Alternate Electoral Maps II

Status
Not open for further replies.

fashbasher

Banned
Oneshot:
Cu83vFK.png

The underlying scenario is an attempt at a euhemerization (making less ASB) of the satirical film Babakiueria, in which an Indigenous Australian-dominated nation is accused of abusing the white minority. There are two PODs, the main being a somewhat generic post-apocalypse that disrupts food production and the industrial economy (indigenous Australians' wilderness survival skills allow them to prosper compared to the white population) and the reduction of substance and welfare abuse by the earlier introduction of kava (a mild intoxicant that does not have many of the disruptive effects of hard liquor) and the restoration of indigenous land rights in areas where white and Asian Australians are a minority. About 100 years after the apocalypse, Australia's federal government has reemerged, with each state and territory divided into new districts that better reflect both the difficulty of long-distance communication and the traditional indigenous nations of Australia, and the population of 2 million is about 55% Aboriginal/Torres Strait, 30% white, 15% Asian/African/Latino/other. However, ethnic tensions have been brewing thanks to the new, Aboriginal-dominated Parliament's so-called Intolerable Acts. The first, the Drunkenness Prevention Act, limits the alcohol content of all drinks to that found in pre-colonial Australia, defined as 3-5% ABV. This irritates the many white Australians who enjoy a beer or other strong drink. The second, the Land Ownership Act, increases collective rights over land use including declaring each constituent shire (which may or may not have an indigenous majority but which has guaranteed indigenous representation) to be the Traditional Owner of all land within the territory and allowing for the shire board to dictate land use. These Intolerable Acts played a major role in the rise of the left-wing Freedom and Justice Party (blues), which dominated majority-white Tasmania and has substantial influence in the four shires (West Kulin Principality, Melbourne Republic, Gunditjmara County, and Gunai Republic) of Victoria. This results in the first hung parliament in modern Australia, as the historically leading Refoundation Party of Australia (reds) no longer has enough proportional seats to govern. Refoundation has led Australia alone or in coalition with the multiracial Agrarian Party (green) since the reestablishment of a national parliament 40 years ago, but their decision to instead partner with the right-populist Nations' Party (formerly the Noongar Party, brown) and the Northern Peoples' Democratic Republican League (yellow) and accelerate the decline of the white population has resulted in the current crisis, in which neither a Refoundation-Agrarian, a Refoundation-Nations-NPDRL, or an FJP-Country government has enough proportional seats to rule. There is significant fear that the increasingly precarious position of the white minority, who has failed by all accounts to adopt to the postindustrial world and instead is wallowing in moonshine and nostalgic resentment, will result in riots similar to the Bogan-Kava War that broke out 15 years ago.

This is also my first map in Gimp.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at some pretty interesting results here from if high school students voted in the 2016 Presidential election. It just shows how right wing "Generation Z" might be.

genusmap.php


Donald Trump (R-NY)/Mike Pence (R-IN) - 338 EVs, 48%
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 191 EVs, 33%
Evan McMullin (I-UT)/Mindy Finn (I-TX) - 6 EVs, 3%
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)/Various - 3 EVs, 2%
Gary Johnson (L-NM)/Bill Weld (L-MA) - 0 EVs, 8%
Others (Green, Constitution) - 5%

There were no results in Hawaii, Alaska, and New Hampshire. Because of the Trumpslide, I gave NH to Trump.
Utah was actually tied between Clinton and McMullin.
I didn't include "Did Not Vote", which would've come in second with 31%.
Interesting, was this a poll or raw voter data?

The polls that Nickolodeon and Scholastic conducted did show Clinton winning in a landslide though
http://www.nick.com/mash-ups/videos...e-president-compilation-hillary-clinton-wins/
http://election.scholastic.com/vote/
 
Last edited:

fashbasher

Banned
Interesting, was this a poll or raw voter data?

The polls that Nickolodeon and Scholastic conducted did show Clinton winning in a landslide though
http://www.nick.com/mash-ups/videos...e-president-compilation-hillary-clinton-wins/
http://election.scholastic.com/vote/

Looks like Trump won among high schoolers but Clinton won among elementary and middle schoolers, perhaps:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/health/students-mock-presidential-election-results/index.html
 
I have met very few people at my school who support Trump. Granted, I live in California, but in my experience, it's older people who are more likely to back the Donald

So at my old school (in the UK) we did a straw poll. It was roughly Clinton 65% Johnson 25% with Trump on 10%. After September Johnson did fall - before that he probably would have been on 30-40%.

Of course a lot of people wanted to write in Bernie, but couldn't.

Of course this is one school in a relatively middle class part of town so caveats do apply. But it perhaps offers a glimpse into how far to the left of the US the UK is now. I doubt older generations in this country would be that much more pro-Trump.
 
1968 reversed, with Wallace as the Democratic nominee and Humphrey running third-party. Their electoral vote numbers have been switched.

jhcxc5h.png
 
1968 reversed, with Wallace as the Democratic nominee and Humphrey running third-party. Their electoral vote numbers have been switched.

jhcxc5h.png

If this had actually happened, I suspect that the South would have remained a Democratic stronghold into the twenty-first century, with great consequences for our modern political climate.
 
Actually, considering JFK has an 86% (!) approval rating, he'd probably win all 50 states against Trump. I didn't want to do a 50 state sweep map though because that's boring to look at. as for Truman, I don't think he's especially popular or would be an especially great candidate, simply put. and as for LBJ, Texas is a lot more Republican now than it was in the 60's, so I have him only narrowly winning it if he were to be revived from the dead and running in 2020.
I see. I think you underestimate Truman though.

I have two other questions: How would (Bill) Clinton have done against Trump? What about Obama?
 
1932.png

United States Election of 1932
Lt. Gov. Elmer Benson (SFL-MN)/State Sen. Norman Thomas (SFL-OH): 240 EVs; 38.97% PV
Senator Cordell Hull (D-TN)/Senator John Garner (D-TX): 221 EVs; 36.99% PV

President Herbert Hoover (R-IA)/Vice-President Charles Curtis (R-KS): 70 EVs; 24.04%
The Democratic House chose Hull, while the Senate just barely chose Garner. Benson and Thomas both decried the election, stating that the American people had been ignored and that they had been couped from office. Benson swore to run again in 1936.


Authors note: Just a bit of fun, pretty sure it's implausible
 
If this had actually happened, I suspect that the South would have remained a Democratic stronghold into the twenty-first century, with great consequences for our modern political climate.
Or Wallace ends up branded a failure as Humphrey and co. prove it's impossible to win without the liberals. That's also wholly possible.
 
Or Wallace ends up branded a failure as Humphrey and co. prove it's impossible to win without the liberals. That's also wholly possible.

I don't know. The Democrats in '68 didn't assume it was impossible to win without the Dixiecrats when they lost the election, so I don't see why the opposite would happen.
 
I don't know. The Democrats in '68 didn't assume it was impossible to win without the Dixiecrats when they lost the election, so I don't see why the opposite would happen.
George Wallace winning one party nomination doesn't mean the party is permanently stuck into his path. They could go on to nominate, I don't know, George McGovern, and win.
 
George Wallace winning one party nomination doesn't mean the party is permanently stuck into his path. They could go on to nominate, I don't know, George McGovern, and win.

True, but my point was more that the Dems didn't go and nominate George Wallace in 1972 when Humphrey lost in 1968.
 
genusmap.php

1838
John Sergeant (Federalist): 156 EV
William Henry Harrison (Republican): 129 EV
Thomas Skidmore (Labor): 9 EV

genusmap.php

1842
John C. Calhoun (Republican): 150 EV
Edward Everett (Federalist): 76 EV

Josiah Warren (Labor): 49 EV

upload_2018-2-20_15-29-38.png

1846
James Buchanan (Federalist): 158 EV
Nathaniel Hawthorne (Labor): 80 EV

John C. Calhoun (Republican): 44 EV

upload_2018-2-20_15-28-2.png

1850
Franklin Pierce (Labor): 175 EV
James Buchanan (Federalist): 57 EV
John C. Calhoun (Nullifier Republican): 32 EV

Lewis Cass (Constitutional Republican): 29 EV

genusmap.php

1854
Franklin Pierce (Labor): 164 EV
Stephen Douglas (National): 24 EV
Willie P. Mangum (American): 0 EV

John Davis (Federalist): 0 EV

upload_2018-2-20_15-11-20.png

1856
Robert D. Owen (Labor): 157 EV
John Bell (National): 52 EV

Jacob Broom (American): 8 EV

upload_2018-2-20_15-10-47.png

1860
Adin Ballou (Labor): 131 EV
Gustav Koerner (National): 85 EV
Lewis Charles Levin (American): 22 EV

Nathaniel P. Banks (True American): 0 EV
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top