Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

[DanS]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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).

[C0ckney]

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

[DanS]

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

[DanS]

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.

[C0ckney]

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'.

[Starchild]

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."

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Lefty Scaevola]

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.

[DanS]

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

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

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.

[DanS]

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.

[Krill]

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]

[JohnT]

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.

[DanS]

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.

[Starchild]

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.