Map Thread XIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, now that it's the 30th, and I doubt a Spanish government is going to form within the next 36 hours, I've finalized my second OTL 2015 political information map.

Love it! And I like how you defined Cambio Radical as far-right in Colombia. :D :D

Is the blue in the US because the Democrats would be centre-right almost anywhere else, or because the Republicans have the legislature? Also, wouldn't Poland's PiS be right-wing in comparison to PO's liberal/Centre-right? And wouldn't Liberalism often fall under centrism?
 
So, now that it's the 30th, and I doubt a Spanish government is going to form within the next 36 hours, I've finalized my second OTL 2015 political information map.

The below map shows the political positions of the governing parties or coalitions of the world; note that because in many cases explicit ideologies (e.g. Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism etc.) do not all share the exact same positions I have eschewed listing explicit ideologies except in a few specific cases where they fit.


Notes;
1. In the case of Presidential systems, with a strong president and legislature in cases that differing sides control each (currently Argentina, previously the U.S. when the Senate had a Democratic majority) the two sides striping are shown facing the opposite direction that coalition striping is shown.

2. No Government as a category is split into two groups; countries with on-going Civil Wars and thus no national government (ex. Yemen) and cases where there has been an election in which no party won a majority and no coalition or minority government has been formed (ex. Spain).

3. Non-Ideological represents cases where there are political parties, but said parties do not actually espouse or practice any set ideology or beliefs, usually either being 'Parties of Power' who exist simply to retain power or as figurepieces for undemocratic regimes or cases in liberal democracies where they comprise people who generally agree on one or more specific non-ideological ideas (IE support for a specific infrastructure project, or keeping a certain person out of power) but otherwise having no real ideology.

4. Non-partisan represents cases where political parties are either illegal or where they have simply never become popular or needed.

5. Minority Interests are parties that exist to represent a specific minority group and may or may not have an ideology beyond that; in some cases there are more than party representing the same minority but with actual different ideologies, however in these cases there focus on representing the minority group supersedes any ideology they may espouse for the map.

6. Local Ideologies represent ideologies created in or for a specific country and in which have not become popular or successful outside of the country in question; in the case of this map these are Juche (North Korea) and Mobutism (D.R. Congo).
Interesting take on Beneluxian liberal parties, classifying them as "centre-right" instead of "liberal"...
 
I'm curious as to what is going on in Mongolia and Brazil.

Coalition governments; Brazil's politics are just weird general (2 of the big parties exist simply to exist and only technically espouse any ideology) and Mongolia is a coalition of the other major parties against another party.


Is the blue in the US because the Democrats would be centre-right almost anywhere else, or because the Republicans have the legislature?

Because the Republicans control Congress.


Also, wouldn't Poland's PiS be right-wing in comparison to PO's liberal/Centre-right? And wouldn't Liberalism often fall under centrism?

As I said previously, yes PiS is to the Right of PO, but the map is not based nationally subjective values, rather having a single definition set applied to all countries.


Interesting take on Beneluxian liberal parties, classifying them as "centre-right" instead of "liberal"...

In the Netherlands the VVD espouses 'Conservative Liberalism', so it's Right of Center; in Belgium and Luxembourg none of the ruling parties are Liberal parties
 
1. In the case of Presidential systems, with a strong president and legislature in cases that differing sides control each (currently Argentina, previously the U.S. when the Senate had a Democratic majority) the two sides striping are shown facing the opposite direction that coalition striping is shown.

Shouldn't the US be striped Centrist for Obama, then?
 
Shouldn't the US be striped Centrist for Obama, then?

No; previously the U.S. was striped Liberal and Right-wing as the Republicans at the time controlled the House while the Senate was a small majority Democrat-controlled (though with some Dems siding with the GOP to pass things) and the Presidency being held by Obama; currently the GOP control both houses of Congress, thus giving them the ability to theoretically override any Veto Obama may choose if they really felt strongly enough about it.
 
I wanted to try my had at the biomes for this map. First step is trying to figure out the ocean currents. This is my rough approximation. I apologize in advance for the MS Paint. I've also marked the equator (red), the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (orange), and the Arctic and Antarctic circles (yellow). Comments and critiques appreciated.

Is it to have the same topography as OTL? Keep in mind the bulge of the equator and its effect on elevation.

You then need to take into account wind currents. Also consider deep ocean currents and their impact on heat transfer.
 
What else could you call a bunch of young, skateboard riding, laid back, pot smoking hooligans but "totally radical, dude!"

Well, I'm sure if any of them manage to get elected to Congress or the Senate we'll be seeing a more radical nation. :)
 
currently the GOP control both houses of Congress, thus giving them the ability to theoretically override any Veto Obama may choose if they really felt strongly enough about it.

You need a 2/3 majority to override a veto: I don't think they have quite that high a number of votes, even counting potential democratic defectors.
 

Asami

Banned
You need a 2/3 majority to override a veto: I don't think they have quite that high a number of votes, even counting potential democratic defectors.

Yeah, the Republicans only control 54/100 Senators, that's 13 Senators shy of a 2/3rds majority.

In the House, they control 246/435 Representatives, meaning they need another 44 Representatives to defect to them to get to a 2/3rds Majority.

Which is easier said than done, honestly; and this isn't counting any Republicans who will back out of voting party line at any time.
 
Is it to have the same topography as OTL? Keep in mind the bulge of the equator and its effect on elevation.

You then need to take into account wind currents. Also consider deep ocean currents and their impact on heat transfer.

Yes, I'm going to assume that topography has not changed. And I'll take those others into consideration as well.
 
Well, finally got one of those "to do" maps on my non-commission list done. :)

This is a scenario by "Raymond Speer" over on the soc.history.what-if group on google groups back in the day. It is based on the Jacobites making a successful return to the British throne with French help (earlier attempt? More competent Old Pretender? Less godawful Young Pretender), and the Hanoverian Georges taking refuge in America. Time passes. Bourbon hopes of unifying their various kingdoms succeed without British support for the opposition. The Stuarts fail to reCatholicize England, but the elite becomes rather more Catholic. (Still over 50% non-Catholic or just secular in 2003).

An ambitious Catholic king of England manages to get himself elected King of Poland as well, and by crook manages to make the position hereditary. There is Trouble with Russia, and much of Poland is absorbed into the Czar's domain. Revenge is plotted.

Spanish America grows restless with European meddling and attempts to more effectively exploit their possessions. Revolts break out, supported by the Kingdom of America-and-Britain-in-Exile. The Franco-Spanish effort to create new kingdoms in the Americas succeeded in Mexico (partly due to resentment and fear caused by the Kingdom of America's theft of Louisiana), but failed in South America, although with rather greater resources than early 19th century Spain OTL the struggle lasted longer (the towel was finally thrown in when it looked like _Spain_ was about to break loose itself).

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Poland industrialized and picked up colonies, and increasingly moved out of the French orbit. It grew stronger, finally triumphing over a corrupt and backward Russia in another Polish war which saw the Czarist regime collapse in revolution and Poland's old borders at least partially restored. At this point relations with France grew frosty: the United Kingdom had moved into the "threat" category. Looking for support against the continent-dominating enemy, the British looked across the sea at an old enemy which, however, had no love at all for the Franco-Spanish Empire...

The Franco-Spanish and "English" blocks (it has become standard to talk about a sundered but still united by blood English nation, no matter how many continental immigrants have settled in North America) are currently engage in an ongoing cold war. The main "wild cards" outside this duality are currently neutral Austria and the Russian Republic, which has old grudges against both sides. France-Spain is a bureaucratic and rather technocratic absolutism, with the King-Emperor increasingly a figurehead for army, secret police and the Permanent Bureaucracy.The United Kingdom and the Kingdom of North America in the year 2003 (when this scenario appeared :) ) are respectively about as democratic as OTL German Empire and the UK in 1900, although the United Kingdom lacks the various insecurities suffered by Wilhelmite Germany. Russia is more democratic than either, but also anti-semitic (fortunately the Jews are allowed to flee abroad), xenophobic, and tub-thumpingly religious. (There was quite a religious revival after the fall of the Czar and the Orthodox Church essentially being privatized).

Technology is a bit backwards in this conservative world, in different fields ranging from OTL 1930s to 1950s: nobody has atomic weapons yet, but several nations have secret research projects into this "corpuscular energy" thing. Art and culture tend towards the baroque and florid: the costumes are gorgeous - the "conservative" Russians tend to go for men's suits in irridescent green and florescent purple (why so serious, comrade?) - and the architecture tends towards the, shall we say, fussy.
 
And here is the accompanying and further expositioning map.

Jacobite.png
 
A map relating to my current timeline, though also just gently experimenting with different styles, and maps that are not North-aligned (in this case the map is West-aligned). In my timeline, involving the successful Achaemenid conquest of Greece, the 'Alexander' nearest equivalent is an Indian king, Agnemitra, who launches a conquest of the Achaemenid Empire from his own kingdom of Avanti/Ujjain about 342 BCE. This is what he managed to rack up by the time of the map, though this is the high watermark, and will not remain a single entity of this size.

nXwEYVO.png
 
Interesting! But isn't his conquest of Persia within a decade of OTL Alexander's achievements a bit of a coincidence? I am aware that the Persian empire was in shaky shape at the time, but Alexanders don't come along every day, thank goodness.
 
In context, it's because a splinter state based out of Achaemenid Greece has been expanding into the western satrapies of the Empire, and the titular Agnemitra started his conquest in response to a much more open display of weakness than Alexander. However, the fact that this is taking place at a roughly similar time to Alexander's conquests is... perhaps a rather extreme coincidence. Call it unsubtle but I wanted the imagery of Agnemitra as an Indian Alexander to be extremely clear :p.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top