The US-Canada Merger Plebiscite

[grumbler]

It is far more useful for both countries to have a neighbor that faces roughly the same problems, and can see how alternative solutions work.  Canada could thus avoid the US healthcare system, and the US could thus avoid a combined military.  The countries have slightly different concepts of federalization that have been informative, as well.

[viper37]

and the US could thus avoid a combined military.

isn't it a tad inneficient to keep 3 seperate branches of the army that overlapp each another?  Marines now accomplish many of the tasks the Army does.  They have also have aircrafts, like the Navy and the Air Force.

Besides, for the latest wars it waged, the US seem to have used an integrated command for its operations.  I don't see why this structure can't be replicated and slash the numbers of generals/admirals and high officers with their support staff.  Also, it would help to pool all resources together toward one goal, instead of inter-army fighting over budget scraps to get their equipment in 4 or 5 different variations.

Same goes with US intelligence agency.  FBI, CIA, Homeland and DEA all have overlapping roles at some point.   The FBI was created to coordinate efforts from police/intelligence agencies in the country, then the CIA was created to coordinate intelligence agencies fromm all parts of the government, then the Homeland to do this job since the CIA didn't detect Saddam Hussein as Ennemy #1 beyond Osama Bin Laden.

It seems that, for all this talk in the US about small government, small is beautiful, starving the beast, etc, etc, it does not seem to apply to Army and Intelligence agencies.

[Ed Anger]

They'll see the big board!

[Maximus]

and the US could thus avoid a combined military.

isn't it a tad inneficient to keep 3 seperate branches of the army that overlapp each another?  Marines now accomplish many of the tasks the Army does.  They have also have aircrafts, like the Navy and the Air Force.

Besides, for the latest wars it waged, the US seem to have used an integrated command for its operations.  I don't see why this structure can't be replicated and slash the numbers of generals/admirals and high officers with their support staff.  Also, it would help to pool all resources together toward one goal, instead of inter-army fighting over budget scraps to get their equipment in 4 or 5 different variations.

Same goes with US intelligence agency.  FBI, CIA, Homeland and DEA all have overlapping roles at some point.   The FBI was created to coordinate efforts from police/intelligence agencies in the country, then the CIA was created to coordinate intelligence agencies fromm all parts of the government, then the Homeland to do this job since the CIA didn't detect Saddam Hussein as Ennemy #1 beyond Osama Bin Laden.

It seems that, for all this talk in the US about small government, small is beautiful, starving the beast, etc, etc, it does not seem to apply to Army and Intelligence agencies.

But but tradition and stuff.

Also rum, sodomy and the lash.

[lustindarkness]

No, they just want to share the blame for Celine Dion and Justin Bieber.

[crazy canuck]

No, they just want to share the blame for Celine Dion and Justin Bieber.

No country is perfect. 

[Josephus]

As long as we get rid of the Canadians first, sure!

Just the native-born ones yes.

[Barrister]

It is far more useful for both countries to have a neighbor that faces roughly the same problems, and can see how alternative solutions work.  Canada could thus avoid the US healthcare system, and the US could thus avoid a combined military.

There were certainly problems in how the unification came into being (problem number one - putting sailors and airmen into pea green army uniforms) assorted Canadian governments have given back nearly 100% of the traditions, while budging not one inch on the substance of the unified command structure.

If you take the "traditions" argument out of it by allowing various units, forces and commands to keep their traditions, uniforms, and rank titles, I don't see the big downside to having a unified command.

[DGuller]

Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.

I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at.

I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level.  But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).

Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium.  Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties.  That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.

[Barrister]

Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.

I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at.

I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level.  But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).

Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium.  Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties.  That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.

Too simple a way to look at political parties - as just their ideologies.

There have been plenty of political parties that have had very long runs as the governing party, and not due to plain old electoral fraud.

ANC has been ruling South Africa for 20+ years now.  The LDP ruled Japan for 40+ years.  Congress ruled India for decades.

And of course, in Alberta, we're at 40+ years of PC rule.

[dps]

Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.

I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at.

I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level.  But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).

Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium.  Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties.  That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.

Too simple a way to look at political parties - as just their ideologies.

There have been plenty of political parties that have had very long runs as the governing party, and not due to plain old electoral fraud.

ANC has been ruling South Africa for 20+ years now.  The LDP ruled Japan for 40+ years.  Congress ruled India for decades.

And of course, in Alberta, we're at 40+ years of PC rule.

That's why I specified national level, and in the context of DGuller's point about American political history.

[grumbler]

There were certainly problems in how the unification came into being (problem number one - putting sailors and airmen into pea green army uniforms) assorted Canadian governments have given back nearly 100% of the traditions, while budging not one inch on the substance of the unified command structure.

If you take the "traditions" argument out of it by allowing various units, forces and commands to keep their traditions, uniforms, and rank titles, I don't see the big downside to having a unified command.

Indeed.  As you note, the Canadian Forces have essentially reverted back to separate armed services, with their own commanders, training establishments, personnel, uniforms, etc.   They retain the unified command. In other words, they have evolved back to what the US has had since shortly after WW2.

[jimmy olsen]

Largest turnout for a vote in a while. 

[Admiral Yi]

Largest turnout for a vote in a while. 

All the Canucklehead lurkers showed up to vote no. 

[Eddie Teach]

You sure about that, 1/5 votes seems consistent with their presence in the rest of the forum.