All for this.

I'm Canadian, I don't hate the idea.

In any case, it's clear that the USA is less "United" these days.... It's more just ... The States of America now.

Can I raise you the proposal of Canada and Jesusland

So just all of new england, the pacific northwest and California.

All countries associated with the European Broacast Union can participate.

Brazil, Peru, Japan, India, and even China and the US could participate too.

Russia and Lybia used to be part of the EBU but they were suspended. They know what they did.

There is French territory just off the coast of Newfoundland too (see Saint Pierre and Miquelon), also Denmark is right next door because of Greenland. So while still pretty far fetched, there is some precedent for European territory in North America.

Ireland is separated from the rest of the continent by ocean.

The Celtic Sea is not an ocean.

Earth United!

White supremacist imperialist conglomerate (non-US version)?

European Worldwide Union

You have to be "substantially European", which includes Cyprus, which is fully in Asia and half Turkish. Also, Greenland and to a degree Iceland aren't geographically European.

Canada becomes a France province, easy.

That's a sea border, but the idea is the same.

In fact, the distance between the shores of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon is shorter than the width of the English Channel at the Straits of Dover (25km vs 34km).

That's the soccer team.

EU members are all sovereign, brexiter.

Shocking. Do you have a source for that?

It's not about being a "gotcha" - it's about demonstrating a pathway to better democratic representation.

You're right that EU membership would only require PR for European Parliament representatives initially. However, this would create several significant opportunities:

1. Practical demonstration: Canadians would experience firsthand how an electoral system that ensures every vote counts actually works, rather than just hearing theoretical arguments.
2. Institutional precedent: Once PR is successfully implemented for one electoral body, the argument that it's "too complex" or "un-Canadian" becomes much harder to maintain.
3. Democratic legitimacy gap: Having representatives to the EU Parliament elected through PR while our own MPs are chosen through FPTP would create an obvious legitimacy contrast that would be difficult to justify.

The Liberal leadership vote using preferential voting actually supports this point. Internal party processes already recognize the limitations of FPTP - they just don't extend those same democratic principles to the general electorate. In fact, all parties, even the Conservatives, use superior electoral systems to FPTP.

The reality is that 76% of Canadians support electoral reform according to recent polling, but our major parties benefit from maintaining a system that systematically discards votes. Exposure to functioning PR would make the democratic deficit in our current system increasingly apparent.

Because it's a step towards proportional representation. It would expose much more of the populace to how it's done. Hopefully getting more people used to the idea of it.

There would be voting changes , I believe, something about EU membership requiring a certain type of voting system. Eg. Not FPP

Eurovision Song Contest, European Union, whats the difference?

As a Canadian, we promise to bring cake (and a shitload of natural resources) to the next meeting.