02-04-2004 01:58									#1
	Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm afraid I've forgotten what little history I was taught on this specific topic. In short, why weren't the New World countries (Australia, US, Canada) given PMs in addition to their local assemblies? Likely, the UK would be a superpower today, if they had done so.

I seem to remember that it took parliament another 50 years to reform itself modestly after the American revolution. But even so, Canada and Australia should have been given the vote rather than the boot by the empire.

For discussion purposes, I'm assuming that the Louisiana territory would have fallen into British hands several years after the Louisiana Purchase. I don't make any assumptions about the ultimate disposition of California or Florida.

Last edited by DanS on 02-04-2004 at 02:08

	02-04-2004 02:01									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The US was offered it at the last second, IIRC (they knew that it would voted down everytime), but we rejected it as too little, too late (we also knew we'd be voted down every time).

	02-04-2004 02:03									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

do you mean like heads of state? the queen is still head of state for most of our former colonies.

	02-04-2004 02:03									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

So this was a matter of American shortsightedness rather than British shortsightedness? Interesting.

	02-04-2004 02:04									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: do you mean like heads of state? the queen is still head of state for most of our former colonies.

I do mean that, but I also mean an actual vote in parliament in rough proportion to population (as stated above, I'm not sure parliament had been reformed enough to give actual proportional votes). I'm not talking about India, because that was mainly composed of indigenous folks.

	02-04-2004 02:09									#6
	Tired of ads?

they were given that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the exact details vary with each country.

i don't think that the idea of a parliament for the whole empire was ever really considered. the would have been numerous problems, not least how would the MPs have represented their constituancies while being 'in parliament'.

	02-04-2004 02:09									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I assume you mean MP's, not PM's. Giving someone their PM defeats the point of allowing them to vote.

"Oh that's a very nice election you had! Good for you! Now take the guy we picked and let him rule you."

	02-04-2004 02:10									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: So this was a matter of American shortsightedness rather than British shortsightedness?

Why shortsightedness? We Americans ended up getting exactly what we wanted in the end . And by that point (when the offer was sent), the scene was already set. We wanted nothing more than our own independant government by that point.

	02-04-2004 02:10									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS So this was a matter of American shortsightedness rather than British shortsightedness? Interesting.

He said that the Goverment offered it at the last minute, but beside being too late in the crises, the Colonies knew that the goverment would be unable to pass it in the parliment, and that the offer was worthless.

	02-04-2004 02:12									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I assume you mean MP's, not PM's.

Yes, of course. Thank you for pointing out that.

quote: i don't think that the idea of a parliament for the whole empire was ever really considered. the would have been numerous problems, not least how would the MPs have represented their constituancies while being 'in parliament'.

Why wasn't it ever really considered?

The problem you state occured to me as well, but it was hard traveling for most colonials to get to Philadelphia, New York, or Washington, in any event.

	02-04-2004 02:14									#11
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: He said that the Goverment offered it at the last minute, but beside being too late in the crises, the Colonies knew that the goverment would be unable to pass it in the parliment, and that the offer was worthless.

Oh, I see. I thought he meant that any parliamentary votes would be worthless because we would always be in the minority. Therefore, I was thinking we were shortsighted in that we didn't look a couple of decades down the road where the US would rule the empire.

	02-04-2004 02:15									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If voting in parliament was based on population, then the UK would be outnumbed about (a guess) 5~1, from the US alone (if they had accepted). Add in the rest of the empire (33% of hte worlds surface), and we would be ruled from abroad.

It seems that there was no way for a compromise to work, other than the way the EU works now, and that is not a very good example of a government.

[EDIT]: Four posts between me reading and posting? you've gotta be kidding me. [/EDIT]

	02-04-2004 02:16									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Oh, I see. I thought he meant that any parliamentary votes would be worthless because we would always be in the minority. Therefore, I was thinking we were shortsighted in that we didn't look a couple of decades down the road where the US would rule the empire.

Adam Smith surmised that if the UK continued to hold onto the N. American continent then the capital of the UK might have to swing over there as the population surpassed the original islands.

	02-04-2004 02:18									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If voting in parliament was based on population, then the UK would be outnumbed about (a guess) 5~1, from the US alone (if they had accepted).

But not at the time that this stuff was decided. In 1776, the US population was only some 2.2 million souls.

	02-04-2004 02:19									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The main problem, in my limited view, would be caused by the nature of Parliament's existence. Parliament in it's modern form, more or less, came via the Acts of Union between England and another self-ruling country (Wales having been conquered and administered as a part of England). The Act of Union with Scotland created a Parliament that could rule over England&Wales and Scotland by effectively dissolving the prior national parliaments (in London and Edinburgh) and transfering their powers to the combined Parliament in London that had MP's from both countries. The Act of Union with Ireland did a similar thing.

With Canada and Australia however, they were not independent countries that required Acts of Union. They were countries created by Parliament itself and tied to the Parliament though the various constitutional arrangements. Their self-rule was effectively the same as the current "self-rule" Scotland has in the UK. Local parliaments to deal with local matters but ultimately, the buck stopped and started in London. Sending MP's to London wasn't necessary or even considered because that simply wasn't the arrangement relating colony to coloniser. Remember, until recently (ie, the early 20th century) dominions like Canada and Australia still had to go to war whenever the UK said so.

Then again, take what I say with a grain of salt as I am not a UK Constitutional expert.

	02-04-2004 02:22									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

wrt to the US, because it would have violated the whole theory of Parliament at the time. In the 18thc rotten boroughs with a handful of voters had as much representation as booming industrial cities. In theory MPs didnt actually "represent" their constituencies, they represented "interests" thus disenfranchised English cities like Manchester and Birmingham were "virtually represented" In fact wealthy aristocrats bribed the tiny electorates of rotten boroughs, the House of Commons was controlled by a handful of Aristocrats. To admit that Boston and Philadelphia needed direct representation,not virtual, would mean admitting that Manchester and Birmingham required it too. Which would have meant revolution.

Why they didnt do it for Canada i dont know. No real logistical reasons not to - France did so with some of their colonies. I think a general sense in the dominions that local self rule was preferable to integration in a French style centralized empire. A little England desire to keep things small and manageable.

	02-04-2004 02:25									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I thought he meant that any parliamentary votes would be worthless because we would always be in the minority.

I also meant that. At the time, the Americans were much less than the Brits, and there was no telling that the population would boom. Remember, the Brits prevented any Yanks from settling beyond the Appalacian Mountains (it was Indian land).

	02-04-2004 02:25									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: wrt to the US, because it would have violated the whole theory of Parliament at the time. In the 18thc rotten boroughs with a handful of voters had as much representation as booming industrial cities.

Yes, this was what I was referring to with the 1830s parliamentary reforms. I don't think the problem was really solved until the 1880s or later. But my memory on this subject is rather foggy. A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.

	02-04-2004 02:26									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DanS But not at the time that this stuff was decided. In 1776, the US population was only some 2.2 million souls.

But it was rapidly growing though. It was plain to everyone there would be time America's population would overtake Britain's.

	02-04-2004 02:29									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hence this comment, perhaps?

quote: So this was a matter of American shortsightedness rather than British shortsightedness? Interesting.

-Arrian

	02-04-2004 02:30									#21
	Increase Your PM Length

But then, of course, if you're talking about the entire empire being represented, the Indians would've ruled us all.

-Arrian

	02-04-2004 02:33									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: But it was rapidly growing though.

Yes, it was doubling every 20 years or less.

quote: It was plain to everyone there would be time America's population would overtake Britain's.

I guess you're taking the view that Britain was taken by surprise that the colonies would successfully revolt? This has a lot of merit, but this doesn't answer to why Canada and Australia weren't given the vote.

	02-04-2004 02:33									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

But the problem, once again, is that Parliament really didn't represent all of the people. There were many areas without representation. I wouldn't think it would be out of the question to see each colony only have one MP.

	02-04-2004 02:33									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.

	02-04-2004 02:34									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.

That's a rather massive assumption to make.

	02-04-2004 02:34									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS This has a lot of merit, but this doesn't answer to why Canada and Australia weren't given the vote.

America was just worth fighting for, Dan.

	02-04-2004 02:35									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS Yes, this was what I was referring to with the 1830s parliamentary reforms. I don't think the problem was really solved until the 1880s or later. But my memory on this subject is rather foggy. A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.

yes there were many rotten boroughs still in the 19th century, tiny numbers of people (~100 or less) would elect an MP. in the 1830s there was nothing unusual about buckingham with its electorate of 249.

i think lotm was on the right track. the british government was happy to legislate in broad terms for the colonies and leave the day to day things to local assembleys.

	02-04-2004 02:36									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.

You would think that the Brits could have more imagination than that, in the day and age of steamships.

	02-04-2004 02:39									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

*sigh* and I thought my insight into the nature of Parliament v colony was inspired. Oh well, back to the suicide booth.

	02-04-2004 02:40									#30
	Remove this text

quote: i think lotm was on the right track. the british government was happy to legislate in broad terms for the colonies and leave the day to day things to local assembleys.

But why didn't they share the broad decision-making powers? That's what I'm getting at. The US was happy to grant this to new states, for instance. We minted new states really fast.