The state government would be parliamentary, but for the election of House and Senate members they would have to use the first by the post system everyone else uses, so I don't see how it could threaten the two party system.
Newfoundland Rejects Union With Canada in 1949?
- Thread starter SlickWilly
- Start date
The state government would be parliamentary, but for the election of House and Senate members they would have to use the first by the post system everyone else uses, so I don't see how it could threaten the two party system.
Who of any stature in Newfoundland will sue? None of them are Democrats or Republicans.
Actually, no, the state government can have House members elected by the people however they want. Even today, a state could use AV or IR if its legislature voted to. (Though, Congress can overrule them... I don't think they ever have.)
What's IR, unless you meant PR.
Actually, IIRC they can't use PR, their was a court case against it, though I don't remember if it was a State Supreme Court or the SCOTUS that decided it.
People are confusing a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation. They are not the same thing. They have nothing to do with one another.
The US could use proportional representation for its state legislatures and Congressional elections if it wanted to. Furthermore, no amendments are needed to the Constitution are needed. Any state could implement it tomorrow if it wanted, and the Federal government would do nothing.
Some parliamentary democracies use first-past-the-post. Incidentally, the UK is one of these. The presence of a third party there is quite anomalous for first-past-the-post voting.
The US could use proportional representation for its state legislatures and Congressional elections if it wanted to. Furthermore, no amendments are needed to the Constitution are needed. Any state could implement it tomorrow if it wanted, and the Federal government would do nothing.
Some parliamentary democracies use first-past-the-post. Incidentally, the UK is one of these. The presence of a third party there is quite anomalous for first-past-the-post voting.
They're seperate things, yes, but neither would be accepted.
A state could try to implement it for the State legislature, but it would face the mother of all legal and constitutional battles.
And the Federal government could do soemthing as, as I've pointed out before the Congress is the one that has the power to define what is and is'nt a 'Republican form of government', and if it came to them to decide their's an 80% chance they'd declare it incompatable with such.
Actually, all in all the strict Two-Party system in FPTP is itself anomolous, Canada is a 4 party system and they use it and most others that use it have one or two other parties that get representation, though their tend to be 1-3 parties that are dominant.
The American system is'nt just because we use plurality FPTP, it's because over time the two parties have, on a state and Federal level, passed laws that make sure their's no major challenge to their domination of the system.
Last edited:
Iori, you are simply wrong. While I agree with you that the 2 major parties have stacked the deck against anything that encourages more parties, that is far different from saying Congress wouldn't allow Newfoundland to have a parliamentary system. (I also think there are far less constitutional objections to some form or PR, IRV, or AV than you, but that's another debate).
Yes, if Congress thinks Newfoundland's government is not "republican" it can reject it. But members of Congress will have a very hard time explaining why a parliamentary system is objectionable. You certainly haven't advocated any compelling reason. Your only reason is "Well, I don't think this completely different thing would be accepted." Well, we're not talking about this completely different thing. We are talking about a parliamentary system. If Newfoundland applied for statehood, and Congress rejected it, then Congress would need to tell a probably irate country why a democratic system of government used for centuries, even in countries without monarchs, is somehow not acceptable. On the other hands, advocates of statehood could point to a large historical tradition of what constitutes a republic going back to Enlightenment, Renaissance, and Classical thinkers that could show a parliamentary democracy qualifies.
You pull this "80% chance they'd declare it incompatable" out of nowhere. That is completely unsubstantiated. It is a personal opinion dressed up as fact. While Americans are not used to the parliamentary system and would likely not support changing their own state governments to it, I don't think that would be enough to not accept a new state into the union.
I don't think you are open to debate about this anymore and will continue to insist on your position. Fine, I won't comment anymore. If others agree with you, they won't need to hear from me about this. But if other people disagree with you and they want to discuss, then please let them move on with their talk without you expressing your unsubstantiated opinion as some kind of fact that should end the debate. Thank you.
Yes, if Congress thinks Newfoundland's government is not "republican" it can reject it. But members of Congress will have a very hard time explaining why a parliamentary system is objectionable. You certainly haven't advocated any compelling reason. Your only reason is "Well, I don't think this completely different thing would be accepted." Well, we're not talking about this completely different thing. We are talking about a parliamentary system. If Newfoundland applied for statehood, and Congress rejected it, then Congress would need to tell a probably irate country why a democratic system of government used for centuries, even in countries without monarchs, is somehow not acceptable. On the other hands, advocates of statehood could point to a large historical tradition of what constitutes a republic going back to Enlightenment, Renaissance, and Classical thinkers that could show a parliamentary democracy qualifies.
You pull this "80% chance they'd declare it incompatable" out of nowhere. That is completely unsubstantiated. It is a personal opinion dressed up as fact. While Americans are not used to the parliamentary system and would likely not support changing their own state governments to it, I don't think that would be enough to not accept a new state into the union.
I don't think you are open to debate about this anymore and will continue to insist on your position. Fine, I won't comment anymore. If others agree with you, they won't need to hear from me about this. But if other people disagree with you and they want to discuss, then please let them move on with their talk without you expressing your unsubstantiated opinion as some kind of fact that should end the debate. Thank you.
Electoral Fusion is not illegal (federally). It's practiced in New York.
You're right that state parties tend to resist changes to the status quo, but Congress largely will not care what Newfoundland does. Newfoundland can even keep it's Tories and Grits, though they will by necessity caucus with the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. (Minnesota still technically has a "Democratic Farmer-Labor Party".)
True on the state level, though it's true that at the moment PR for Congressional elections is illegal (but not Unconstitutional), due to legislation passed in the 60's mandating single-member districts. (Before then, the some southern states started switching to "at-large" districts to deny black representation.)
Why did Newfoundland reject Confederation in the first place, while regions like Nova Scotia didn't?
It's because they weren't as afraid of the U.S., isn't it.
It's because they weren't as afraid of the U.S., isn't it.
BTW, I heard today that the flag of the Irish Republic hangs in St. Johns, the capital of Newfoundland. Also Newfoundland suffered disproportionately large casualties during WW2 and the vote re joining Canada could have been different, if that was not the case!
Nova Scotia did reject Confederation. Repeatedly. They just never managed to actually break away from the Dominion after the British North America Act but it was not for lack of trying.
Why didn't they continue to oppose it, whereas Newfoundland took longer to realize that they were economically un-self-sufficient?
If I remember correctly the Imperial government thought that Nova Scotia was best off in the Dominion of Canada and so discouraged secession (they had wanted to form a Maritime Union as most recognised that a union of some sort with the other colonies had to be done). When it became clear that such a union would not be able to emerge many secessionists decided to accept Confederation as a result of concern that that they would otherwise need to align more closely with America. Newfoundland was much the same, iirc. Some suggested an economic union with the U.S. but it was denounced as disloyal and anti-British and joining the Dominion of Canada was seen as the only real option as London did not want to support the colony any more and many felt that a return to responsible government as had existed before 1934 would bring them nothing but poverty.
Canada's New Zealand and Australia's Accord
In 1949 Newfoundland rejects Union. Newfoundland achieves a dominion status.
In the 1970s, the UK joins the EEC. Newfoundland's economy tanks, faster than New Zealand's economy. Mass strikes occur and the Boys from Chicago arrive. A couple of trade unionists are pushed out of fishing boats, and the "Newfoundland" experiment of a white first world country forcing total deregulation and marketisation on their population is referred to by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
However, given Newfoundland went first, and harder, New Zealand neoliberals in the Labour party face concerted resistance from the trade union movement. This eventually leads to the dole tax riots, and the formation of a new centre-left Green-Labour party. This significantly changes Thatcher's taxation plans.
Australia is held even further back by the Newfoundland experiment. While the CPA and Labor Left are selling national class collaboration, the example of the Newfoundland situation leaves non CPA left unions, and militant centre and right unions unwilling to acquiesce to "Accord Mark One". The result is unrestrained wages and prices growth. Hawke / Keating float the Aussie, and get a second term, but the massive collapse of Australia's credit rating and dollar early in the second term results in the Governor General behaving in an infamous way; but, Hawke / Keating being unwilling to meet with the Governor General to receive dismissal. Two Labor governments dismissed early in the second term in a row? The general strike emerges, primarily out of white collar workplaces and "left" blue collar union sites as a spontaneous outrage against the Governor General. Meanwhile, Government is in paralysis; with neither the Governor General nor the Prime Minister willing to resign.
The Army restores order when Wollongong Coal Miners march on Canberra. As a side effect of the Army's disgust for the infamy of the Governor General, a new Governor General is appointed by the military without advice of Parliament or HM.[1] Australia has just become a banana republic. The AUD hits USD0.22 and order is restored by Army Reserve Units and Temporarily Recruited Army Reserve Auxiliary Units. Negligent discharges are more common in blue collar workplaces; but, only more common. The "Teachers Federation Resisting Arrest Incident" will never be appropriately explained, even after the Governorial Commission.[2] Hawke / Keating, interestingly enough, are entirely unharmed during the "Disturbances."[3]
(The Australian-Chilean community proceeds to flee to New Zealand; having been struck twice by the same kind of calamity. Australians lionise Hawke / Keating like Lang, and with a similar kind of self-delusion about their real nature.)
The Australian Film Industry, however, achieves a remarkable success. Under Army Government a series of nostalgic apolitical fantasies are created. For years afterwards when Australians believe it is socially dangerous to discuss politics, they'll begin a conversation with "Strictly Ballroom..."
yours,
Sam R.
[1] While Army is willing to ensure the continuance of order through unpleasant means, I find it unlikely they will go for the unpleasant title of "President," when they are busy trying to sell their action as ensuring the constitution of Australia
[2] Australia has repeatedly organised White Reactionary paramilitaries in times of crisis; I see no reason why this would not be made formal with a figurehead Colonel authorising extraordinary measures by the Army which has appointed him (yes, it will be a him).
[3] Army quite clearly want them to restrict the Trade Union movement after order has been nominally restored.
In 1949 Newfoundland rejects Union. Newfoundland achieves a dominion status.
In the 1970s, the UK joins the EEC. Newfoundland's economy tanks, faster than New Zealand's economy. Mass strikes occur and the Boys from Chicago arrive. A couple of trade unionists are pushed out of fishing boats, and the "Newfoundland" experiment of a white first world country forcing total deregulation and marketisation on their population is referred to by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
However, given Newfoundland went first, and harder, New Zealand neoliberals in the Labour party face concerted resistance from the trade union movement. This eventually leads to the dole tax riots, and the formation of a new centre-left Green-Labour party. This significantly changes Thatcher's taxation plans.
Australia is held even further back by the Newfoundland experiment. While the CPA and Labor Left are selling national class collaboration, the example of the Newfoundland situation leaves non CPA left unions, and militant centre and right unions unwilling to acquiesce to "Accord Mark One". The result is unrestrained wages and prices growth. Hawke / Keating float the Aussie, and get a second term, but the massive collapse of Australia's credit rating and dollar early in the second term results in the Governor General behaving in an infamous way; but, Hawke / Keating being unwilling to meet with the Governor General to receive dismissal. Two Labor governments dismissed early in the second term in a row? The general strike emerges, primarily out of white collar workplaces and "left" blue collar union sites as a spontaneous outrage against the Governor General. Meanwhile, Government is in paralysis; with neither the Governor General nor the Prime Minister willing to resign.
The Army restores order when Wollongong Coal Miners march on Canberra. As a side effect of the Army's disgust for the infamy of the Governor General, a new Governor General is appointed by the military without advice of Parliament or HM.[1] Australia has just become a banana republic. The AUD hits USD0.22 and order is restored by Army Reserve Units and Temporarily Recruited Army Reserve Auxiliary Units. Negligent discharges are more common in blue collar workplaces; but, only more common. The "Teachers Federation Resisting Arrest Incident" will never be appropriately explained, even after the Governorial Commission.[2] Hawke / Keating, interestingly enough, are entirely unharmed during the "Disturbances."[3]
(The Australian-Chilean community proceeds to flee to New Zealand; having been struck twice by the same kind of calamity. Australians lionise Hawke / Keating like Lang, and with a similar kind of self-delusion about their real nature.)
The Australian Film Industry, however, achieves a remarkable success. Under Army Government a series of nostalgic apolitical fantasies are created. For years afterwards when Australians believe it is socially dangerous to discuss politics, they'll begin a conversation with "Strictly Ballroom..."
yours,
Sam R.
[1] While Army is willing to ensure the continuance of order through unpleasant means, I find it unlikely they will go for the unpleasant title of "President," when they are busy trying to sell their action as ensuring the constitution of Australia
[2] Australia has repeatedly organised White Reactionary paramilitaries in times of crisis; I see no reason why this would not be made formal with a figurehead Colonel authorising extraordinary measures by the Army which has appointed him (yes, it will be a him).
[3] Army quite clearly want them to restrict the Trade Union movement after order has been nominally restored.
That is one hell of an extrapolation. And here I was thinking the only difference is an additional seat at the General Assembly and a minuscule Olympics team. And maybe an NHL team.
The 1970s are coming after the long boom, and Newfoundland's economy will be even more vulnerable to the UK joining the EEC/EU and ditching the colonies than New Zealand's was.
Similarly, after Chile, the Boys from Chicago were looking around for an anglophone first world nation to experiment with. Newfoundland is available just in time. This will probably cause knock-on effects with New Zealand and Australia's neoliberal experiments.
I did take quite a liberty with Australia—of course the Australian Film Industry is not going to do quite that well. In a more serious note I doubt Hawke / Keating would push ahead with a neoliberal programme without the full support of the Trade Union movement. Without Accord Mark I, the other elements of neoliberalism are unlikely to be implemented.
yours,
Sam R.