Political Parties in a - US owns Canada - Time Line

I'm just going to point something out. If America owns Canada from a very early time period, it's not guaranteed that Canadian political views will end up as liberal as they are IOTL. Many political movements have changed regions and stances throughout our history, why would Canada be any different? For all we know, the party positions could be the exact same and Quebec could be a Republican stronghold.:p
 
Canada outlawed slavery decades before the US did. While there was some sympathy for succession among French Canadians, slavery issue was a big point of contention.

I haven't the faintest idea how you figure there was support in the rest of the places you metioned, let alone what possible assistance they could give.

I think he was working on the assumption that they'd feel disenfranchised from Washington. They'd secede for their own reasons, not because they want to keep their slaves.
 
I'm just going to point something out. If America owns Canada from a very early time period, it's not guaranteed that Canadian political views will end up as liberal as they are IOTL. Many political movements have changed regions and stances throughout our history, why would Canada be any different? For all we know, the party positions could be the exact same and Quebec could be a Republican stronghold.:p

Or conversely, America could end up being as liberal as OTL Canada.
 
Also true. I'm just saying that there's no guarantee that the political lines will be the same as OTL. Plenty of different possibilities.

Problem is that the OP is so open. Have it done in 1776 or 1812 and you'll have a completely different political system than if it was done in 1867 or 1914 or whatever.

This is the issue that I have with the thread--it's *way* too broad.
 
I would guess that the best time would be during the American Revolution,the whole time slot and movement looked the best. Quebec sides with America,others follow as well.

Political groups? I would guess a Working Party,or maybe the Wig party survives..
 
Yes, it probably would. There's going to be a lot of butterflies. That's why things like these are so damned hard to predict. :p

I would guess that there might me a a fair number of Royalists fleeing France during the Revolution. Also maybe some refuges from Haiti during the revolt there?

Aside from the parties, you've got to identify the issues that the US-Canada parties face, and which ones they absorb into the party as a whole. Republicans and Democrats as they exist now in the US have switched from large and small goverment parties, pro and anti-tariff parties, etc. Also consider how the Quebecois and Canadians vote on issues in an ATL based on the ARW. I agree with Zod's comments on party, but I would like to expand that by assuming that they would be (assuming full integration and by 2009, a native from Quebec City calls himself an American first, and Quebecois second) socially conservative as Americans define it today, and fiscally semi-conservative, with some leanings to the tendency of believing the government should provide some old-age assistance and unemployment assurance, with more government intervention than some Republicans would consider appropriate, but less so than liberal Democrats.

I figure in the electoral college Quebec would go blue, but on a state level the governorship as well as the state legislature will swing back and forth.

I'm going to assume only minor butterflies. Obviously, if America completely dominates the War of 1812, conquers Canada, and all that, it will definitely lead to major changes, when including butterflies.

Somewhat more politically left US, with no substantial changes. Remember, Canada doesn't even have as big a population as some states (California and maybe Texas are bigger, although I'm not too sure on the latter). It'll have more representation, because I assume it'd be a bunch of states and not just one huge friggin' state, but that representation is going to be divided. It's not like the whole nation is full of hockey playing socialists; Alberta is fairly right wing, for one. So the guaranteed left-wing votes are going to be at least partially balanced by new guaranteed right-wing votes.

For the actual parties, we'd have a somewhat more moderate "Republican" party (might not be the same name, but fills the same niche, just a bit more centrist). Because it's moderate, it's able to extend its reach a bit further. Some traditional swing states will now be pro-Republican. You might also see Republican influence in bits of Canada; Alberta will probably be Republican, and maybe a couple of other western provinces.

The Democratic party probably won't be changed that much. Maybe a sliiiiight push to the left, but it's not going to be any sort or Socialist party or anything. They'd get support from a pretty decent chunk of Canada as it is, and moving farther to the left might alienate moderates, giving the Republicans an even firmer grasp.

Important swing states would probably be located in today's Northeast and Midwest. Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York would most likely be the big prizes on election day.

I doubt we'd see a more left-leaning US, especially with an ARW POD.

I'm just going to point something out. If America owns Canada from a very early time period, it's not guaranteed that Canadian political views will end up as liberal as they are IOTL. Many political movements have changed regions and stances throughout our history, why would Canada be any different? For all we know, the party positions could be the exact same and Quebec could be a Republican stronghold.:p
I agree with that, Jord.
 
I doubt we'd see a more left-leaning US, especially with an ARW POD.

Eh. I wasn't saying any major changes. As I said, I don't think the Democratic party would be really any further to the left, just a bit more moderate Republican party. So a sort of net push to the left, but not like a socialist US or anything.
 
I think you'd see the majority of Canadians going with the Liberal party of it's time, be it the Republicans of the 1800's or the more modern democrats of a hundred years later.

You're probably not going to see any regional parties. In our system of government, they're basiclly powerless.

So short of getting four major parties on the national level to throw each presidental election to the House(essentially making us a parlimentarian democracy), they're going to conform with the established parties... that's if we even bother giving conquered Canadian proviences statehood. With the Slavery issue, giving them statehood would force a Civil War sooner more than likely.
 
Eh. I wasn't saying any major changes. As I said, I don't think the Democratic party would be really any further to the left, just a bit more moderate Republican party. So a sort of net push to the left, but not like a socialist US or anything.

Why do you think this would happen? And what POD are you using?
 
Why do you think this would happen? And what POD are you using?

I was just using an 1812ish POD. I'm doing this all in very general terms and trying to use modern party terminology; an early enough annexation of Canada will most likely butterfly away the Republican party and possibly mess around with the Democratic party (could butterfly party realignments, for example). So when I say "Republican" and "Democrat," I actually just mean the traditionally conservative party and the traditionally liberal party.

Now, I don't see any reason Canada would be conservative along the same lines as our deep south. No slavery and geographic connections means that most likely, eastern Canada would become more politically aligned with the Northeastern US, while western Canada would become more politically aligned with the West. Some of these western Canadian states could easily become somewhat conservative, like our Great Plains states, but it's not like Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to be huge electoral prizes. On the other hand, Ontario, Quebec (assuming eastern ties for these two), and British Columbia (assuming west coast political ties for BC) are going to be pretty nice, easy electoral pickups for the *Democrats. What this means is that the *Republican party is going to need to adopt a more centrist position. If it stays as the neoconservative movement run by the Religious Right as OTL, the *Democratic party is going to have a solid advantage in the federal government. They're power would be diluted, they can't stay as conservative as they are OTL and stay competitive at a national level. So with the *Republicans moderating themselves, a couple OTL swing states would turn solidly *Republican, and a few solidly Democratic states would turn into swing states. I think I stated this before, but I could see my native New York becoming a swing state in a TL with a moderate *Republican party.

Nor do I see a reason for Canada to stay as liberal as it is OTL. This is a bit more straightforward. Weaker ties with Europe, stronger ties with America. It won't have the same sort of cultural diffusion for it to begin flirting with socialism. Without Canada being less left-wing than OTL, there's no reason for the *Democratic party to radicalize. So we end up with *Democrats more or less the same as OTL. What are your thoughts?
 

JJohnson

Banned
Very doubtful that a Quebecois regional party would emerge with any but a very late annexation PoD and the US electoral system in place. Why mainstream Quebecois voters should willingly consign themselves to political insignificance in Congress and Electoral College alike by voting for a powerless regionalist-minority party ?

About the OP question, and assuming an ARW PoD since I find it the most plausible one for a successful US-Canada union, I assume that Canadian electorate would relatively quickly align themselves with the developing US two-party system.

At the ARW, Canada was a mostly agrarian society dominated by the Church and the signeurs with some substantial commercial elites in Montreal and southern Quebec. IMO, once Canadians and the 13 colonies gets accustomed to their federal marriage, this should make Canada a mostly Democratic state with strong ties with the Southern agrarian elites (once they get accustomed to each other, Canadian seigneurs and Southern planters shall soon discover that they have many many interests and viewpoints in common). However, Canada also has a significant borgeusie urban element, which is only going to expand and grow in size and influence as integration with America propels economic and social development of the region. Moreover, American influence most likely shifts the tug of war between the urban elites and the Church for control of Quebec in favor of the former. Besides occasionally flaring commercial rivalries with NE and NY, these elites are natural allies of their American Northern counterparts, and the Federalists and later Whig and Republican parties. As they grow in economic and social influence, Canada shall gradually shift from being strongly pro-South and Democrat to being increasingly pro-North and pro-Federalist/Whig/Republican. Also the Canadian Catholic Church is likely to swing towards anti-slavery, albeit less radically than NE Protestants.

Therefore, Quebec shall most likely evolve during early 19th century from being a mostly pro-South swing state, to a true swing state, then a pro-North swing state, then a strongly pro-North state, however less radical than NE or NY. Eventually, it shall come to be a French-Catholic variant of the Mid West, and build its identity accordingly.

The fact that Canada shall reasonably quickly find a place in the American socio-political landscape shall put a powerful brake to regional separatism (they shall become the French-Catholic "cousins" of the South first, the more conservative ones of NE/NY second, eventually the half-siblings of the Mid West up to modern times) and ease their national integration (the presence of Lousiana and immigration shall have a similar effect as well). Therefore in the long term, Quebec separatism shifts more and more to the fringe as they shift to become closer to and more nationally integrated with the North. Since the Gilded Age, the "Old Canada" (Ontario-Quebec) North shall politically (and besides the Franco-Catholic elements, culturally) little distinguishable from the rest of the MidWest. Say, Quebec shall remain as culturally distinct as Texas. As it concerns the NorthWestern Canadian states, most likely they shall develop political and cultural patterns rather akin to the American north-western states.

General Zod,

How would you align Quebec and Ontario/(Franklin in New World) as far as Federalists and Democratic-Republicans for the first party system? The DRs were the agrarians/small gov't types, and the Federalists were more 'large-gov't-industrialist' types... I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

James
 
I was just using an 1812ish POD. I'm doing this all in very general terms and trying to use modern party terminology; an early enough annexation of Canada will most likely butterfly away the Republican party and possibly mess around with the Democratic party (could butterfly party realignments, for example). So when I say "Republican" and "Democrat," I actually just mean the traditionally conservative party and the traditionally liberal party.

Now, I don't see any reason Canada would be conservative along the same lines as our deep south. No slavery and geographic connections means that most likely, eastern Canada would become more politically aligned with the Northeastern US, while western Canada would become more politically aligned with the West. Some of these western Canadian states could easily become somewhat conservative, like our Great Plains states, but it's not like Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to be huge electoral prizes. On the other hand, Ontario, Quebec (assuming eastern ties for these two), and British Columbia (assuming west coast political ties for BC) are going to be pretty nice, easy electoral pickups for the *Democrats. What this means is that the *Republican party is going to need to adopt a more centrist position. If it stays as the neoconservative movement run by the Religious Right as OTL, the *Democratic party is going to have a solid advantage in the federal government. They're power would be diluted, they can't stay as conservative as they are OTL and stay competitive at a national level. So with the *Republicans moderating themselves, a couple OTL swing states would turn solidly *Republican, and a few solidly Democratic states would turn into swing states. I think I stated this before, but I could see my native New York becoming a swing state in a TL with a moderate *Republican party.

Nor do I see a reason for Canada to stay as liberal as it is OTL. This is a bit more straightforward. Weaker ties with Europe, stronger ties with America. It won't have the same sort of cultural diffusion for it to begin flirting with socialism. Without Canada being less left-wing than OTL, there's no reason for the *Democratic party to radicalize. So we end up with *Democrats more or less the same as OTL. What are your thoughts?

Perhaps but remember the western Canadian states like Alberta would vote solid Republican as would more rural areas of Quebec and Ontario.
 
Perhaps but remember the western Canadian states like Alberta would vote solid Republican as would more rural areas of Quebec and Ontario.

I doubt that rural Quebec and Ontario would outweigh the liberal vote in the cities. And the *Democrats end up with better prizes (Quebec, Ontario, BC) than the *Republicans (Alberta, Saskatchewan, although even the Saskatchewan Party is rather Centrist).

I'm also talking more or less purely at a federal level. State or regional level parties is a whole different animal; the Republican party in New York is much different than the Republican parties in Mississippi and California.
 

Germaniac

Donor
It is also likely that Canada will have a larger population as alot of expansion from the US will go north as well as west. The Border regions will have significantly larger populations, as well as Ontario.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Question is, what is 'liberal' and 'conservative' in these style timelines? Which party becomes progressive tax vs. low tax, pacifist vs. aggressive foreign policy, big labor vs. not-big labor, et al? And which issues exist in this new timeline that might not exist in ours and vice versa? Our Roe vs. Wade, a hot-button issue for quite a few, might not even get ruled on in these timelines, so abortion might be a simple state-by-state issue with some allowing and others not...

Just throwing a few thoughts out there. I'm always interested to see where the divergences lead the timelines.
 
Top