If the four UK nations became US States?

[johnsmith]

What impact would we have on the US political scene if each of our four UK nations were admitted to the US as four new States?

Currently, under the US Constitution, each State, regardless of size, sends two Senators to the US Senate. So each of our four nations would send two, so that altogether we'd increase the number of Senators from 100 to 108. We'd only control 8 of them between us, though, perhaps enough to have an impact if it were tight, but otherwise not decisive.

Our influence upon the make-up of the House of Representatives would be far more substantial, however. Because representation here consists of 435 seats, allocated to the individual States largely on the basis of population, though every State is guaranteed at least one, and there are an additional three for the District of Columbia.

And England alone would be by far the most populous single State, and would therefore have more Representatives than any other State. Currently, the US population is about 319 million, the most populous of it's States being California with nearly 39 million of those. England would add roughly another 53 million, Scotland a further 5 million, Wales 3 million and Northern Ireland 2 million. We'd together increase the US population to 382 million.  In rough percentage terms, England would make up about 13.8% of the population, Scotland another 1.3%, Wales O.8%, and Northern Ireland about 0.5% - in total almost one sixth.

In terms of Representatives in the House, of the 435 (plus the three for DC), England would have about 64, Scotland maybe another 6, Wales 4, and Northern Ireland 2. Altogether, the nations that currently make up the UK would between them control about 76 of the 438 House seats. Which is a substantial bloc.

How would this impact US politics? Well, we in Britain tend to be wedded to what much of America derides as "socialised" healthcare. We tend to be highly averse to an excess of religion in politics. And we tend to support relatively strict gun controls. To name but three. If our own parties disappeared, we'd most likely vote Democrat by fairly large majorities. Perhaps more likely, we'd retain our own right wing party distinct from the Republicans, whom our own right would largely prefer, free to differ from the Republicans when they needed to, but able to support them when they agreed.

Nevertheless, the political centre of gravity in the UK tends on many issues to be on what the USA would think of as the left of the political spectrum. Our becoming part of the USA would undoubtedly shift the political centre of gravity a little leftwards. 

Of course, most US States have a winner takes all allotment to the Electoral College - whichever party gains the most votes gets all the seats. But there are one or two exceptions where States apportion seats to the parties in proportion to their share of the vote. In the extremely unlikely event that we ever attempted to become part of the USA, the Republicans would no doubt insist as a condition that we apportion House seats to the parties proportionately, in order to substantially diminish the likely strength of our anti-Republican bloc vote.

[myth11]

i think we would have electoral college votes decided by House of Representatives seats like Nebraska with the 2 senator e votes going to the winner.

[Deleted]

Some comment about Wales being smaller than Rhode Island! 

[J.G.Harston]

Oct 22, 2015 15:15:29 GMT johnsmith said:

Our influence upon the make-up of the House of Representatives would be far more substantial, however. Because representation here consists of 435 seats, allocated to the individual States largely on the basis of population, though every State is guaranteed at least one, and there are an additional three for the District of Columbia.

DC doesn't have any Congressional seats, it has a number of presidential electoral college votes as though it were a state, currently three.

the Republicans would no doubt insist as a condition that we apportion (correction: Presidential electors) to the parties proportionately, in order to substantially diminish the likely strength of our anti-Republican bloc vote.

That's a state right, and can't be imposed by the Federal government.

[john07]

Maine and Nebraska split their electoral college votes. Each gives to college votes to the at large state vote and one for the vote in each congressional district.

Maine has always had all delegates voting for the same candidate but Nebraska did end up with a split in 2008. Omaha voted for Obama (rather like Hooley for Heely) while the at large votes and the other congressional district votes went for McCain.

I sispect that the Republicans would like California and New York to use that system and maybe the Democrats would appreciate Texas hounding the same way..

[Devil Wincarnate]

I've not had chance to give this a think through yet, but I must say johnsmith, this is a great idea for a thread.

[mrhell]

There's an old episode of Stab In The Dark where Michael Gove (he's expressed his hatred for the show as a whole since) tried to convince someone or other we should join Germany.

[piperdave]

I read a novel with this as a basic premise (the whole UK becoming an additional state). I'm pretty sure it was The 51st State by Peter Preston.

And J.G.Harston is absolutely right that DC does not have a Congressman. It elects a delegate who has no voting rights, as does Guam, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Perhaps the Crown Dependencies might be given delegates as well.

I was interested to check up where Scotland would sit in the table and it would be on a par with Colorado. And Wales is about double the population of Rhode Island, it's slightly bigger in population than New Mexico. Northern Ireland is about Rhode Island size.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I made a brief attempt to assign congressional districts to the UK a while back. I didn't get too far, because the apportionment rules were too difficult to rectify with Boundary Assistant (because the US uses total population, whereas we use electorate), but I did get the likely distribution of congressional districts.

England would have 68 seats, Scotland would have 6, Wales 3 and Northern Ireland 1. I think every US state with more than one district would lose at least 1 seat, and West Virginia and Nebraska would be particularly annoyed, because they'd both drop from 3 to 1. In practice, I suspect they'd expand the house instead, because such changes wouldn't be palatable.

Of course, the change is never going to happen. But even if it did, I'm not sure that we'd easily adopt the two main parties over here. The Tories would be split between Democrats and Republicans, whilst many in Labour would feel the Democrats aren't far enough to the left. Perhaps you'd get change eventually, but I think it'd be more like the system in Minnesota and North Dakota with the DFL/Democrat-NPL. In fact, the existence of a viable socialist party in urban Britain (but only in urban areas, I suspect - outside Durham we wouldn't win many rural congressional seats) might actually spur third party efforts in American urban centres.

Also, with American campaign finance rules campaigns would be unrecognisable.

[greatkingrat]

Oct 22, 2015 20:21:03 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I made a brief attempt to assign congressional districts to the UK a while back. I didn't get too far, because the apportionment rules were too difficult to rectify with Boundary Assistant (because the US uses total population, whereas we use electorate), but I did get the likely distribution of congressional districts.

England would have 68 seats, Scotland would have 6, Wales 3 and Northern Ireland 1. I think every US state with more than one district would lose at least 1 seat, and West Virginia and Nebraska would be particularly annoyed, because they'd both drop from 3 to 1. In practice, I suspect they'd expand the house instead, because such changes wouldn't be palatable.

That doesn't sound right - 380 million would give a quota in the 870k region, NE and WV are both about 1.8M so would be about right for two seats each.

[johnsmith]

Oct 22, 2015 16:27:07 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Oct 22, 2015 15:15:29 GMT johnsmith said:

Our influence upon the make-up of the House of Representatives would be far more substantial, however. Because representation here consists of 435 seats, allocated to the individual States largely on the basis of population, though every State is guaranteed at least one, and there are an additional three for the District of Columbia.

DC doesn't have any Congressional seats, it has a number of presidential electoral college votes as though it were a state, currently three.

the Republicans would no doubt insist as a condition that we apportion (correction: Presidential electors) to the parties proportionately, in order to substantially diminish the likely strength of our anti-Republican bloc vote.

That's a state right, and can't be imposed by the Federal government.

Indeed, but the Federal government and congress would get to decide whether to admit us or not. And the Republicans would most likely make a vote in favour of admittance conditional upon us choosing to split our electoral college votes proportionally in advance.

[Merseymike]

There are so few politicians from outside the two parties in the US and I think the likelihood would be that they would dominate and their money would talk.

In the Senate I think the likely outcome would be 8 Democrats. Perhaps some Republicans could squeeze in to the House but in US terms they would be RINO's if they backed the health reforms. Northern Ireland could elect one on religious grounds

Presidentially nearly always Democrat too

[mondialito]

Would UKIP play the role of the Tea Party?

[J.G.Harston]

In another place from time to time there's discussions on what presidential elections results may have been in Canada was in the US. I've spent a few minutes trying to find the threads, but couldn't find them. I'm sure I've also seen a thread about the UK joining the US, but couldn't find that either.

I'm in the middle of some sleeves-rolled-up programming, so my mind probably isn't in the right thinking mode.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Oct 22, 2015 20:40:05 GMT greatkingrat said:

Oct 22, 2015 20:21:03 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I made a brief attempt to assign congressional districts to the UK a while back. I didn't get too far, because the apportionment rules were too difficult to rectify with Boundary Assistant (because the US uses total population, whereas we use electorate), but I did get the likely distribution of congressional districts.

England would have 68 seats, Scotland would have 6, Wales 3 and Northern Ireland 1. I think every US state with more than one district would lose at least 1 seat, and West Virginia and Nebraska would be particularly annoyed, because they'd both drop from 3 to 1. In practice, I suspect they'd expand the house instead, because such changes wouldn't be palatable.

That doesn't sound right - 380 million would give a quota in the 870k region, NE and WV are both about 1.8M so would be about right for two seats each.

You're right. There's an error in my spreadsheet affecting the smaller states. I'll try to fix it tomorrow morning.

[Devil Wincarnate]

"I'm not from here originally, but I would like to be the at-large congresswoman for Wyoming" says Democratic hopeful Katie Ghose.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Oct 22, 2015 20:40:05 GMT greatkingrat said:

Oct 22, 2015 20:21:03 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I made a brief attempt to assign congressional districts to the UK a while back. I didn't get too far, because the apportionment rules were too difficult to rectify with Boundary Assistant (because the US uses total population, whereas we use electorate), but I did get the likely distribution of congressional districts.

England would have 68 seats, Scotland would have 6, Wales 3 and Northern Ireland 1. I think every US state with more than one district would lose at least 1 seat, and West Virginia and Nebraska would be particularly annoyed, because they'd both drop from 3 to 1. In practice, I suspect they'd expand the house instead, because such changes wouldn't be palatable.

That doesn't sound right - 380 million would give a quota in the 870k region, NE and WV are both about 1.8M so would be about right for two seats each.

OK, I've double-checked the figures and the correct apportionment using US census 2010 and UK census 2011 is as follows:

England: 62
California: 44
Texas: 29
New York: 23
Florida: 22
Illinois: 15
Pennsylvania: 15
Ohio: 13
Michigan: 12
Georgia: 11
North Carolina: 11
New Jersey: 10
Virginia: 9
Washington: 8
Massachusetts: 8
Indiana: 8
Arizona: 7
Tennessee: 7
Missouri: 7
Maryland: 7
Wisconsin: 7
Minnesota: 6
Scotland: 6
Colorado: 6
Alabama: 6
South Carolina: 5
Louisiana: 5
Kentucky: 5
Oregon: 5
Oklahoma: 4
Connecticut: 4
Wales: 4
Iowa: 4 (the first state not to lose a seat)
Mississippi: 4
Arkansas: 3
Kansas: 3
Utah: 3
Nevada: 3
New Mexico: 2
West Virginia: 2
Nebraska: 2
Northern Ireland: 2
Idaho: 2
Hawaii: 2
Maine: 2
New Hampshire: 2
Remainder: 1 each

[john07]

Oct 22, 2015 22:36:12 GMT mondialito said:

Would UKIP play the role of the Tea Party?

Nigel Farage with tea?

Never!

[Arthur Figgis]

Hog's Back TEA.

[finsobruce]

Oct 23, 2015 10:01:03 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

Hog's Back TEA.

A fine pint. Would have Farage down more as an OTT or Ripsnorter drinker myself...