Inside the Electoral Hell of Canadian Statehood
Topic: Perspective
Now that you’ve made it past the title of this article, let me tell you what it is not. This article is not a hate piece about Canada; in fact, most of my jokes about nationality are French in nature, and about France, not French Canadians. This piece does not blame any of my 448 Canadian SubStack subscribers for the mess Justin Trudeau and his handlers have created over the past decade, nor does it wish for continued political malaise for our northern neighbors. Additionally, the first Major League Baseball game my parents ever took me to was in Toronto, at the old Exhibition Stadium, so perhaps I will connect with my inner child as I sift through something of great geopolitical magnitude.
This piece, like all others that have come before it, aims to get to simple facts and actionable truth. Just so you Canucks understand I have no axe to grind against you, let me tell you a few things I appreciate about your country before getting into the always divisive topic of electoral politics:
In June 2012, I relocated from Arizona to Alaska while serving in the U.S. Army and got to see your spectacular wild country in the Northern Rockies. Below is a photo from Muncho Lake, British Columbia, just a stone’s throw from the Yukon Territory:
Of course, what nineties kid didn’t appreciate watching Larry Walker, an underrated Hall of Fame outfielder?
Finally, speaking of nineties, who didn’t pay homage to Calgary and the Hart family by locking their friends into the Sharpshooter?
If you’re a President Trump supporter, I’m sure you’ve enjoyed the frequent harassment he’s dished out to Justin from Canada and the global elite in saying that he is going to take over Canada and make it a state to help streamline economic relationships between our two nations. This, of course, has spun up all sorts of interesting online commentary, and thanks to the proliferation of social media, you can read that from a national defense, economic, or environmental perspective. Apparently, more than half of Canada’s roughly 37 million people wish to know more about U.S. statehood. This idea may not be as far-flung as you thought.
It sounds really cool, that’s for sure. With 5,000 air miles between Ellesmere Island and the Big Island of Hawaii, there’s enough exploring to do to keep everyone busy. The new national boundaries would include most of North America, and if Trump got his way with Greenland, the continent could collectively wall off the cartel-run nations until they comply, or just take them over too and build the walls where we need them. You would gaze upon the map of the American superstate with the same awestruck wonder you did when you looked at those Cold War-era classroom maps and couldn’t believe your eyes when you saw the Soviet Union’s sheer size:
Unfortunately, dear friends, this is where the fun ends. Adding Canada as a U.S. state, or more correctly as a group of Canadian states (which it would most certainly be), will destroy American politics and make you think today’s situation is spectacular. If you’re thinking the electoral future is bright because Trump’s new GOP brand is siphoning the votes of millions of American minorities in all the key states, then I’m going to demonstrate to you in this article what adding millions of white liberals to the math will do to our chances of electing a populist nationalist of any stripe, let alone one on the political right.
Mr. President, if one of your advisors hands you this article, please keep up the trolling, but understand the political ramifications that would come from adding several Canadian states to the Union.
Setting the Stage
Every state (and Washington, D.C.) begins with 3 electoral votes – one for each U.S. Senator and one vote for an at-large U.S. House Representative. Based on population apportionment (which is another corrupted process), states then receive additional U.S. House seats, which are added to the electoral vote tally. Two examples:
North Dakota – 2 U.S. Senators, 1 U.S. House Representative = 3 Electoral Votes
Texas – 2. U.S. Senators, 38 U.S. House Representatives = 40 Electoral Votes
There are currently 538 electoral votes in circulation – 435 U.S. House Reps, 100 Senators, and 3 freebies for Washington, D.C. (a stupid move). This has been the case in every election since 1964, when D.C. began sending Democrat electoral votes in. Adding Canada will require expanding the count of electoral votes, which means “270 to Win” will no longer be a thing. It will now be “280 to Win” after the electoral college bloats to 559 electoral votes.
Canada – Overview
Canada has 10 Provinces:
Alberta
Population: 4,262,635
Comparable State Population: Oregon
British Columbia
Population: 5,000,879
Comparable State Population: Alabama
Manitoba
Population: 1,342,153
Comparable State Population: Maine
New Brunswick
Population: 775,610
Comparable State Population: North Dakota
Newfoundland and Labrador
Population: 510,550
Comparable State Population: Wyoming
Nova Scotia
Population: 969,383
Comparable State Population: South Dakota
Ontario
Population: 14,223,942
Comparable State Population: Pennsylvania
Prince Edward Island
Population: 154,331
Comparable State Population: None (roughly equal to Charleston, South Carolina)
Quebec
Population: 8,501,833
Comparable State Population: Virginia
Saskatchewan
Population: 1,132,505
Comparable State Population: Montana
Canada also has three territories – Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon Territory, all with extremely tiny populations that would fit inside a few blocks of New York City.
Getting to the electoral math:
· I am assuming some negotiations, given the left-leaning politics of Canada, will be undertaken by Republicans, who stand to get their asses hammered politically for a half-century, if not longer, for bringing Canada on board. Rather than 10 provinces being admitted as states, I think this number will get down to 7.
· New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are admitted as one state nearly equal in population to Idaho.
· Newfoundland and Labrador (one province with two names) gets merged with Quebec, forming a single state slightly smaller than New Jersey by population.
· 7 new states equals 21 new electoral votes added to the existing pool of 538, for a total of 559 electoral votes, meaning “280 To Win” rather than 270.
Here are the electoral votes allotted to each new state if we base them off population comparables:
· State of Ontario (ON) 21
· State of New Quebec (NQ) 13
· State of British Columbia (BC) 9
· State of Alberta (AB) 8
· State of Manitoba (MB) 4
· State of New Scotia (NS) 4
· State of Saskatchewan (SK) 4
Total 63 Electoral Votes out of 559 Total
I’ll worry about how they’re going to vote near the end of the article. For now, I need to stretch 496 electoral votes out over the original 50 states plus Washington, D.C. That will require me to strip out 42 electoral votes that had to be applied to Canada from the donor pool.
Here is the electoral vote allotment for the seven new American states from the former nation of Canada:
Author’s Note: Changes to existing electoral vote apportionment are subject to my arbitrary evaluation system, which can be understood more effectively by reading this initial criticism of the U.S. Census Bureau’s corrupted 2020 count.
Republican Strongholds
The states above are all states Trump won by more than 5.0%. Thanks to having to squeeze in Canada, the following states are likely going to take a ding of one electoral vote, despite higher growth relative to that of blue states:
· Alabama
· Arizona
· Arkansas
· Florida
· Indiana
· Iowa
· Kansas
· Kentucky
· Louisiana
· Mississippi
· Missouri
· Nebraska
· Ohio
· Oklahoma
· South Carolina
· Tennessee
· Texas
· West Virginia
The GOP nominee in the first election after Canadian statehood will start off with 212 electoral votes out of 280 needed to win (75.7%).
Democrat Strongholds
The blue states above are all states Harris won by 5.0% or more, and they total up to 191 electoral votes in the post-Canadian statehood electoral map, or 68.2% of the way to a majority of electoral votes under the new system. The following states take a hit of at least one electoral vote, presuming President Trump strikes a deal to not count illegal aliens for apportionment:
· California (5)
· Colorado
· Connecticut
· Hawaii
· Illinois (2)
· Maryland
· Massachusetts
· New Jersey
· New Mexico
· New York (2)
· Oregon
· Rhode Island
· Virginia
· Washington
Decisive States
8 states, plus Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, were decided within 5.0% in the 2024 election. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota drop an electoral vote each, and thanks to having to fit Canada in, none of the rapidly growing Sun Belt States gain electoral votes.
Canada – Red or Blue?
Before we start dishing out decisive states to see who gets to 280, let’s figure out where the 63 electoral votes allotted to the new Canadian states are going to land. Remember, we have the following starting point:
Republican 212
Democrat 191
And in my expert opinion…
Republican 212
Democrat 254
If Canadian statehood were inevitable, then admitting Canada as one single state would be a better idea, because then they would be worth about as many electoral votes as California and be stuck with two Senators instead of the 14 Democrat Senators that would come out of this mess, and far fewer Congressmen.
Why do I think these new states will vote this way? Let’s go from east to west:
New Quebec (13 electoral votes)
Made up of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec
Quebec, the second-largest province by population, is allotted 71 seats in the House of Commons, and its largest city, Montreal, is choked out with Liberal (Justin Trudeau’s party and the Canadian equivalent of the Democrats) members representing the various districts within and surrounding the city. One thing that makes Quebec unique is that it has its own left-wing secessionist party called the Bloc Quebecois, which is extremely popular outside of the major metro areas. Newfoundland and Labrador have mixed representation but spread over just 7 seats.
This is a blowout along the lines of 70-30 Democrat.
New Scotia (4 electoral votes)
Made up of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia, the most populous of the three provinces making up this new state, has sent 11, 10, and 8 Liberals out of a possible 11 to the House of Commons in the last three federal elections, respectively. Prince Edward Island’s four seats are in Liberal hands, and New Brunswick, while it does have four Conservative-held seats, doesn’t have the population base to compete with Nova Scotia.
These four are in the bag for any Democrat and will align closely with a Vermont-style electorate of liberal whites.
Ontario (21 electoral votes)
Ontario has 122 seats in the House of Commons, 51 more than Quebec, which has the next highest tally. The Toronto metro contains roughly 45% of the province’s total population and, like most cities, is dominated by the Liberal Party (see below in red), although Conservatives and the New Democratic Party (left of the Liberal Party) have some traction. The national capital, Ottawa, is also located within the province.
Put it all together and you get New York-style voting results, but in Canada, and without the nice minority working-class shift going on in our Empire State that suggests future competitiveness .
Manitoba and Saskatchewan (4 electoral votes each)
Plus
Alberta (8 electoral votes)
All three of these provinces, which make up Canada’s interior heartland, voted Conservative in the 2021 federal elections (shaded in blue) – and even did so in some of the cities:
Manitoba has the highest percentage of Indigenous peoples of any province (18% as of 2021), and they are prevalent in its northern region, represented by the New Democratic Party (shown in orange), which holds two seats in Winnipeg and another in Edmonton (Alberta). It is essential to note that Conservatives in Canada are not much like conservatives in the U.S.; while there may be some who would desire American freedoms, such as those pertaining to gun rights, many have been conditioned to oppose what they consider radical ideas, and even the Conservative Party itself is competing with its left-wing counterparts to control carbon emissions (while trying to also language about taxes). There is no demand to control a lawless southern border in Canada, either, so the priorities of the voters are much different than they are here in America.
These states are conservative relative to the rest of Canada, which is far less religious than the United States, but when funneled into a two party system that would collapse the New Democratic, Green, and Liberals into one choice (Democrat), I think you’re looking at Minnesota in the best case – lots of farmers and sportsmen who are left of their American counterparts and outnumbered by urbanites who funnel into one party. Here is another good read on the subject.
These are the 16 narrowest electoral college victories in Canada for the Democrats, but victories nonetheless.
British Columbia (9 electoral votes)
British Columbia will act as an extension of Washington State, which is a rugged outdoor paradise teeming with white liberals and environmentalists, especially on the coasts. The interior of British Columbia (the part facing Alberta) is represented by Conservatives, but metro Vancouver makes up more than half of the population of the province and is represented almost exclusively by Liberal and New Democratic House of Commons members (see red and orange shades below, respectively).
Outside of Vancouver, everything up the Pacific Coastline to Alaska and the Yukon Territory is shaded in orange (New Democratic), which reminds me of the rural areas north of Seattle, which are full of affluent whites with an environmental drive, aided by a small minority population politically.
British Columbia will make Washington State look right-wing for 9 more Democrat electoral votes.
Finishing the Puzzle
Here is where the Electoral College equation winds up after we get the Reds, Blues, and Canadian States down:
Republican 212
Democrat 254
With 93 decisive battleground state electoral votes up for grabs…
The Democrat can win with:
Minnesota (almost certain based on current laws)
plus
New Hampshire (highly likely)
plus
· Nevada + Wisconsin
· Any one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Georgia
The Republican must:
Not miss out on more than 25 electoral votes
House of Representatives
Say hello to the new 1950s to 1990s U.S. House, which was known for four straight decades of Democrat control only toppled by the Republican Revolution, and your new Speaker:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or someone like her, will have 49 new house seats according to my Canada math. If you’re holding out hope for the GOP getting some of them, remember New England has 21 U.S. House seats, with the Republicans holding none. Parts of the Canadian heartland will most likely deliver a GOP House win here and there, but you’re looking at a 3 to 1 split, minimum:
Democrat House Pickups 39
GOP House Pickups 10
Net Shift Democrat +29
U.S. Senate
Your new Senate majority leader would like to see you in his office:
The newly elected Adam Schiff, from our nation’s largest state, would command a 61-53 Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate, making that party’s lock on the Senate impenetrable. Each province-turned-state would add two Senators, for a total of 14 according to this model. The best that could happen is one of the interior Canadian states throws a midterm upset here or there, which can easily be offset by one in the original 50 states.
Conclusion
The U.S. House and Senate are long gone if this scenario comes to fruition. If Canada were admitted as a single state, the Senate could be Republican-held, but the House would be toast.
You may have crunched the numbers as you scanned this article and found that Trump would have still won the Presidency this year, and by a tally of 291 to 268. Here is how that map looks:
However, all it would have taken to divert this result is few extra days of counting in Michigan or Pennsylvania.
You don’t want to get there, Mr. President.
I suspect the push for Canada and Greenland isn’t so much about economics and partnerships as it is about American Arctic Dominance, something we are lagging far behind Russia and China with regard to. If that is the case, then by all means, use diplomacy to figure out the best way to position us there; however, Canadian statehood as a means of expanding our reach further into the frozen north will devastate the American electoral system and make any short-term gains moot, reverse the impact of Making America Great Again, and put Americans on the fast track to losing our prized freedoms.
It is the political equivalent of dropping a California plus Oregon sized electoral vote batch on America that votes like New England; the Democrats would never give us another Texas, Ohio, and Iowa gift, so we shouldn’t be quick to pick a short term victory in exchange for a long-term defeat of all we value politically.
Seth Keshel, MBA, is a former Army Captain of Military Intelligence and Afghanistan veteran. His analytical method of election forecasting and analytics is known worldwide, and he has been commended by President Donald J. Trump for his work in the field.
Agreed. And I saw this problem (in less detail of course) as soon as Trump suggested it. But I am not worried as it is unlikely.
I would rather give Vermont and Seattle to Canada. But that, alas, is unlikely as well.
At first glance, I liked the idea of incorporating all of their natural resources, but one read and you have me convinced. I had no idea they were so liberal. Always thought of them as a rugged people.