism still exist in European royalties?
I think it would be fair to ding them a couple points for an unelected head of state. It is a position of power, even if it's unclear to the public when and how much they try to wield that influence. My bigger issue is the house is lords. Admittedly as an American I only have a passing understanding of the institution, but it strikes me as something closer to aristocracy than democracy. It seems to work for them, but it's hard to accept a ranking that lists America is a "flawed democracy" because people didn't like COVID restrictions and the UK gets counted as a "full democracy" when it's actually a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy wearing a trench coat.
I agree with you on that. United States isn't a flawed democracy. Maybe with some issues, but every country has their own internal problems. About the UK's House Of Lords, in my understanding, act as a revising chamber, meticulously examining and debating proposed laws. They can propose amendments to improve legislation and identify potential flaws the House of Commons might have missed. They question ministers, debate policies, and can propose votes of no confidence. This keeps the government on its toes and ensures transparency. Unlike the Commons, membership in the Lords isn't solely based on elections. Lords can be appointed for life due to their expertise in various fields, bringing valuable knowledge and experience to the table. The thing is: is it necessary? The House of Lords is criticized for being undemocratic as most members aren't directly elected by the public. The hereditary system of appointing some peers is seen as outdated and out of touch with modern society (tho they forget that just like a Crown, it means tradition). The House of Lords' role is debated. While some argue for a fully elected upper house, others believe the current system provides valuable checks and balances.
Nah as an American an tell you we’re good
And this American can confirm, we like Canada where it is; out of American politics and keeping us from floating into the Arctic. I love Canada ... just from a distance. As the old adage goes; we'll stay with our kind, you stay with your kind :)
You wouldn’t be able to sew a Canadian flag on your backpack when traveling abroad. You would now be the ugly American lol
ON, QC, BC, Prairies (with or without MAGA AB), Atlantic. I guess that Prairies would be GOP and the rest would be Dems. Québec would be a nice case
Quebec would probably still campaign on Quebec independence
Yeah but, unlimited direct access to the Jersey shore would be a nice benefit. Quebec might feel conflicted.
A significant number of Americans would be happy to give the Jersey Shore to Canada or an independent Quebec right now, as long as they promise to keep it.
I would argue that most of those Americans don’t realize what a treasure they’d be giving up. The Jersey beaches have this amazing gradually sloping configuration that gives you a great combination of recreational area, safety, and decent body surfing. And they’re close enough to the Gulf-stream, that you don’t get instant blue lips like you do off Nantucket. If you’re talking about the TV show, then, yeah
Assuming each province is a state, Democrats would gain 17ish senators and 36ish reps, Republicans would gain around 3 senate seats and 10 in the house. Assuming the change happens in 2024, Republicans would be understandably pissed. Assuming the country sticks together, Republicans would be urged move left in order to appeal to a broader base. Instead they'd embrace Make North America Even Greater as a slogan.
Globally, not much changes as both countries are fully aligned on foreign policy and already have an FTA, but domestically both countries political systems get totally overhauled. Canada would completely break the American system due to its uneven population distribution and much more left wing electorate. Funnily enough, the new country would more likely adopt the Westminster style system of Canada which is more malleable. The MAGA wing in America would also be totally frozen out of power which could have some interesting ramifications too.
Yeah, there's a lot of good that both would bring to the table, but considering how dysfunctional American politics is today, I think we'd all be better off adopting more of Canadian government.
Americans would be happy, Canadians would absolutely revolt. There is no group of people who hate Americans more than Canadians lmao
But what if Canada is the aggressor in this merger?
[Canadians be like](https://youtube.com/shorts/OBEy_VbnLyE)
It depends. Would America absorb Canada, or would Canada absorb America? I'd be happy if Canada was part of the US: more places to travel to! But not the other way around (although free healthcare sounds nice...).
You'd all have a King and would have to eat Poutine (poor bastards).
Quite a few places here in Minnesota serve it.
Are you implying there’s something flawed about Poutine?
Yes, I will say I dislike it, and I don't care if the Canadian Gestapo gets me.
You'll be lucky to make it through the night. I'm onto you eh buddy.
It would be better without the fries or gravy.
What is the time period for this happening? You'd have to go decently far back to have any serious changes that aren't just random happenings.
Two scenarios: Canada annexing States or US annexing Canada. In both cases, it should take place in a long time ago.
The new North American nation would throw English monarchy out again unless Canada was on top in which case the US Constitution's founding spirit would be stretched over a barrel while redshirts and royalists have their way with it and its citizens and its economy and its destiny on Earth.
If Canada wanted to become part of the US, we'd welcome them and appreciate the many more liberal values they would bring. It would change the US senate greatly by having so many more liberal senators. It would also expand trade between the areas with no national border. Many Canadians have served in our armed forces, so anyone complaining about them joining us can go to hell.
> It would change the US senate greatly by having so many more liberal senators. So you are saying there is zero chance of the GOP ever approving it?
Not zero chance because Canada would boost our economy on the whole, but some would be reluctant. Look at how they've dragged feet in turning either DC or PR into states.
I also don't think adding more leftist senators, and especially ones who are more to the left, is as important as removing the fossils who have held office since before Eisenhower won the Big War. And then holding the new ones accountable with an iron grip of the Constitution. Far too many laws currently in force are so blatantly idiotic, nonsensical, racist, classist, and/or generally are illegal themselves. Plus you'd have the Quebecois trying to seize control and force everyone and everything to speak their bastardized French! Just ask any Canadian from any other province about how Language Nazi they are in Montreal. Mon grille-pain ne sera pas obligé de parler Français!!
Well, the US has no official language, so they'd be pissing up a rope so to speak.
Don’t worry, if you look at the gop, they have tons of young lunatic fossil replacements. It’s about the powers they serve, and those powers have never been more motivated to keep things the way they are or worse.
This would require quite a dramatic PoD, perhaps Britain joins the Axis and Canada joins the USA for security? Back in the 1940s, there wasn't so much political difference between the two countries as there is now.
Had Britain, in Churchill's words, fallen under the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, I think Canada would seek closer relations with the US. We did see Australia seek closer relations with the US "free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom" following the loss of Singapore so I think Canada would do the same. That said I'm not sure if it would be in a merger with the US, or simply the British government continuing the war from exile in Canada. I'm not sure if the war could be won or not, but I do think in that timeline, even with an allied victory, the United States would be even more dominant in the Free World following the war since the British Empire would be much weaker.