Surveys • Trends
   
Are there any detectable trends in the level of support for annexation?
 
Yes, there is a main trend that can be observed and which will be discussed here. Although only a limited amount of surveys were conducted in regards to popular support for a democratic annexation, enough data is available for us to extrapolate one major rule of thumb. This rule may become useful when assessing the best ways to make this idea gain mainstream support, should a political campaign develop around this theme.

On this page, we analyse this trend and dissect it in order to establish a strategy that can enable our objective of gaining majority support in both countries simultaneously. We are certainly far from achieving that goal, and perhaps this idea will never succeed. However as we will attempt to demonstrate here, there is also a valid  hope of claiming victory within this lifetime.
 
 
What rule is that?
 
It's the double-double rule. The basic assumption of the double-double rule is simple. The rule stipulates that once you know the percentage of support for a democratic annexation in any one of the interested parties, you can deduct the amount of support in the other groups. While the overall level of support for this union may fluctuate over time, the double double rule continues to apply throughout these ups and downs. It's important to understand that we are dealing not with two groups here, but three. Quebec is indeed a nation within the nation of Canada, and in this regard, so is English-Canada.
 
 
What are the three groupings?
 
The three groupings are simple enough to conceptualize. Here they are:
 
    English-Canada
Everything outside Quebec, from BC to Newfoundland & Labrador, qualifies as English-Canada. That includes roughly 25 million+ people.
    Quebec
Quebec is that francophone province, 7.5 million strong. A million of those is Anglophone by the way.
    America
This means what it says: the entire US, along with it's entire population of 300 million+.
 
So there you have it, the three groupings in question. One way to look at it that can help you reconcile this in the context of forming a common nation together, is the Texan example. In many ways, Quebecers and Texans share a valid analogy relative to their respective countries. Both weight heavier in national politics than their numbers would seem to indicate. Both have a strong regional identity and proud cultural traits. Both could be their own believable country (as Texas once was) and they wouldn't have any problem functioning as nations on their own. But the important element to understand and grasp, is that both Quebecers and Texans also possess a strong attachment towards their national identity. Quebecers are Canadians first, and I think the same can be said about Texans considering themselves Americans first.
 
 
Get down to it! What does the double-double rule teach us?
 
It teaches us that there exists a fix ratio of support between these three groupings. Typically, the support for annexation in Quebec is double the amount of support in English-Canada. Likewise, support for annexation in the United States is usually double that of Quebec.

You don't notice that trend when looking at the National results from Canada, but based on the surveys that have been conducted, I was able to reconstruct a table by using the assumption provided by the double-double rule.

To wrap it up, the double-double rule teaches us that support in the USA was probably above the 50% mark before 9/11, even though no information is available of American opinion in the period. The following two tables demonstrate how this analysis was reached, based on the limited amount of data available. The table on the left shows the available data, retrieved from the polls conducted over the years. The right table, uses the double-double rule to infer the missing data.
 
Support for Annexation (Available Data)                                              Support for Annexation (Extrapolated Data)
 
    Canada Quebec English
Canada		 USA     Canada Quebec English
Canada		 USA  
  2001 20% 33% 16% -   2001 20% 33% 16% (64%)  
  2002 - - - 40%   2002 (13%) (20%) (10%) 40%  
  2003 - - - -   2003 (11%) (14%) (8%) (28%)  
  2004 7% - - 20%   2004 7% (10%) (5%) 20%  
 
* We are able to observe that the double-double rule applies to the available data.
* We are able to extrapolate that Quebecers are generally twice as supportive as their English-Canadian counterparts.
* We are able to extrapolate from the 2004 data that Americans are generally twice as supportive as Quebecers, towards the prospect of a democratic annexation.
* We can extrapolate the very likely possibility that a clear majority of Americans would have supported a democratic annexation of Canada, pre-911.
 
 
 Alright, but how can the level of overall support vary so greatly in such a short amount of time?
 
There are two catalyst events that seemed to have affected public support for a democratic annexation of Canada to the United States. We discuss them here because they are relevant to helping us make better sense of the extrapolated data. These two catalysts events were:
 
  The 9/11 Attacks
 
     
The impact of the 9/11 attacks was felt around the world, but most of all, it signalled the end of an era. The 90s had been a series of high moments, that begun with the fall of the Soviet Union, and was followed by the internet boom that really propelled the economy forward and gave everyone a sense that the future was bright.

The terrible events of 9/11 certainly affected the way Americans and Canadians perceived the notion of uniting together, although each for their own respective reasons. These events did not affect support in a positive way, quite the opposite. As the numbers show, support pre-911 was much higher and a democratic annexation almost seemed like a given.

Pre 9/11, relations were extremely good between both peoples, and the governments got along similarly well. So much so that we can safely infer from available data that support for the annexation of Canada had majority support within the American population, and was reaching record highs in the province of Quebec specifically, but also garnering significant support across the Canadian provinces.

Post-911 however, this window of enthusiastic possibilities came to a drastic end. Americans, understandably traumatized and reeling from the devastation, went into a defensive posture, and that involved closing themselves to any risky enterprise that might further destabilize the USA. Hence support for Annexation sank by a third following the events of 9/11.

In Canada, the events also caused great distress and generated much sympathy for ourneighbors to the south. But with the realization that the world had changed, came also a sense that joining the USA would open Canada in general to similar attacks: As a result, support diminished greatly north of the border as well.
 
       
  The Iraq War
 
 		   
The second Iraq war created a big rift in relations between our countries, because Canada declined to participate. On one hand, America went in to a conflict without a strong coalition as had been the case in the first gulf war. On the other, Canada sided with the United Nations, and refused to participate in this conflict.

Extremely unpopular even inside the US, costly and difficult to maintain, the ongoing war has further divided as years have passed. The failures and disappointments have played a major role in contributing to the reinforcement of feelings of division between our peoples. Since the arrival of General David Patreus, as commanding general for the multi-national force in Iraq, the newly implemented strategies meant to turn the tide of the war have paid off, and for the first time since 2003, the feeling that a hard-earned victory is within reach has helped America, and the world, look forward to a stable future for Iraq and the Middle-East.

In the context of relations between Canada and the USA, the Iraq war has definitely been a driving factor leading to a cold snap which hasn't quite fully expired. Other factors (like Canada's participation in Afghanistan) have also generated many legitimate interogations about whether Canada's interests are further diverging from America's, and are being replaced by closer ties to Europe. This degradation is mostly superficial for the moment, and time will tell whether North Americans can rise above this political divide and remind our politicians that the policies of our governments are not an automatically valid measure of the affinity and compatibility Canadians and Americans share.
 
 
Ok, that's all pretty nifty, but is the worst over yet?
   
  The Financial Crisis
 
   Unfortunately, the quick answer is NO. The current turmoil affecting the American financial system is far from resolved. The deteriorating economic conditions in the USA will further distance Canadians from the notion of supporting an annexation.

America needs to clean up it's own barn, for this proposition to become inviting again to Canadians. I have absolute confidence and assurance, that with time, America will come out of these challenges, stronger and better equipped to consider an integration of Canada's provinces as states within it's Union. Aside from the financial crisis, America also needs to address the very real and pressing issue of illegal immigration. Canadians are in no way comforted by the notion of millions of illegal aliens intruding criminally on US soil, and leeching off from the American economy, outside the legal channels of immigration.
 
  There is no incentive whatsoever, for Canadians to risk their stability and prosperity until America gets a hold of itself and regains it's footing. In the meantime, what this means, is that as this text is written, support for the idea of a democratic annexation of Canada to the United States is at it's ultimate low, perhaps at it's lowest level of support ever, in the whole history of our countries. This is no small statement to make, yet, this is the reality of the situation. One could fairly estimate support in Canada to be as low as 5% right now, and that number may go even lower if America's financial system faces other severe corrections.

What does this instability mean for the future? It means that the situation may deteriorate to never before seen levels. It may mean that an annexation will not be possible, ever. But that is just one possibility. What is far more likely, is for America to show it's resilient nature once more, and come out of the storm swinging.
     

  Give us something to work with here!  
 
Canada and the USA just are undergoing significant political and financial turbulances. These challenges prepare the way for an eventual renewal, and positive shifts in mutual perceptions. What it means for the annexation movement is that our opportunity is nearing, and that we should be mindful of the timing for this comeback, because it will be our responsibility to ride this pendulum swing when it comes (and it will).

It means that a democratic annexation, within a decade, can become a mainstream proposition for North Americans to consider, if we are trained and readied, to surf the surging tide of support that will inevitably come when things get better. The trend of support has reached the bottom of the barrel; When it finally goes up again, we will be ready, and we will harness this timing to popularize this idea with the mainstream.

Timing is an important part of any sales pitch! And we will wait patiently for that timing to open it's window! The double-double rule has demonstrated something important: this proposition will never realistically achieve majority support unless the status quo of public opinion is somehow altered.
 
 
 
So what does success require of us? What will it take to change the situation?
  
The key here is super simple: Change in opinion can be achieved by educating the people of North America to the principles of limited government which have made our nations so blessed and prosperous. A re-affirmation of those principles, a re-introduction to their implements of logic, can bring about a rejuvenation of the foundations of our respective countries, and perhaps also convey a greater sense of sympathy for a conjugation of our federations!
  
Go back to the Statistics page by clicking here.    Proceed to the Analysis page by clicking here. 
Surveys ● Polls ● Statistics ● Trends ● Analysis