Oh. I thought you said it was ASB. Sorry for the confusion.
To answer the 2nd question, I'd say go with whatever you want. It can be plausible, or ASB, but just do whatever.
Last edited:
Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
To answer the 2nd question, I'd say go with whatever you want. It can be plausible, or ASB, but just do whatever.
2005, according to Electoral Calculus.
Conservative: 272
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrat: 36
UKIP: 0
Green: 0
SNP: 57
Plaid Cynru: 3
Other: 0
NI: 18
HUNG PARLIAMENT. CONSERVATIVES SHORT OF A MAJORITY BY 54 SEATS.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
um
2005, according to Electoral Calculus.
Conservative: 272
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrat: 36
UKIP: 0
Green: 0
SNP: 57
Plaid Cynru: 3
Other: 0
NI: 18
HUNG PARLIAMENT. CONSERVATIVES SHORT OF A MAJORITY BY 54 SEATS.
so
Scotland then
I take it you aren't breaking this up into regions then, because I'm seeing the big flaw in using the electoral calculus.
I can't find the percentages for regions for the earlier elections, so I'm going to go without regional percentages. (I'm going up to the 1895 election with this one.) Also, I have already started using national percentages.
It goes up to 1992, then 1931, and 1922, and finally 1880-1885. Do you have any sources to fill the gaps?
Rhad
Banned
Looking at that, it's clear just how out of the blue Scottish Labour losing was. They had carried Scotland for more than fifty years straight, and for more than twenty had won every election by double digit margins. They beat the SNP by 22 points in 2010, and in 2015 the SNP nearly got a majority. It'd be like democrats carrying Wyoming by a 40% margin in the midst of an otherwise normal race.
Has anybody calculated US Elections (2008, 2012, 2016, but also other elections) with the map of states in the signature of @TimTurner ? Would it still yield a Trump win in 2016, for example?
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
They have a whole page dedicated to Scotland.
And you can find regional data on the House of Commons online archive.
I think what would be really interesting, would be a county map for if Clinton won every Congressional District by exactly 1 vote, based on 2016 boundaries.
"I don't want to rust out. I'll rather wear out." - President Fritz Hollings on why he decided to run for a third term.
1968 United States presidential election
Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller/Gov. James "Jim" Rhodes (Republican): 261 EV, 27,520,860 votes (43%)
Pres. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings/VP Hubert H. Humphrey (Democratic): 260 EV, 28,024,368 votes (44%)
Gov. George C. Wallace/Gen. Curtis LeMay (American Independent): 17 EV, 8,026,328 votes (13%)
As he saw state after state go to Governor Rockefeller, President Hollings wondered if it was indeed a grave mistake to run for a third term, as was constitutionally possible since he served less than half of JFK's term. Hubert expressed concern that the voters wouldn't be willing to give him a third term, and he dismissed it as merely his angling to run in '68, thinking he could stand to wait until 1972.
With Wallace announcing his independent campaign, Hollings briefly worried about holding on the South but he stopped once he saw the Republican nominee, the ultimate "Rockefeller Republican", Governor Rockefeller himself. No way would he gain in the South. His re-election was assured. That confident assuring was a far cry from the broken man who saw state after state go blue.
But fate, that fickle mistress, started to smile upon the shattered President once more, as California went to him. Then Washington. Hawaii, Michigan. It was increasingly clear that Rockefeller stood no chance of winning an electoral majority. The President's eyes began to brighten again as he realised that Wallace basically had no choice. Either him or the most liberal Republican in history.
Unfortunately, things wouldn't go that smoothly as liberal Democrats in Congress became restless, and Humphrey would sit as Acting President for more than a year, but in the end Hollings got his coveted third term and was sworn in as President once more in 1970. The taste of power Humphrey got for a brief moment only made him more sure that he had to run for the Presidency in '72...
Last edited:
Show me the Money!!
United States Politics are divided by money. Mainly, how it's backed: Gold, Silver, or None (Fiat)
Parish Lesane Crooks/Preston Bush 232 (Democratic Party) EVs
Ron Paul/Aaron Dontez Yates (Progressive Party) 215 EVs
Peter Bryan/Mark Sinclair (Populist Party) 93 EVs
Political Parties
Democratic Party (New Dealism, Social Conservationism, Fiat Money, Fiscally Liberal) Party of Franklin Roosevelt
Progressive Party (New Nationalism, Progressivism, Gold Standard, Classic Liberalism) The Party of Theodore Roosevelt
Populist Party (Liberalism, Bimetalism, Free Silver, Agrarianism) The Party of William Jennings Bryan (not really, he's just the biggest hero for it)
United States Politics are divided by money. Mainly, how it's backed: Gold, Silver, or None (Fiat)
Parish Lesane Crooks/Preston Bush 232 (Democratic Party) EVs
Ron Paul/Aaron Dontez Yates (Progressive Party) 215 EVs
Peter Bryan/Mark Sinclair (Populist Party) 93 EVs
Political Parties
Democratic Party (New Dealism, Social Conservationism, Fiat Money, Fiscally Liberal) Party of Franklin Roosevelt
Progressive Party (New Nationalism, Progressivism, Gold Standard, Classic Liberalism) The Party of Theodore Roosevelt
Populist Party (Liberalism, Bimetalism, Free Silver, Agrarianism) The Party of William Jennings Bryan (not really, he's just the biggest hero for it)
If he used the Scotland predictor it would have been fine, even better with the Regional Predictor.
- Status