Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 17, 2017, 10:29:07 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  International What-ifs (Moderators: Kalwejt, Apocrypha)
| | | |-+  Population of Canada if it had been in the USA
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Population of Canada if it had been in the USA  (Read 868 times)
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8215
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« on: January 12, 2012, 04:31:59 pm »
Ignore

This presumes that back in the 1700's, Canada is annexed by the USA.

For simplicity, we are also presuming that the current provincial borders are exactly the state borders.

This still leaves one issue outstanding, so we will lastly presume that the USA is able to run over the cultural uniqueness of Quebec like it has with all it's other areas, and thus, Quebec Nationalism is not an issue.

Here is my take:


Newfoundland, without Labrador
600K-750K
I can't see the rock being much more populated for the simple fact that it is a rock. There is not much in the way of economic activity out here and there really never has been. There really is/was not much reason to move here and I can not see being a part of the US changing that. This could be altered however if the US decided to use this place for more military than I expect, or, to put area 51 here, since, who is going to trust a bunch 'o newfies?

Prince Edward Island
~200K
PEI is a rural place and does not work as much else. At these populations you max out the Island in a rural manner, and I really have a hard time seeing much more people living here.

Nova Scotia
2.5M - 3M
Nova Scotia, especially areas like Halifax and the Valley, would have been much more settled if NS was in the USA. The problem is geography, NS is not exactly friendly to settlement, and eventually, you'd start to run into this as a limit to population growth.

New Brunswick
2.5M-3.5M
Unlike NS, NB has much more room to grow, and, I see growth being much more even. NB is one of the forestry centres of Canada, and, has lots of agriculture. I see NB's growth being even, so that a modern real life provincial electoral boundary map could apply in this alternate reality just as well.

Quebec
20M-25M
Without nationalism, Quebec's infrastructure head-start would be an amazing asset. Montreal would be a bustling city that would easily be the clear and unchallenged "3rd" in a NYC-LA-Montreal trifecta of large american cities. Montreal would have the "old world charm" like none of these others do, and become a mecca for left-wing politics. Quebec would be "the" left-wing state, and the economic consequences of Montreal being so large would increase the population of places like NH and VT. The Bo-Wash corridor would become a Mo-Wash corridor, and Quebec itself would be much like a Texas of the left.

Ontario
18M-22M
Without Quebec collapsing, Ontario would have a more difficult time overtaking it. Toronto might still be a city to rival Philly or Chicago, but it would not be as large as Montreal. In fact, comparing settlement patterns, I expect most of the additional population to be in places like Kitchener, or London, and for the North to have 3 to 4 times it's current population. Toronto, oddly, would not be much different than it is today.

Manitoba
2M-3M
Winnipeg would become the big draw in Manitoba, and nearly all of the additional population would be there. I could see Winnipeg becoming a kind of city of the northern planes, and pumping out Democrats of a certain stripe that would be similar to Minnesota.

Saskatchewan
2M-2.5M
The opposite of Manitoba, I see the population growth outside the major cities, with SK now having many places with over 100K people. I also see the state having the most radically divided politics, with one of the most right-wing Republican parties and one of the most left-wing Democratic parties.

Alberta
10M-15M
Most of this growth would have been in the past few decades, but Alberta would be huge. With more and more oil and with business-friendly Republicans in power, Alberta would be sky-rocketing. Given the US's history with oil, I also expect the oil industry to be far more developed than in current IRL.

British Columbia
7M-11M
I see growth all over the province, with both the lower mainland and inland areas benefiting. I also see many more people in the north. BC, in the end, would fit in well with states like Washington and Oregon. I also see an interstate running to Alaska - which would be uber expensive.

OTHER

Yukon
250K-500K
The Yukon would have been settled far more if we had been a part of the US as evidenced by Alaska's population. I also see the two working much more closely than they do now.

NWT
100K-200K
Same rationale as above really

Nunavut
75K-150K
Same as above

Labrador
300K-600K
I really see Labrador benefiting from the kind of settlement that the US can provide. With resources and a northern climate similar to the territories, but with much easier access, I see this as having appeal much stronger than the far north, and managing to draw a huge number of settlers. In the end, Labrador might account for 40% of the population of NL, but I also expect the two would have been separated at some point.




Now what do you think would the populations be?
Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
ottermax
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1441
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2012, 10:53:13 pm »
Ignore

I find it interesting that you think Canada's pop would be greater if it had been annexed by the USA. I think the opposite.

From my understanding, the prairies were largely settled because the Canadian government encouraged westward expansion to stave off American northward expansion. If you look at the border between Saskatchewan/Manitoba and Minnesota/North Dakota/Montana, the development to the north is much more impressive and denser.

I also doubt that Vancouver would be as dense and populous today because Canadians would be able to go to California and other West Coast locations as warmer destinations. I also doubt that there would be as much immigration to cities like Toronto and Vancouver that have formed the bulk of pop growth in the past few decades. Alberta would likely be smaller as well, but going through a current boom because of the oil.

I also think that the Maritimes would have a significantly lower population because of westward expansion. I also think that the North would be less populated because it is very different from Alaska. Alaska only has a significant population because its coastal access has allowed fishing and port access plus the oil revenue that has allowed growth in Anchorage.

I do agree that Quebec would be more populated because it would not have suffered the same effects from the Quiet Revolution, but I also would guess that French would have disappeared considering how insignificant Quebec would be in the whole scheme of the USA; I'm guessing it would turn out like Louisiana but with a stronger French presence.

Then again, the economic growth of the USA and possible encouraged northward expansion may have encouraged population growth, but I've always thought that Canada was more populated than it should be because of its limited arable land and generally awful weather.
Logged
🍁 Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23950
Canada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2012, 11:21:58 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, Canada would have less people. Who would want to live in such a cold place if it was no different than the rest of the US? Most people who immigrate to Canada either A) chose it because they didn't want to move to the US or B) chose Canada as a 2nd choice because they couldn't get to Canada. Having said that, the population wouldn't be that much smaller.
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8215
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2012, 04:51:03 am »
Ignore

I see the opposite, that it would be the population of the lower 48 that would be lower, especially California, which I see having 3-4M less people.

Feel free to submit your own ideas!
Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8215
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2012, 05:55:08 am »
Ignore

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145629.msg3132834#msg3132834

This thread was in response to this. It took me this long to find the damn thing.
Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines