WI all proposals for new Australian and Canadian subdivisions are successful?

Starting from the early 20th century - the POD might be New Zealand's accession into the Australian federation - Australia and Canada change in such a way that, by OTL 2014 (the year when these maps were made) they look like this:

new%2Bstates.png


sasha_canada.png


How would the politics and the society of these two nations be different from OTL's, and how would the rest of the world be influenced by these wanked dominions?
 
The kiwi's would not be pleased, maybe we can get some of their pm's post 2000 though. Also we get their rugby talent which would be great, in return they get the football and cricket talent.

Seriously though we would do well to adopt their approach to the indigenous and the treatment of the indigenous population.

The divisions sound chaotic though.

New England, W.A and Victoria would be disproportionately large (along with NSW) compared to the other states population wise (no one would live in the Pilbara, Auralia and Central Australia, even the Riverina without Illawara and the ACT and Queensland would be small), at least on the mainland.
24 premiers also potentially, more premiers to disagree with the PM clearly it would seem.

overall, sounds like we'd be a lot stronger (population closer to Canada's current population, so around 32-35 mill instead of 25 mill).

The idea that we could do right by Timor though would be a nice thought though. Hopefully we would have Fiji, Timor, Solomon Islands/Vanuatu and Papua developed.

Canada would be even crazier by the looks of things. some of these cities would span 2 states. Though not sure what having states like Vermont and Montana would do. The carribean though, that would certainly be interesting. Probably becomes a retirement home.
 
Last edited:
Would pay to look at NZ's history of provincialism where they ended up sub dividing up to the point they were ineffective, which may have been by design
 
Alberta and Saskatchewan could never survive on their own as shown on that map, Saskatchewan would be almost totally devoid of population and the two "major" cities in Alberta would face a massive task of even having a road between them.

The creation of the Buffalo province was actually supposed to go north to the 57th parallel (but probably would have gone to the 60th like BC's northern border. The territorial legislature voted almost unanimously in favour of the single province and it's very easy to see it being formed.

Politically it's impossible, the federal government can't unilaterally change a province once it's created. No province would willingly subject itself to that. What does Toronto gain from not having access to the rest of Ontario? Etc. Some are possible if the regions secede from a province given enough political strife (northwestern Ontario is probably the most likely).
 
Would pay to look at NZ's history of provincialism where they ended up sub dividing up to the point they were ineffective, which may have been by design

yeah i have a feeling that would be the case. However you would have some of the largest states almost dictating terms in comparison to the smaller ones at least.
 
Would someone please explain how Vermont and Maine became provinces? Both had been states for over a generation by the time confederation was realized.
 
"Federal-provincial relations aren't working smoothly, so let's create even more provinces," said virtually nobody in the history of Canada except the inhabitants of the territories.
 
Dear Neoteros,
Wondering why you made the province of Acadia so small?????

Significant numbers of Acadians still live along the coasts of NB, NS, PEI and Newfyland. They speak a dialect that is different than the québécois spoken in Northern NB.

As for drawing borders along linguistic lines ..... remember that most people living along the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence are anglophones who almost sound like a defies.

As for the border between NW Ontario and Manitoba ..... extend it farther west, to the edge of the grasslands .... only an hour (by road) east of Winnipeg.

Out in the Prairies, Metis will demand their own province ..... even if it interferes with building railroads.

As for British Columbia ..... might as well give all of the Peace River District (NE corner) to Alberta because that includes modern lines of communication, similar climate, etc.
 
To begin with, why name it Buffalo, instead of using one of the OTL options, like Assiniboia? And why break low-population areas in half, like Saskatchewan & Alberta, & Northern Ontario, but not break off Northern Manitoba or BC? Population distribution would have to be insane to get these results, like the National Railway running north of Lake Winnipeg, or something.:eek: And you'd probably have to change the dates of migration, to avoid settling farmers in the Palliser Triangle, which is the only way I can think of Buffalo makes sense...until oil is discovered... And the railway'd probably have to run to Prince Rupert instead of Vancouver, which strikes me extraordinarily unlikely.
 
The New Zealanders are not going to be happy with any involvement with West Island. A capital in Australia? It would be like running Britain from Cairo. It didn't work well the other way round.........
 
I don't think statehood for Pilbara, Northern Territory and Central Australia, maybe not even Capricorn or Auralia, are likely because there are not enough people there. To this day the Northern Territory isn't a state because there aren't enough people.
 
Top