How many Electoral Votes for Mexican and Canadian States?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nofix

Ignoring the how and why, if Mexico and Canada were part of the U.S. how many electoral vote would each state have? Bonus points for including other North American countries.

No real reason for this, I was just curious.
 

ColeMercury

Assuming we're adding electoral votes on top of the present 538, using current US state populations as a guide:

Aguascalientes: 4
Baja California: 6
Baja California Sur: 3
Campeche: 3
Chiapas: 9
Chihuahua: 6
Coahuila: 6
Colima: 3
Durango: 5
Distrito Federale: 14
Guanajuato: 10
Guerrero: 6
Hidalgo: 6
Jalisco: 12
Mexico: 25
Michoacan: 8
Morelos: 5
Nayarit: 4
Nuevo Leon: 8
Oaxaca: 7
Puebla: 10
Queretara: 5
Quintana Roo: 4
San Luis Potosi: 6
Sinaloa: 6
Sonora: 6
Tabasco: 5
Tamaulipas: 6
Tlaxcala: 4
Veracruz: 13
Yucatan: 5
Zacatecas: 4

This assumes the Federal District isn't ceded back to the state of Mexico. In which case the combined state would have 37 EVs.
 

ColeMercury

And now Canada:

Ontario: 20
Quebec: 12
Nova Scotia: 3
New Brunswick: 3
Manitoba: 4
British Columbia: 8
Saskatchewan: 3
Alberta: 7
Newfoundland and Labrador: 3

Prince Edward Island is too small to be admissible.
 

Nofix

ColeMercury said:
This assumes the Federal District isn't ceded back to the state of Mexico. In which case the combined state would have 37 EVs.
Click to expand...

Since Mexico(Nation) is no longer well a nation, I guess the Federal district would go back into the State

ColeMercury said:
Prince Edward Island is too small to be admissible.
Click to expand...

Which State would it (likely) be stapled onto? Or would it just be a territory?

Also, much thanks for this :). It has been greatly appreciated.
 

Porthos

Desmond Hume said:
I thought the minimum population a territory needed to be eligible for statehood was 60,000, which PEI more than meets.:confused:
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. But practically anything under 500,000 is gonna raise an eyebrow. And, I think spitballing it, anything under 350,000 is a no-go.

Not without a massively increased House of Representatives, at least. See, there is a big difference between 60,000 in 1789 and 60,000 in 2013. Especially when the smallest state in the union, population-wise is around 550k.

As an aside, population is one of the reasons why there is practically zero chance that Guam, American Samoa, or the US Virgin Islands will become states anytime soon.
 

Porthos

BTW, just to address what I am talking about, a House district is currently supposed to represent something like 710,000 people. Because of the 435 limit (which would absolutely be increased under this theoretical situation), and the fact that every state has to have at least one representative, you can have one representative representing 550,000 people (Wyoming) while another representative can represent 1,000,000 people (Montana).

Putting in a state with 'only' 125,000 people in it is really going to exasperate the problem.

Now if the House is expanded to, oh say, 1000 or 1200 people, then that argument becomes lessened (if not eradicated), since the representation can be made more equal.

Good luck getting to increase that much though. Even with all of the added population being added. :p I'd figure we're realistically looking at, oh, a 600 seat House. 150 million extra people, more or less. So I added 170 seats, again more or less.
 
Grimbald

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
There is a big unspoken question here. Who is in control of the icrease in size of the US? If the US is in control then a number of Mexican States will be combined to REDUCE their influence in the senate and in the electorial college. The same is true for eastern Canada with the four eastern provinces being combined into one or two states.

If the original US is not in control then anything goes.
 
Pyeknu494

Pyeknu494

Prospective House of Representatives for a United States of North America

If the United States, Mexico and Canada ever came together as a "United States of North America," here's my take on the total representation in the House of Representatives:

Aguascalientes - 1
Alabama - 4
Alaska - 1
Alberta - 3
American Samoa - 1 (2)
Arizona - 6
Arkansas - 3
Baha California - 3
Baha California Sur - 1
British Columbia - 4
California - 38
Campeche - 1
Chiapas - 5
Chihuahua - 3
Coahuila - 2
Colima - 1
Colorado - 5
Connecticut - 3
Delaware - 1
District of Columbia - 1 (2)
Durango - 1
Florida - 19
Georgia - 10
Guam - 1 (2)
Guanajuato - 5
Guererro - 3
Hawai'i - 1
Hidalgo - 2
Idaho - 1
Illinois - 12
Indiana - 6
Iowa - 3
Jalisco - 7
Kansas - 2
Kentucky - 4
Louisiana - 4
Maine - 1
Manitoba - 1
Maryland - 5
Massachusetts - 6
México - 23 (1)
Michigan - 9
Michoacán - 4
Minnesota - 5
Mississippi - 3
Missouri - 6
Montana - 1
Morelos - 2
Nayarit - 1
Nebraska - 2
Nevada - 2
New Brunswick - 1
Newfoundland and Labrador - 1
New Hampshire - 1
New Jersey - 8
New Mexico - 2
New York - 19
North Carolina - 9
Northern Mariana Islands - 1 (2)
North Dakota - 1
Northwest Territories - 1 (2)
Nova Scotia - 1
Nuevo León - 5
Nunavut - 1 (2)
Oaxaca - 4
Ohio - 11
Oklahoma - 4
Ontario - 11
Oregon - 4
Pennsylvania - 12
Prince Edward Island - 1
Puebla - 6
Puerto Rico - 1 (2)
Québec - 7
Querétaro - 2
Quintana Roo - 1
Rhode Island - 1
San Luis Potosí - 2
Saskatchewan - 1
Sinaloa - 2
Sonora - 2
South Carolina - 4
South Dakota - 1
Tabasco - 2
Tamaulipas - 3
Tennessee - 6
Texas - 26
Tlaxcala - 1
Utah - 3
Veracruz - 7
Vermont - 1
Virgin Islands - 1 (2)
Virginia - 8
Washington - 7
West Virginia - 2
Wisconsin - 5
Wyoming - 1
Yucatán - 2
Yukon - 1 (2)
Zacatecas - 1

The calculation was done as follows:

1) ALL STATES must have at least ONE representative in the House (per Article One of the Constitution) regardless of the state's internal population.

2) Per the Apportionment Act, 1911 (Public Law 62-5), the total number of voting representatives of the house is capped at 435 persons.

3) The combined population of the USNA per latest census figures is as follows:

United States of America - 313,277,000 approx
United Mexican States - 112,207,000 approx
Dominion of Canada - 33,369,000 approx

TOTAL USNA - approximately 464,001,000

Thus, each representative would logically represent 1,066,668 persons.

4) The basic representation in the House would be 91 states (50 American, 10 Canadian and 31 Mexican), thus the remaining 344 representatives would be split apart between all states with populations going over about 1,900,000 (since I had to round down numbers to ensure the ultimate total of 435 representatives was not exceeded).

NOTES

(1) México's representation was calculated with the population of the Distrito Federal included
(2) Non-voting members
 
Pyeknu494

Pyeknu494

As for Electoral College votes, you just add 2 to each score in my previous post to bring the total EVs to 633 votes, with a pluarity of 317 votes to win an election.

I would believe with the inclusion of the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut as territories of an expanded USNA, the idea of extending EVs to all insular territories beyond the District of Columbia would be enshrined in the Constitution.
 

Neal Palmquist

"How" was defined as out of scope. But "how" was implied as part of the answer. I'd like to point out there is a debate worthy premise used to present the answer.

Would Mexico fracture it's singular identity and it's super block of electoral votes in exchange to populate the House and the Senate? And if that option was allowed, then could other large states like a California fracture like Mexico did in order to claim the same advantage? It is easy to follow a sovereign state Mexico becoming one of the United States. But I don't follow a province in another country becoming one of the United States. I think this electoral count offered is requiring the country of Mexico to be dissolved with nothing but free provinces left. I think something is not right when we jump directly to the fractured outcome. It is a big oversight to assume that Mexico will not want to keep it's singular sovereignty as a state. Possibly highly offensive to suggest these fractured conditions, even.

And I also wonder if the precedent of sovereign lands for native american tribes would also come into play.

The reason why the electoral college became created was to define states as being sovereign within the republic.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Neal Palmquist said:
"How" was defined as out of scope. But "how" was implied as part of the answer. I'd like to point out there is a debate worthy premise used to present the answer.

Would Mexico fracture it's singular identity and it's super block of electoral votes in exchange to populate the House and the Senate? And if that option was allowed, then could other large states like a California fracture like Mexico did in order to claim the same advantage? It is easy to follow a sovereign state Mexico becoming one of the United States. But I don't follow a province in another country becoming one of the United States. I think this electoral count offered is requiring the country of Mexico to be dissolved with nothing but free provinces left. I think something is not right when we jump directly to the fractured outcome. It is a big oversight to assume that Mexico will not want to keep it's singular sovereignty as a state. Possibly highly offensive to suggest these fractured conditions, even.

And I also wonder if the precedent of sovereign lands for native american tribes would also come into play.

The reason why the electoral college became created was to define states as being sovereign within the republic.
Click to expand...
Please do not necro long quite threads.

Thanks
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top