Democracy and a hypothetical USNA

Post Reply New Topic

If the US voted to annex Canada, forming the United States of North America, in a referendum that got a yes from majority of the population in the resulting USNA (say, 2/3 of the US population, leading to 50+% on the whole after Canada is added), would that be a legitimate move? After all, it would be backed by a majority of the people in the USNA.

If not, why not?

We should name it the United Developed States of America or United First World States of America because it combines the 2 developed countries of the New World.

Last edited by AntDog on 23 Feb 2015, 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Regions have the right to self determination. Neighbouring regions do not have the right to annex them.
See also: Scotland

We don't use a simple Benthamite calculus on all the people affected, just those who live in the smaller region.

Now, imagine if everyone in the USA wanted to kick Michigan out of the Union, but Michigan wanted to stay; meanwhile, Texas wants to leave, but nobody else wants that. Which scenarios are most likely to lead to rioting and outrage?

Even if you want to h8 on Trinidad and Tobago... what about Australia?

Australia and New Zealand are usually not defined as part of the New World. They are separated by the Pacific Ocean.
A union of the 4 would just need the UK added to it to be called the British Imperial States.

However, after the annexation, Canada and America no longer exist - there is only one region, the U.S.N.A. Why should the people in the north of the U.S.N.A. be allowed to leave and form their own country, against the wishes of most of the population?

How do you define a "region"?

Unless Canada also voted to approve the annexation, the move would be illegal.

If both sides voted to merge however, then the move would be legal, and east-coast Americans might have to learn to speak French.

N'cest pas?

While I think most Americans would be generally supportive of incorporating Canada, I don't see any real reason why Canada would want to do that. It wouldn't be the USNA, it would just be the USA as the US would dominate that relationship. If there was ever a political union of countries in North America it would involve Mexico and I don't think the people of either the US or Canada truly want that, maybe some multinational corporations would like it.

I've always like the idea of Anglosphere union of some sorts tho, it would seem like a good alternative to the EU for the UK even without the US being officially apart of it by forging closer relations with Canada, Australia, New Zealand. To me that seems a lot easier to swallow given our shared language, heritage, and culture.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used Canada and America.

I'll rephrase - Region A has a population of 100 million, Region B has a population of 10 million. Region A holds a referendum on merging with Region B to form Region C, in which 70 million people vote yes. Region C now has a population of 110 million, of which a majority, 70 million, are in favour of keeping as Region C. As a majority of the population of Region C are in favour of the status quo (of being Region C), should it remain this way?

Your wording there is a bit confusing. If majorities in both countries wanted to merge then on the surface I think it should be legal as I support the right of self determination, once you get into real life tho there are a lot of other issues that come into play. Using the US and Canada as an example, lets say both countries overall support merging but a region Quebec or Texas don't want to be apart of that. To me, as I support self determination would think secession on their parts to be legitimate if it represented the views of their people.

How is it confusing? In the scenario, a majority in Region C are in favour of Region C, although the population of the previous Region B was not consulted. The point is, we now have a region in which *most of the population are in favour of Region C*, although a majority of the people in the former Region B may be opposed to it. But democratically, Region C is supported.

We have more in common culturally with Europeans than Commonwealth people who live on the other side of the world. It's also much more practical.

If America were a part of it, then we might be talking - but the union would probably be intolerably right-wing for the Commonwealth to accept it.

The "New World" isn't a geographic term, more of a sociological one (though it is sometimes used in biological contexts). Australia and New Zealand's relatively recent discovery and colonisation by Europeans means that they are often defined as part of the New World, but I'll accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Still, T&T...

Self determination.

Again, see Scotland.

Or, indeed, Kosovo.

Where do you draw the line of self determination?

It's hard to say, as with all questions of the tyranny of the majority...

Fortunately, I think there are usually clear cultural or ethnic reasons why a group might desire self-determination. I wouldn't support your insistence that your house was now the territory of Magnetoland, but Liverpool or Cornwall, areas with a shared identity and history? Yeah, sure.

I was gonna say that it should be called "the United States of ANGLO America" because it would leave out Mexico, "Central" America (which is geologically part of North America even if it is culturally more linked to South America), which are Iberian rather than British based cultures.
***

Doing that would set a REALLY bad precedent.

The People's Republic of China could stage referendums (and even have them monitored by the UN to be honest) to justify China siezing any country they want (except India).

China could propose that both the American, and Chinese, people vote on the resolution to allow "China to take over control of the whole USA". And in an honest and fair election China's equivalent of Madison Avenue might well be able to persuade 60 percent of Chinese voters to vote for the resolution. That would be enough to over ride the 100 percent of American voters who would be appalled by the notion. And the USA would become a province of China, and the Chinese could claim that it was all done "democratically" !

What if everyone in my house have a shared identity? Should we not be allowed self-determination?

Canada is a sovereign nation. The U.S. has no legal right to annex it.

ruveyn