It is an idea that has been the subject of fear mongering by Canadian politicians since before Confederation in 1867 (admittedly stoked now and then by some equally nutty Americans), but one I actually thought had more or less been killed in the wake of the 1988 re-election of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives and the subsequent formalisation of free trade with the United States.
It sounds sexy, but few actually stop to consider whether such a move would be welcomed in the United States itself. Just for fun, let's take the idea seriously.....
Setting aside the issue of Canadian (Alberta's) interest in any of this for a moment, let's look at the logic (or lack thereof) of adding a 51st State to the American political system. As per the U.S. Constitution, the the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives must be done on the basis of a national census taken every ten years (Article I, Sec, 2). The latest U.S. Census was taken in 2010. Both the census and the subsequent reapportionment exercise make for a fascinating snapshot of the American political landscape (See Census Bureau report). One important outcome of this process is the redistribution of House seats in-line with population shifts. As states gain or lose population, they also gain or lose seats in the 435 Member House. In the most recent exercise, fast growing states like Texas (+4), Florida (+3), Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (+1 each) gained seats, while states like New York and Ohio (-2 each), Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan and Louisiana (-1 each) all lost.
Adding Alberta?
Alberta currently has approximately 4.1 million residents, placing on par with U.S. states like Oregon (3.8), Oklahoma (3.7), Kentucky (4.3) and Louisiana (4.5). Oregon and Oklahoma have 5 House seats while Kentucky and Louisiana have 4 each (keeping in mind that each state, regardless of population also has two Senators). Hence, if Alberta were made the 51st State next week, there would be 4 new members of the House and 2 new Senators. However, like many of the states that gained seats in the reapportionment, Alberta has a rapidly growing population which means it would likely add more House seats to its delegation in the next census/reapportionment exercise projected for 2020/21. The (Alberta Treasury Board) conservatively estimates that by 2041, Alberta will have roughly 6.2 million residents, putting it on par with the current populations of states like Arizona (6.4), Indiana (6.5), and Tennessee (6.3), each of which has 9 House members.
Because there are only 435 seats in the House of Representatives, the new Alberta Congressional delegation of 9 would be drawn from those states experiencing net outward population flows; likely those in the rust-belt states of the mid-west, few of which are happy about the loss of just one seat. Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to admit new states with a simple majority vote. Yet, as the 1958 and 1958 Congressional debates over the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as the 49th and 50th states reveals, a favourable statehood vote for Alberta is hardly a certainty.
Red State RINOs?
One source of opposition to Alberta becoming the 51st State would come from America's two major political parties. For argument's sake, let's assume that the ideological spectrum in Alberta largely mirrors that of contemporary America; Republicans are basically the same as the Conservatives/Wildrose and Democrats are more or less like Liberals/NDP. More on this later, but indulge this proposition for a moment. Since U.S. Senators would be elected on a province-wide basis, and Alberta is relatively conservative, we could envision that both would be Republicans.
Also for argument's sake, let's assume Alberta's 9 House Members and 2 Senators are distributed along ideological terms roughly in line with Alberta's current political breakdown. At present, 75 of the 87 seats in Alberta's legislature are held by parties on the ideological right (Conservative/Wildrose). If as a U.S. state Alberta's distribution of House seats fell roughly along the same lines, Republicans would hold 8 of the 9. Since Alberta's political history and culture have been typified by stable, single-party dominance, it is hard to imagine House Democrats supporting an Alberta bid for statehood in large numbers. Within the ranks of the contemporary GOP, conservative Albertans would likely be seen as Republicans in Name Only, in part, due to their support for single-payer healthcare, among other things. However, Democrats would be unlikely to support statehood for a large, growing, and largely red delegation to Congress.
Or Blue Dogs?
On the other hand, in spite of Alberta's history of long-time, single-party dominance by conservatives, the ideological symmetry between American and Canadian conservatives should not be overstated. In fact, I strongly suspect that most Albertans would feel more at home in the Democratic Party, many being considered conservative Democrats-- so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Moreover, recent trends in the polarization of the Republican Party in the United States suggest that even establishment Republicans-- to say nothing of Tea Party Republicans-- are further to the right than many of Alberta's existing right-wing parties. Indeed, if we posit that Alberta's conservative parties are really more akin to conservative Democrats, we could see that same 2040 congressional delegation from Alberta represented by two Democratic Senators and 9 Democratic House members. In that case, Republicans would oppose statehood.
Nowhere would the introduction of a solidly monolithic bloc of representation from a new state be more disruptive than within the Electoral College, that peculiar, confusing, and indirect mode by which American select a president. In short, there is one vote in the Electoral College for each member of a state's congressional delegation (House and Senate). To admit 11 new members to that process from Alberta would have a significant impact given the closeness of recent presidential elections (see Electoral College Map) since all but Maine and Nebraska allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote (in many cases razor close).
The Alberta-Puerto Rico Compromise of 2020?
The point of all this speculation is to suggest that admitting new states to the Union is not at all straight forward. Indeed, American history is full of examples in which Congress attempted to thread several needles at the same time through various compromises aimed at achieving balance. In fact, the architecture of the U.S. Constitution reflects an American obsession with balance and representation. Students of the Constitution will know that when Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were fussing over a way to balance the voting power of large states with that of small states, America ended up with the so-called Great Compromise between the New Jersey Plan (small state) and the Virginia Plan (large state). That compromise was a bicameral national legislature (Congress) the House would have representation based upon population size, which would then be offset by two members from each state, regardless of size, in the Senate.
Where the admission of new states is concerned, one could argue that Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1958 and 1959 respectively in an effort to maintain some balance in Congressional representation. Each state was admitted with its requisite Senate delegation. However, Alaska has only one at-large House member and Hawaii has just two districts.
Moreover, balance in the admission of new states to the Union has a long and troubled past anchored in antebellum America and the issue of slavery. There was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery in many parts of the Louisiana Purchase in exchange for the creation of Missouri as a slave-holding state. Then, in 1850, this was supplanted by yet another compromise in which California was admitted as a free state, Texas was given financial assistance, and the issue of slavery was kicked down the road in the new Utah and New Mexico Territories. Then, in 1854, indecision about slavery in the Kansas Territory led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act which said slavery would be determined by popular sovereignty. Pro- and anti-slavery factions almost immediately began a series of bloody confrontations aimed at tipping the balance.
While political balance and compromise are no longer complicated by slavery, upsetting the fine balance in the American political system with new states would still be a sensitive issue. Would we need an Alberta Compromise of 2020 wherein the conservative influence of Alberta (possibly a "red" state) was offset by a similarly liberal influence of Puerto Rico (likely to be a solidly "blue" state)? Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory with a population of nearly 4 million, has been the subject of considerable statehood talk in recent years. In fact, Puerto Rico held 2012 referendum on its status as a protectorate. While a slight majority of Puerto Ricans rejected the ambiguity of over 100 years protectorate status, voters were just as indecisive about whether they wanted to pursue statehood or outright independence (see link). Nevertheless, the effort has prompted initiatives in the U.S. Congress to facilitate a full referendum on the question of statehood in the near future (link).
Taxation Without Representation
To find an example of a statehood movement being undercut by concerns over imbalance, look no further than the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). Created in 1790 by an act of Congress, the District of Columbia was organized to be a part of no state so as to make it a kind of non-partisan seat of government where the affairs of the rest of the nation could be debated free of the parochial interests that would accompany formal statehood. Unfortunately, as DC has grown, so too have the calls for formal statehood. Modern Washington, D.C. has nearly 700,000 residents, but no voting representation in Congress. Since the Reconstruction era, an at-large (but still non-voting) delegate has been elected, a position currently occupied by Eleanor Holmes Norton.
This has led to a significant "DC Statehood" movement which has invoked the old slogan from the Revolutionary War period, "no taxation without representation," and to allege "taxation without representation." Indeed, in 2000, the City of Washington, D.C. introduced a form of protest of its own with the introduction of new automobile license plates with the slogan.
If admitted to the Union as a state, DC would be heavily Democratic with two Senators and one House member. Three solidly blue votes on Capitol Hill might not seem like a lot, but in today's bitterly, and relatively evenly divided Congress, three members can make a big difference. As such, it should come as no surprise that among the recent occupants of the White House, Democrats (Clinton and Obama) favor D.C. statehood, Republicans (Bush) have opposed.
Barbarians at the Gates?
So, to the the small number of Canadians who have either dreamed of, or fretted about, parts of Canada becoming part of the United States, I say relax. There are 700,000 Americans living in the nation's capital who are having a tough time becoming a state, never mind 4 million Albertans, most of whom aren't even thinking about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment