Alternate Electoral Maps II

Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Aaaaasima, May 22, 2017.

Loading...
  1. Bad Company Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Tis true, Brown may not be the most dynamic speaker. But he does have a record of winning in a swing state as a progressive, so I think he'd help bring back some of the rust belters who flirted with Trump. He doesn't need to outshine the top of the ticket, he just needs to reassure those in the Midwest.
     
  2. leecannon_ Chair of The American Laborers Party

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Brown would be a great vice president
     
  3. Mumby im that bob

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Location:
    wandering
    The America That Browder Built

    upload_2018-3-12_10-38-4.png
     
    Temeraire, theev, gap80 and 6 others like this.
  4. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    No way would Brown lose West Virginia and Missouri while winning the Dakotas and Indiana.
     
  5. prime-minister Commander of High Authoritah

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2015
    Location:
    Cambridge
    1992


    At first, Gramm's Presidency went fairly well. He managed to pass numerous tax cuts, and in doing so exposed a massive split between conservative Southern Democrats who supported them, and liberal Democrats from the rest of the country who by and large opposed them. This divide embarrassed the party significantly, as did the accelerating collapse of the Soviet Union, allowing Gramm to develop a very good image with regards to foreign policy. As a result of this, the Republicans held onto Congress with slightly more seats in the House and Senate in 1990.

    In the second half of his term, however, things started to go badly wrong for Gramm. In early 1991, reports came out that he had tried to veto the D'Amato Amendment of the Iraq International Law Compliance Act of 1990; effectively, he had tried to lift sanctions on arms trade and financial assistance to Iraq because he felt they were more of a detriment to US businesses and farms than to Iraq, around a week before Saddam invaded Kuwait and the Gulf War occurred. This proved a major embarrassment to Gramm and tarnished his credibility as a foreign policy mogul, with Democrats of all stripes expressing outrage that the President could put business concerns before protecting innocent lives.

    This popular view of Gramm as 'the President of Business' was exacerbated by his enthusiasm for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. While Democrats were split on the issue of whether the agreement was a good idea, with some seeing it as a natural extension of globalization which could be humanely carried out, Crane's and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's shared alacrity to sign the deal quickly aroused suspicion from left-leaning politicians and voters. Furthermore, the waning economy in the early 1990s made voters skeptical of a trade deal seen as beneficial to economic elites first and consumers second.

    In turn, NAFTA became the defining debate of the Democratic primaries in 1992. Leading the charge in support of the agreement was Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas, who quickly lost momentum due to his minimal government approach. Other senior figures included liberal standard-bearer Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and the more moderate Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, but the figure to take the most support, achieve the position most appealing to the bulk of the party and ultimately win the nomination was Governor Jerry Brown of California, a stalwart politician who was consistently opposed to NAFTA, but made it clear his problems with it were on the basis of worker's rights protections. His acceptance speech, where he described his fears of a 'race to the bottom' under NAFTA, captured the concerns of millions of Americans with misgivings about free trade, and his choice of running mate, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, further emphasized his commitment to the provisions of workers, as Harkin was a figure with strong labor union support and spoke of plans to ensure child labor laws were tightened.

    The debates further solidified voter cynicism towards the President. In the first debate at Washington University in St Louis, Gramm made a rather rambling appeal to voters to reconsider NAFTA, trying to explain that the agreement would have no real impact on prices and would lead to economic growth. In response, Brown calmly declared, 'Mr President, there's no point in prices staying solid if they're being kept at a level consumers can't afford,' a response which earned him a round of applause.

    In effect, that moment was a microcosm of sorts of the entire election.


    [​IMG]

    Brown/Harkin (Democratic): 349 EVs, 52.7%
    Gramm/Rudman (Republican): 188 EVs, 46.7%


    The result was a decisive win for Brown, although his Electoral College performance was a surprise to some; Gramm held up surprisingly well in the South, while several states which had typically been very Republican (most notably Alaska, Kansas and Wyoming) supported Brown thanks to the NAFTA issue, and the presence of Harkin allowed a dramatic pro-Democrat swing in Iowa. Down ballot, the Democrats managed to retake both the House and Senate (picking off numerous 1986 freshmen in the latter), the first time all three elected offices flipped in a single election since 1952.

    Brown could claim a substantial mandate for his policies- or at least, he thought he could. However, his electoral mandate did not change the fact he was leading a significantly divided party, and while he could throw a wrench in the plan while it came to NAFTA, it was unclear how much he could really do to stop it.

    (Sorry I haven't updated this in a while, I've had some rather nasty family issues going on lately.)
     
    TimTurner, Oppo, Temeraire and 5 others like this.
  6. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    Just a few of the more inspired realignment scenarios I've though of.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    gap80 and Calthrina950 like this.
  7. Caprice Psephologising since 2011

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Interesting. What are these scenarios? (especially that third one with the third party around DC)
     
    gap80 likes this.
  8. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    I honestly didn't think out the first two scenarios, but the third one is a three way race between a popular Utah Democrat with a running mate from Texas and a Republican ticket from Minnesota and Nevada. The green represents the DMASP (DC Metro Area Statehood Party).
     
    gap80 likes this.
  9. killertahu22 Communism and Social Justice

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Location:
    Virginia
    Why would Virginia and anywhere outside of DC vote for that? I know for a fact most people in Virginia don’t give two cares about DC statehood
     
    Oppo, Temeraire, Caprice and 2 others like this.
  10. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    What you did here is combine everyone who didn't vote for Clinton or Bush with Clinton, not just Perot. I'm actually working on my own county map for this but with only Clinton + Perot combined and with shaded margins. In my map Bush picks up some counties with a narrow plurality compared to yours because Perot's votes weren't enough to get Clinton to a plurality when you count other third parties.
     
  11. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    I had a feeling that I wasn't doing something right. In that case, would I have to add in all of the minor-party totals to Clinton's popular-vote percentage?
     
  12. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    If you want to add everyone who didn't vote for Bush to Clinton, yes. My map is just Clinton + Perot but I might make another one at some point with Clinton + every third party.
     
  13. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    I see. I will work on revising those figures.
     
  14. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Taking into account what Tex Arkana said, here is a revised version of the 1992 Alternate Election Scenario. The following is a state map of what that election would have looked like if all third-party votes from that year (Perot, Marrou, Gritz, Fulani, Philips, and minor/write-in candidates) had gone to the Democratic ticket. As can be seen, the Democrat (Clinton for this post's sake), would have won all fifty states:

    [​IMG]
    Governor William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR)/Senator Albert Gore, Jr. (D-TN)-62.54%-538 EV
    President George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Senator Danforth Quayle (R-IN)-37.45%-0 EV

    And the corresponding county map:
    [​IMG]
    And here are the revised "interesting statistics" about this scenario:
    • Clinton would receive more than 60% of the vote in 29 states. Among the most surprising of these would be Arizona, Kansas, Montana, and Wyoming. Interestingly enough, Clinton would fail to break 60% in three other notable states-Florida, Texas, and New Jersey-with the last being the most puzzling. The former two, however, are not in hindsight, given that both Florida and Texas were (and continue to be), Republican-leaning states in 1992, that they were held by Bush narrowly that year in OTL, and that Bush's adoptive home state is Texas. Nevertheless, Clinton would win both states with ~59% of the vote, and New Jersey with the same share. He would win Dan Quayle's home state of Indiana with ~57%.
    • Clinton receives greater than 70% of the vote in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Ronald Reagan's weakest state wins in 1984, and cracks 90% in the District of Columbia.
    • Clinton would receive ~65% of the vote in his home state of Arkansas, but only 58% in Al Gore's home state of Tennessee.
    • He would win every county in 15 states, four short of Richard Nixon's county-sweep record in 1972. New York, however, would not be one of them: Bush holds Hamilton County.
    • Mississippi would be the closest state in the election, going for Clinton by 0.64%. It would be almost as close as Minnesota was in 1984. Clinton would receive an absolute majority, but barely: 50.32%. Minnesota itself goes 68% Democratic in this scenario.
    I have revised this post to incorporate the assumption, derived from the calculations below, that Clinton narrowly carries NE-03. I would appreciate it if someone could give me an approximation of how many counties Bush wins here.

    The revised table is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Empire_of_History/sandbox/6.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    gap80 likes this.
  15. Bjornhattan World's Worst Psephologist

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford
    After a lot of digging, I've found evidence that the 1992 vote in Nebraska was as follows

    Clinton: 57,467
    Bush: 121,342
    Other: 65,473

    Bush: 121,342
    ATL Clinton: 122,940

    So Clinton wins Nebraska's 3rd District, by a narrow 1,598 (0.65%) margin.
     
    gap80 and Calthrina950 like this.
  16. Tex Arkana Basically Freddie Mercury

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    The Swamp
    Based on the county map here, how does Clinton win NE-3? Like, I'd be interesting in seeing some sort of breakdown because it still appears to be a GOP win to me.
     
  17. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Thank you for doing these calculations. I will revise my post accordingly.
     
  18. Prussian1871 Feel the (Lyndon) Johnson

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    I don't know what you're talking about. He's just got a raspy, husky voice is all, and to my working-class ears I find it rather appealing.
     
  19. JLUK1234 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Here's an idea I've come up with. When the London Assembly was created in 2000, they came up with the idea of large multi borough constituencies and a London wide region. This differed from the idea of the Westminster seats and several regions that Wales and Scotland have.

    What if they had followed Scotland and Wales and had small constituencies and numerous regions? The following is that!

    I've based my seats on the '83 boundaries since the '97 ones crossed borough boundaries and to this day it causes squabbles. All my seats are made up of the current electoral wards.

    2016 Results

    Labour 61
    Conservative 41
    Green 9

    Lib Dem 7
    UKIP 7
    Women's Equality 1

    Maps (coloured in by Majority unless stated otherwise) - credit to those who made the map and the key

    Mayoral results by constituency
    London 1983 London Mayor maj blank '16.png

    Mayoral 2nd Preferences by constituency

    London 1983 London Mayor 2nd Pref maj blank '16.png

    Constituency results

    London 1983 LA maj blank '16.png

    Regional results by constituency
    London 1983 LA ALMem maj blank '16.png

    Constituency result by winning party
    LondonParliamentaryConstituencyLA16.png

    Regional results
    London 1983 LA regions '16.png
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    gap80, Temeraire, Thande and 5 others like this.
  20. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    If they do it like Wales and Scotland, they'd use the Euro-constituencies.
     
Loading...