Replies

Given what happen with Election 2000, that may be a dubious proposition for 2 reasons.

1) The U.S. House of Representatives gives population based representation. Provinces like Alberta or Manitoba become the new Wyoming. They contribute billions of dollars of resources, they end up having 90% of their land federally owned and they get minimal representation in congress.

2) The larger US states; CA, NY, FL etc... feel like they do not get enough say in selection of the President. They claim that since most of the voters live in their states, they should have enough electors to overpower the smaller, less populated states. Toronto and Quebec, if added to the US in their entirenty, would become large states. Manitoba and BC, probably not. The addition of large, sparsely populated provinces would further shift electoral power to smaller states and away from NY and CA. Thus, large US states would object to absorbing some or all of Canada.

It's a good point, but also why we have a Senate. The best way around this would be to have the provinces join as a single state. They would add another 10% to our population. That would give them about 5 reps?