Australia/America

Actually, Brian, you’re not too far from the truth. US states were usually admitted into the union in pairs, generally where one could be expected to vote for one party and the other for the other. Each state admission was a partisan compromise that kept the Senate in balance.

The US has not had any new states since 1959 (Hawaii – Democrat, Alaska – Republican), and the main reason is the difficulty in getting a balanced pair. Puerto Rico might be just slighly Republican, but not consistently. DC has been demanding statehood for years, but it will never happen because it’s a Democratic stronghold. Guam and the Northern Marianas are heavily subsidised by the military budget, and would make a pretty small state anyway. The Virgin Islands are also too small, and the population is largely black and not very Republican.

This is also why even if Canada asked to be annexed by the US, it would never happen. It would guarantee Democrats the Senate and probably House majorities for generations, as well as the Presidency thanks to the electoral college.

I think you’re right about Australian Coalition voters going Democrat. My father, an unabashed reactionary if ever there was one, consistently said he would support the US Democrats if he were American.

We were both fairly pleased when we both voted the same way in the republic referendum because we wanted an elected president. It was certainly the only time that happened.

I’d think every state except would go Democrat. Ditto New Zealand if they joined. While the Australian Right would probably adore the idea they’d become hysterical about any threat to the position of Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia.

Um… California “subsidizes” the US how? Did I miss something?

So who says Americans would even let Australia in? I would point out that: 1) Australians talk funny; 2) Australia is too damn far away; 3) we already have a game called football and don’t need another; 4) everyone knows that Melbourne is in Florida; and 5) it would just be too damn confusing for it to always be a different day in one part of the country.

Kokomo, I’m afraid I don’t have any complete access to the Congressional Record from the 19th century, so, here are are the states and the dates of the next election. Succeeding years is the same election cycle, which is as close to simultaneous as the US Congress gets.

Indiana & Mississippi – 1818
Illinois & Alabama – 1820
Maine & Missouri – 1822
Arkansas & Michigan – 1838

In my history class, I recall being told that Iowa and Wisconsin were admitted in 1846 and 1848 because of the admission of Texas and Florida as slave states. The longer time was due to the Mexican War interfering with the bargaining. Initially, the slave states hoped to make several states out of Texas.

Minnesota & Oregon – 1860

For 1860, I have some election data access. Unfortunately only for the Presidential election and not Congress. Minnesota by 60-some percent voted for Douglas in 1860. Only 36% of Oregonians voted for Douglas, although because it was an unexpected four candidate election, Douglas still took the state.

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming – 1892

From Today in History at the Library of Congress:

During the period 1878-1889, Congress consistently rejected appeals for Washington statehood despite its growing population. Denial of statehood was largely due to a concern that the lack of an interstate railroad connection would interfere in the effective governance of Oregon as a state. More significantly, the legislators hesitated to disturb the delicate balance of Democrats and Republicans in Congress by creating another state. Finally, a decade after its initial request, Congress admitted Washington into the Union along with Montana and the Dakotas.

Arizona & New Mexico – 1912

I have not been able to find a footnoted source which points to Republican resistance to admitting potentially Democratic New Mexico to the union – I did find an unfootnoted one here. I have had no difficulty finding sources linking New Mexico statehood to Arizona statehood. In the 1912 Presidential election, both voted for Wilson by narrow margins in a three candidate race which suggests that it makes some sense for Republicans to have delayed statehood until there were more even chances for both parties.

Alaska & Hawaii – 1960

Hawaii went for Kennedy in 1960, and Alaska for Nixon. I had always understood that to have been part of the deal.

Now, I lack access to a regular university library, so this is all web research of uncertain pedigree. Still, considering the resources I have on hand, I think my case is decent.

While this is an unlikely scenarion, wouldn’t it be more likely that the existing Australian parties would continue to exist but would make some sort of alliance with the two main parties in the US? Senators, representatives and governors would be either Liberal or Labor but would work with either the Republican or Democrat Parties, with some sort of agreement to come together at elections.

In the long run, you’d expect to see the various parties merge, or at least become very close (the DFL in Minnesota could be an example, but I’m not entirely sure of the background there) but in the short term, I would expect that the Australian parties would keep their own identities, if only to stop some ‘True Aussie’ party stealing all the votes at the first elections.

Which is probably way too much detail for a subject that’s unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime.

I really don’t think the guy is recommending that Australia become the 51st state, except in a Swiftian way. He is an American expatriate who wishes that Australia was more interested in being Australian.

Consider the sad plight of the The Road to Surfdom and I would certainly vote Democrat. So there.