How would Imperial Federation/CANZUK elections work?

This has been somewhat done to death here but this issue I've never seen mentioned for long.

How would elections work in this hypothetical union? Would we still have the FPTP, House of Commons structure - surely this is impossible?
 
Depends really. I have absolutely no belief that the UK proper had any strong desire to enact reforms that would make any sort of genuine imperial federation (with or without India) and so think that if they did take some steps, they would be incremental rather than radical. So, they'd largely co-opt the current system, which was largely FPP.
 
Depends really. I have absolutely no belief that the UK proper had any strong desire to enact reforms that would make any sort of genuine imperial federation (with or without India) and so think that if they did take some steps, they would be incremental rather than radical. So, they'd largely co-opt the current system, which was largely FPP.

I was thinking it would maybe be sparked by some sort of fear of the US infringing on the Empire, especially Canada, spreading throughout Parliament as relations between the countries deteriorate. Then a Strong Leader™ comes to the fore and is able to set about reforming (maybe Chamberlain?)
 
I was thinking it would maybe be sparked by some sort of fear of the US infringing on the Empire, especially Canada, spreading throughout Parliament as relations between the countries deteriorate. Then a Strong Leader™ comes to the fore and is able to set about reforming (maybe Chamberlain?)

You would need some form of crisis, yes.

The government would have to be incredibly hands off though. I don't think that the London government had any desire to closely manage the colonies at all, from very early on. Even NZ's small settler community were largely running everything from the early 1870s.
 
You would need some form of crisis, yes.

The government would have to be incredibly hands off though. I don't think that the London government had any desire to closely manage the colonies at all, from very early on. Even NZ's small settler community were largely running everything from the early 1870s.

If it happened then like much of theBritish empire, it would probably have happened by accident. One possible mechanism might be a greater number of colonial peers created and the Lords developing into the imperial House.
 
Depends really. I have absolutely no belief that the UK proper had any strong desire to enact reforms that would make any sort of genuine imperial federation (with or without India) and so think that if they did take some steps, they would be incremental rather than radical. So, they'd largely co-opt the current system, which was largely FPP.

That, or each Dominion is able to handle its own affairs for sending representatives to London. If NZ wants to elect its 2 MPs via MMP, Canada used STV, and Britain retains FPP, that's all fine.
 

Ian_W

Banned
In TTL, as part of a - failed - attempt to peacefully resolve the American War of Independance, the Americans were offered one elected member of the House of Commons per colony, and a charter of self-government for each colony on the same terms as the City of London.

They rejected it.

The other Colonies, however, went 'Oooh, us too !' and were voted in.

Yes,it is a long sea voyage to London, but that is where Parliament meets.

Later, during the electoral reforms that eliminated low-population 'rotten boroughs', much angst existed regarding the appropriate number of seats for heavily-populated India.
 
In TTL, as part of a - failed - attempt to peacefully resolve the American War of Independance, the Americans were offered one elected member of the House of Commons per colony, and a charter of self-government for each colony on the same terms as the City of London.

They rejected it.

The other Colonies, however, went 'Oooh, us too !' and were voted in.

Yes,it is a long sea voyage to London, but that is where Parliament meets.

Later, during the electoral reforms that eliminated low-population 'rotten boroughs', much angst existed regarding the appropriate number of seats for heavily-populated India.

India wasn't really a colony of Britain in 1832 though; it was still the East India Company which ran it (I think?), so there wouldn't be a problem at that stage. However, if there was an established principle that colonies would get representation in Westminster, then that would undoubtedly affect how the transition from EIC to Raj was handled, how electoral reform was handled, and how keen Britain was (or at least, how keen British MPs were) to involve themselves in the scramble for Africa.
 
Later, during the electoral reforms that eliminated low-population 'rotten boroughs', much angst existed regarding the appropriate number of seats for heavily-populated India.
Probably wouldn't be quite so bad as might be expected, since the Reform Act still limited the franchise to men with a certain amount of land or income - and the population considered was that of voters, not the total population. The property qualification would keep all but the wealthiest natives out of the calculus... I'd guess that each Indian province would be treated as an English county, and the principal cities from a British perspective (certainly Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, probably others)treated as boroughs. Maybe twenty or thirty Members of Parliament elected by Britons in India, with a few wealthy Indians confusing matters, all told.
 
Although the worlds leading power throughout the 19thC many towards the end of the century correctly foresaw that the 20thC would be dominated by nations with large populations / internal markets and abundant natural resources such as the US, Russia and to a lesser extent Germany.

So the fact that the British establishment didn't try to create an integral United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand was a massive missed opportunity. Perhaps they were hamstrung by short term thinking. The Empire was about profits first & to a lesser extent security. Mostly it was ignored in Westminster. Putting paid to any chance of CANZUK.

Were such a "UK" to be attempted it would have needed to be set up allowing the constituent countries significant national autonomy. So national parliaments responsible for mostly everything other than foreign policy, defence and ensuring free trade / movement. With some shared tax responsibilities between the central UK govt and the national one.

What form would that central UK govt take is the $million question. I'd envisage it as an executive mainly, so a UK senate with each country electing representatives proportionate to their population to a senate type body for a fixed term. An administration could be formed from the senate (query what type of parties would emerge in such a body) forming a cabinet to fill the positions of defence, foreign sec, treasury / chancellor and a UK Premier. Obviously in the early decades (i.e. Early 20thC) this 'Premier' would very likely be the British PM wearing both hats.

Citizens think of themselves as Canadian / Australian etc but nonetheless as citizens of a true UK.

Such a UK would have retained superpower status.
 
I think the answer in India would be more Princely States that are de facto ruled by a British Resident but are de jure sovereign (if later subordinate to the Empress of India), and so don't send MPs to Westminster. The great coastal cities and Delhi would probably be exceptions.
 
The later the project happens, or the longer it it is sustained

...the more that the settler dominions will have a greater say in how the federation is structured and operates, thanks to growing population, economy, and a greater political maturity. They'll demand it. And quite reasonably so.

1. The most common proposal I've seen was a true imperial parliament, representation largely proportional to population. Its power would be mainly confined to defence, foreign policy, customs and trade; dominions would retain their own governments to handle everything else. It was even proposed that this might be extended to the British Isles as well, with England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (or parts thereof) gaining their own parliaments for internal governance. In this situation, then, London would presumably host both the imperial and English parliaments, albeit likely in different buildings. While the British PM would likely wear both hats in the early years, this likely wouldn't last for more than a generation or two. MPs might be elected or appointed, but in the long run, legitimacy and popular support will surely demand popular election.

2. Imperial Parliaments would meet in London, surely, but as transportation became swifter and more reliable and the dominions grew in power, there would be pressure for at least token sessions to be regularly held in the Dominions, too.

3. One imagines that if it wasn't explicit at first, there would soon be a demand that every dominion region always have some minimum of presence on the imperial cabinet. Eventually, this would likely extend to major military commands as well. Judging by Canadian recalcitrance during the great Naval Scare of 1909, it seems likely that naval construction would be increasingly parceled out to new shipyards in the Dominions, though one imagines that only Canada would be in position for construction of capital ships for a fair bit. Likewise, force deployments and military bases will increasingly reflect dominion interests - Aussies and Kiwis will certainly extract major permanent RN fleet commands in the Far East/South Pacific, and RAF air commands would eventually follow suit.

4. Likewise, there will be more in the way of local communications and transportation infrastructure.

5. But sensitive issues would remain, and they would be difficult to address. a) Would membership be extended to any other colonies, nearly all of which would be white minority, and under what rules would such determinations be made? What about South Africa? b) Would regional associations and structures be permitted or necessary, i.e., some kind of local congresses between Australian or Canadian dominions to address purely regional issues of development? c) How would immigration policies be sorted out once that became an issue (as it almost inevitably would) in later 20th century? d) How would a federation handle decolonization, however it developed in this very different timeline - especially of the Raj? (Certainly there would be greater motive to keep some kind of control over the Suez Canal.) e) How eager would a federation be to dismantle any imperial preference and enter into trade deals with other major powers, especially America? f) How would local territories be governed and developed, i.a., Yukon, Northwest Territories, Australia's Northern Territory?
 
Top