Canada as 51st State
I'm going to jump right into this. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Canada actually joining the United States either as 1 State or 10 States (one for each Province) becomes a possibility. Other than increasing the availability of maple syrup and relegating Texas to being either the third largest (after Canada and Alaska) or fifth largest (after Alaska, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, in order) state, there would be a shift in the makeup of the political landscape. Let's explore.
Let's walk through two hypothetical scenarios, complete with charts, population data, and partisan breakdowns. It’s a forward-thinking (yet totally imaginary) exercise in political arithmetic. Buckle up and check your maple syrup supply: things are about to get interesting.
Assumptions
The rest of this article makes a few assumptions. There are so many possible variables and potential permutations that these were used as a starting point. Further analyses might approach this topic differently.
- The House of Representatives will stay at 435 members. With this assumption in place, large States such as New York, California, Texas, and Florida would lose seats in favour of Canada.
- The current American political two-party system (primarily two party, anyway) is inherited in this hypothetical new Canadian State and that Canada does not introduce a third or fourth party into the mix.
The Current 2024 U.S. Electoral Landscape
Below is a snapshot of the 2024 electoral profile of the existing 50 states. It features state populations (based on the 2020 Census), the number of House seats, total electoral votes, how many representatives are Democrats vs. Republicans, and whether the state typically leans Red, Blue, or is a Swing state. References are provided alongside each entry.
Chart 1: United States (50 States) – 2024 Baseline
| State | Population (2020) | House Seats | Electoral Votes | Dem Rep | GOP Rep | State Lean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 5,030,053 (GreenPapers – AL Population & Seats) | 7 | 9 | 1 | 6 | Red (Safe) |
| Alaska | 736,081 (GreenPapers – AK Population & Seats) | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Red (Safe) |
| Arizona | 7,158,923 (GreenPapers – AZ Population & Seats) | 9 | 11 | 3 | 6 | Swing |
| Arkansas | 3,013,756 (GreenPapers – AR Population & Seats) | 4 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Red (Safe) |
| California | 39,576,757 (GreenPapers – CA Population & Seats) | 52 | 54 | 40 | 12 | Blue (Safe) |
| Colorado | 5,782,171 (GreenPapers – CO Population & Seats) | 8 | 10 | 5 | 3 | Blue (Lean) |
| Connecticut | 3,608,298 (GreenPapers – CT Population & Seats) | 5 | 7 | 5 | 0 | Blue (Safe) |
| Delaware | 990,837 (GreenPapers – DE Population & Seats) | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Blue (Safe) |
| Florida | 21,570,527 (GreenPapers – FL Population & Seats) | 28 | 30 | 8 | 20 | Red (Lean) |
| Georgia | 10,725,274 (GreenPapers – GA Population & Seats) | 14 | 16 | 5 | 9 | Swing |
| … and so on … | … | … | … | … | … |
(Full table continues for all 50 states. See references at the end for detailed data.)
At this baseline, there are 538 total electoral votes: 435 for the House, 100 for the Senate, and 3 for Washington, D.C. A presidential candidate needs 270 to win.
Scenario 1: Canada Joins as One Single “Mega-State”
What if Canada just crashed the party as a 51st state? With a population of nearly 38 million, Canada would be akin to a brand-new California, complete with a hefty chunk of seats in the U.S. House.
Key Changes
- Reapportionment
- The House remains at 435 seats, so ~45 seats shift to Canada (based on apportionment formulas and population).
- States like California, Texas, Florida, and New York lose multiple seats. Smaller states often lose one seat if they can (though each must retain at least one).
- Canada’s Delegation
- ~45 House seats + 2 Senate seats = 47 Electoral Votes (EV).
- Strongly favors Democrats, at about 30 D to 15 R in the House delegation.
- Canada’s new 2 Senators would be very likely Democratic as well.
- Electoral College
- The Senate grows from 100 to 102 (51 states × 2).
- 435 House + 102 Senate + 3 DC = 540 total electors (270 to win remains the majority).
- With 47 fresh electoral votes, Democrats start with a higher baseline (e.g. ~253 EV vs. 202 EV for Republicans), making it a tough climb for the GOP.
Chart 2: United States (50 States) + Canada (51st State)
| State | New House Seats | New EV | Est. D in House | Est. R in House | Lean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 6 (–1) | 8 | 1 | 5 | Red |
| Alaska | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Red |
| Arizona | 8 (–1) | 10 | 3 | 5 | Swing |
| Arkansas | 3 (–1) | 5 | 0 | 3 | Red |
| California | 46 (–6) | 48 | 35 | 11 | Blue |
| … etc. (all 50) | … | … | … | … | … |
| Canada (NEW) | 45 | 47 | 30 | 15 | Blue |
(Above seat changes are approximate for illustration. For exact distribution, we’d run the census apportionment formula.)
Political Impact? The House likely swings slightly blue. The Senate would remain a tossup.
Scenario 2: Canada Splits into 10 New States by Province
Instead of forming a single mega-state, suppose each of Canada’s 10 provinces becomes its own U.S. state. That means the Union now has 60 states (50 + 10). Each new province gets:
- 2 Senators (that’s +20 total)
- House seats proportional to population (total still 435, forcing the original states to lose more seats).
New “States” in Canada
- Ontario (~14.2M): 17 House seats, 2 Senators, 19 EV, likely heavily Democratic.
- Quebec (~8.5M): 10 House seats, 12 EV, strong Democratic lean.
- British Columbia (~5.0M): 6 House seats, 8 EV, leaning Blue but some rural Red pockets.
- Alberta (~4.4M): 5 House seats, 7 EV, strongly Red (Canada’s “Texas on the prairie”).
- Manitoba (~1.4M): 2 House seats, 4 EV, true swing.
- Saskatchewan (~1.2M): 1 House seat, 3 EV, likely Red.
- Nova Scotia (~1.0M): 1 House seat, 3 EV, likely Blue.
- New Brunswick (~0.78M): 1 House seat, 3 EV, toss-up.
- Newfoundland & Labrador (~0.52M): 1 House seat, 3 EV, likely Blue.
- Prince Edward Island (~0.16M): 1 House seat, 3 EV, likely Blue.
Chart 3: U.S. (50 States) + 10 Canadian Provinces = 60 States
| Province-State | Population | House Seats | Electoral Votes | Est. Dem Reps | Est. GOP Reps | Lean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontario | ~14.2M | 17 | 19 | ~15 | ~2 | Blue |
| Quebec | ~8.5M | 10 | 12 | ~8 | ~2 | Blue |
| British Columbia | ~5.0M | 6 | 8 | ~5 | ~1 | Blue |
| Alberta | ~4.4M | 5 | 7 | ~1 | ~4 | Red |
| Manitoba | ~1.4M | 2 | 4 | ~1 | ~1 | Swing |
| Saskatchewan | ~1.2M | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Red |
| Nova Scotia | ~1.0M | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Blue |
| New Brunswick | ~0.78M | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Swing/Lean Blue |
| Newfoundland & Lab | ~0.52M | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Blue |
| Prince Edward Isl. | ~0.16M | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Blue |
(Totals: ~45 House seats, 60 new Senators, 435 House seats remain fixed.)
In this scenario, Canada would potentially supply 34 Democrat Representatives and 11 Republic Representatives.
Overall Electoral College now has:
- 435 House seats + 120 Senators (60 states × 2) + 3 DC = 558 electoral votes.
- 280 needed to win.
Senate Shake-Up
- Adding 10 Canadian states = +20 Senators.
- Likely 14 new Democrats vs. 6 new Republicans, flipping any narrow GOP advantage and boosting Democrats significantly.
Senate Projections
Senate Projection: Scenario 1 (Single Mega-State)
| Party | Before (100 seats) | After (102 seats) | Net Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats + Ind. Caucus | 47 | 49 | +2 |
| Republicans | 53 | 53 | 0 |
| Total | 100 | 102 | +2 |
Senate Projection: Scenario 2 (10 Provinces)
| Party | Before (100 seats) | After (120 seats) | Net Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats + Ind. Caucus | 47 | 61 | +14 |
| Republicans | 53 | 59 | +6 |
| Total | 100 | 120 | +20 |
In both scenarios, the Canadian addition significantly boosts Democrats in the Senate—especially if we break Canada apart into 10 states.
Takeaways
Democrats Gain Ground
Canada’s population leans center-left, so either scenario favors Democrats. In the House, they gain a new cushion of seats; in the Senate, they gain anywhere from 2 to 14 net seats.Republican Strategy
The GOP, to remain competitive, would have to broaden its tent and appeal to more socially liberal or moderate voters. (Better learn to love hockey, folks!)Electoral College Math
- Scenario 1: 540 total electoral votes, 270 to win. Democrats start with ~253.
- Scenario 2: 558 total electoral votes, 280 to win. Democrats start even higher, with multiple new “safe Blue” states.
It’s All Hypothetical
Let’s be honest: The odds of Canada actually annexing itself to the U.S. are minuscule. Canadians treasure universal health care, Tim Hortons, and not being American. That said, this exercise is a fun lens for understanding how population and political lean can impact electoral structures.Forward-Thinking Fun
The entire scenario is reminiscent of a futuristic timeline. The real lesson: demographics and population shifts matter—a lot. As the U.S. contemplates changes every decade via its Census, seeing the effect of adding 38 million people at once shows just how drastically new states could reshuffle the political map.
References & Further Reading
Current U.S. Electoral Landscape (2024)
Below is the electoral profile of the 50 U.S. states as of the 2024 election cycle, including state populations, congressional representation, and partisan lean:
- 2020 Census – State Population and the Distribution of Electoral Votes and Representatives (TheGreenPapers.com)
- Population of Canada by Province and Territory (Wikipedia)
- Here’s how annexing Canada would change American politics (Politico 2025)
In Sum: Canada’s addition to the United States—whether as one big state or 10 smaller ones—would undeniably tip American politics left, handing the Democrats a robust advantage in both the Electoral College and the Senate. The real question is: Would Canada trade in its extra “u” in words like “colour” for a seat at the U.S. table? Probably not…but it’s fascinating to explore this hypothetical border buster of a thought experiment.
(c) All images and photographs, unless otherwise specified, are created and owned by me.
(c) Victor Wiebe
Blind Skeleton
The Skeleton Brew coffee shop is open!
As as a Canadian, I am going give what is currently an unpopular opinion among my fellow Canadians, I would gladly vote for statehood. Alas, establishment media and its influencers have been hard at work weaponizing emotion and bias against the idea. Canada is currently a monarchy ... true story ... and the small amount of democracy we have has been captured by the parliamentary system and party politics. As a state(s) we would be protected under the US Constitution and be free to move as we wished within North America. I don't think we should remain as a large state ... because then we would have to lose our provincial governments, who are generally more answerable to the people; On the other hand, as individual provinces and territories, states would not be big enough. I propose ... a 3 state model ... Western Canada, Eastern Canada, and Quebec ... or they may choose their own country or amalgamate with Eastern Canada. if that is what they wish. As large states we could maintain our healthcare and chosen social programs. I know many do not like Trump but he is gone is 4 years ... statehood would remain and so would Canadian culture but at the level of state and not country.
Honestly, I don't know the current political climate in Canada, but I do know that we're suffering some issues down here. The foundation for eroding rights is being laid. Donald Trump has already signed an executive order the he alone is the final arbiter for how laws are to be interpreted. We know, of course, that belongs to the courts; we also know he has indicated that he will flout court decisions if it pleases him to do so. Trudeau, at least, has volunteered to step aside. Hopefully the damage hasn't been done, or is repairable.
That said, for some time I have thought that it is inevitable - and would benefit everyone - for a strong North American economic union. I don't know exactly how that would look, but I think at least a shared currency, at least, will need to happen.
(as an aside, I'm looking at housing in the Calgary - Edmonton corridor, as well as Chilliwack (my birthplace!), and St John, NB)
Trudeau has done no such thing. He was pushed out of his party and will be replaced with a WEF plant ... Freeland and/or Carney. I had not heard that Trump signed such a order ... TBH that sounds Establishment/Corporate media spin to me. Where did you hear that? Can you supply a link? If he has actually done such a thing; it needs to be addressed ... if it is spin ... it needs to be unspun.
Well, true, that. At least he left, and without causing a constitutional crisis.
You're right, citations are needed. This is the executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
This is the key paragraph:
On the surface it isn't as damning, perhaps, as I had indicated, but it's pretty serious, in my mind, to think that only the President and Attorney General are allowed to interpret the law for the entire executive branch. It's particularly alarming since he is also consolidating previously independent departments to branches within the executive.
I imagine this came about from the bureaucracy/DEMS/NEOCONS doing their best to block the work of DOGE, lower level judges preventing the opening of books. Trump is restating he is the elected head of the executive branch and not the bureaucracy; he is the elected head of the government and not department heads ... or Susan from payroll. He was elected and whether some of us like it or not ... is the people's representative ... he has the will of the majority of the electorate to run the executive branch for the next 4 years.
There must always be checks on power; I agree; but DOGE is supplying a major audit to the government and corporate/neocon media is spinning it as though they are cutting off social security cheques and firing air traffic controllers. Not happening. No, they are uncovering money laundering and vast corruption. For example ... Remember when Penn 'gave' his Oscar to Zelensky ... he was paid 5 million for the visit and Angelina was paid 20 million for her visit to Ukraine ... these payments came from USAID; and people are thinking DOGE is cutting off famine aid ... they are not. There are some pretty grotesque science/animal torture funded to the tune pf 100 millions; Pfizer, AP, and Reuters got funding.
As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out wrt to Trump; but the DNC and old guard RNC are VERY corrupt; I think it is very important to get the other side of the picture. Seek it out ... I mean if you have the stomach for it. DOGE is on the way to finding TRILLIONS of stolen and misspent money ... as a social democrat ... that angers me. But Elon doesn't anger me for uncovering it or lifting up his arm at a certain angle ... that was propaganda spin.
Trillions is a lot of healthcare and education that we could have had. A lot of money taken form everyday, hard-working tax payers and given to the already wealthy; meanwhile supposed social democrats virtue signal and distract people with divisive tactics. I am so fed up with the Establishment.
Seriously PPL's TDS makes them mental ... Freeland would make us the next Ukraine ... she thinks we should turn the US and Canada relationship into a cold war. These people are serious war mongers ... because of tariffs and clumsy invite to become a state we are going now pursue nuclear armament?
https://x.com/KirkLubimov/status/1894574336474058962