Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
That seems about right, if Jackson had won it would have been a very narrow win, and he may have lost the popular vote.
Steve Bullock/Kamala Harris 47% Popular Vote ~ 473 Electoral Votes
Donald Trump/Mike Pence 33% Popular Vote ~ 55 Electoral Votes
Mitt Romney/Evan McMullin 18% Popular Vote ~ 10 Electoral Votes
Steve Bullock/Kamala Harris 47% Popular Vote ~ 473 Electoral Votes
Donald Trump/Mike Pence 33% Popular Vote ~ 55 Electoral Votes
Mitt Romney/Evan McMullin 18% Popular Vote ~ 10 Electoral Votes
And on the flip side:
Donald Trump/Mike Pence 45% Popular Vote
Cory Booker/Kamala Harris 36% Popular Vote
Bernie Sanders/Tulsi Gabbard 16% Popular Vote
1956
Early on, it seemed that Stevenson was having trouble with leadership; his enemies called him 'too smart to be President' and disparaged the 'Adlaistablishment' of his government, drawing attention to the contentious nature of his 'new America' plans and support for a Partial Test Ban Treaty. However, as the economy began to recover throughout his term, voters began to warm to him, and he was able to build up a profile as an intelligent statesman who had kept the extremist Republican right out of power, who retained a strong base in the party.
However, his problems were to come from a former liberal Republican: Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who oversaw the court in the Brown V Board of Education of Topeka case in 1954; the case's verdict, which effectively destroyed the doctrine of 'separate but equal' which underpinned segregation, incensed Southern Democrats, and Stevenson tread carefully on the issue, stating that the government would 'tread carefully' on the issue and 'respect traditions of the Southerners who have long been the rock upon which the Democratic Party stands'. (His liberal critics instead described the Southerners as the albatross around the Democratic Party's neck.)
Despite this, and the Republicans' definite progress in the 1954 midterms, Stevenson's opposition was badly split. Liberal and moderate Republicans threw their support behind Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut, whilst conservatives backed Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen. Dirksen was far more prominent and controversial, but with the bulk of Republicans favouring a conservative who would roll back Stevenson's social programmes, Dirksen won fairly comfortably. His running mate was Representative Thomas H. Werdel of California, a pro-Taft figure who had polled over 7% of the vote in the 1952 primaries; many liberal Republicans chose to sit out the election due to what they viewed as a lack of compromise on Dirksen's part. To make matters worse, a pro-segregation unpledged elector movement against Stevenson, which could have caused defeats for him in Southern states, was compromised by the selection of a conservative Republican nominee.
Stevenson/Kefauver (Democratic): 472 EVs, 55.2%
Dirksen/Werdel (Republican): 58 EVs, 43.6%
The difference between 1952 and 1956 was for the most part negligible. Dirksen picked up three states Taft had lost (New Hampshire, New Jersey and Utah), but lost five others (Idaho, Iowa, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming). Despite strong margins in most of the country, Stevenson suffered a considerable amount in the South, with four states (Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia) only giving him a plurality of the popular vote thanks to the unpledged elector vote, and an additional state (Alabama) having a faithless elector vote for segregationist local judge Walter Burgwyn Jones.
This dissent unnerved the Democratic base, and the events of Stevenson's second term would only worsen their concern.
(Sorry I haven't updated this in a few days btw.)
Last edited:
Weaker Reform Act: England
Not entirely confident with some of the borough-pairings but this is the 1.0 edition of the Weaker Reform Act-verse England after the 1833 reforms. In general the proportions of county to borough constituencies are a compromise between OTL and Pre-Reform with the retention of the majority of the nomination boroughs and the preservation of representation by pooling population between nearby seats and additional emerging towns. Considering giving an additional MP to the County representation in the 3 member counties but think that might go too far towards a conservative settlement to be accepted.
Not entirely confident with some of the borough-pairings but this is the 1.0 edition of the Weaker Reform Act-verse England after the 1833 reforms. In general the proportions of county to borough constituencies are a compromise between OTL and Pre-Reform with the retention of the majority of the nomination boroughs and the preservation of representation by pooling population between nearby seats and additional emerging towns. Considering giving an additional MP to the County representation in the 3 member counties but think that might go too far towards a conservative settlement to be accepted.
Alex Richards
Donor
I do like how not even this proposal wants to keep all the Cornish Burgh's with even nominal/joint representation.
I did consider retaining more Cornish Boroughs by pooling the 'viable' population base of Bodmin with the rotten seats in north/central Cornwall but the majority simply fell so far down on Drummond's List that I felt any plausible Reform Act would have to disenfranchise them.
With the recent buzz about Kasich possibly attempting to primary Trump in 2020, I thought I'd make a map for what Kasich's winning map would be if he were in fact to successfully primary Trump (which is of course very, very unlikely)
I may work on a county map for this as well.
I may work on a county map for this as well.
With the recent buzz about Kasich possibly attempting to primary Trump in 2020, I thought I'd make a map for what Kasich's winning map would be if he were in fact to successfully primary Trump (which is of course very, very unlikely)
I may work on a county map for this as well.
Trump would most likely run third party in this scenario correct?
Ran a 1872 PI game as a simulator and I got this result
I unfortunately dont know a whole lot about the reconstruction era, and i have no clue who Greeley is, or why the "Liberal Republicans" won most of the south, but i was wondering if this was
1) Plausible
2) What effect this would have on electoral politics in the future
I unfortunately dont know a whole lot about the reconstruction era, and i have no clue who Greeley is, or why the "Liberal Republicans" won most of the south, but i was wondering if this was
1) Plausible
2) What effect this would have on electoral politics in the future
Greeley ran under the Liberal Republican Party, which was a breakaway from the Republicans that was more pro-states' rights, more like what a moderate GOP would be back in the day.
Ah, thank you
so not much would change then? I assume he'd just encourage a slight exodus of the moderate Republicans into the Democrats after his party collapses, or if it doesn't, have the Democrats absorbed into the Liberal Republicans?
Deleted member 83898
Maybe we would have seen a different party system? The Bourbon Democrats* end up as Republicans instead, while the Half-Breeds* join the Liberal Republicans (it would probably end up being called "Liberal" or something like that)?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status