Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
11:00 P.M. E.S.T.
McManus: Welcome back to Election Night, America. We have poll closings in five states, leaving Alaska as the only state with polls still open.
CALIFORNIA - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 31,249 (54.45%)
Baker/Sandoval: 25,123 (43.77%)
Others: 1,024 (1.78%)
McManus: A solidly Democratic state, we can call California for Manchin. Our data shows that Baker will likely vastly improve upon Romney and Trump's performances in California, but it is not enough to flip the Golden State.
HAWAII - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 10 (45.45%)
Baker/Sandoval: 7 (31.82%)
Others: 5 (22.73%)
McManus: Another steel blue state, the Sunshine State can be called for Manchin. Hawaii last voted Republican in 1984 for Ronald Reagan.
WASHINGTON (too close to call) - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 42 (51.22%)
Baker/Sandoval: 39 (47.56%)
Others: 1 (1.22%)
McManus: Last considered competitive in the early 2000s, Washington has once again become competitive due to Baker's moderate Republicanism and Manchin's conservative Democratic ideas.
OREGON (too close to call) - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 401 (51.28%)
Baker/Sandoval: 378 (48.34%)
Others: 3 (.38%)
McManus: Oregon has not voted Republican since 1984, but George W. Bush lost it by a hair in 2000. Similar circumstances to its northern neighbor have put it in play for this cycle, and it has been considered critical for both campaigns to win the White House since a close race could teeter on Oregon's results. We are also able to project a few states where polls have already been closed:
MAINE - 74% reporting
Baker/Sandoval: 314,948 (56.25%)
Manchin/Klobuchar: 242,721 (43.35%)
Others: 2,210 (.40%)
McManus: We can now call the Pine Tree State for Baker. Baker's Rockefeller Republican platform and New England connection has resonated well with Mainers, which has produced a decisive victory for the Baker Campaign. Note that Maine's 1st congressional district remains too close to call, and has been flipping between the candidates throughout the night. We probably won't have a projection until over 90% of the vote is in.
IOWA - 31% in
Manchin/Klobuchar: 267,120 (55.71%)
Baker/Sandoval: 211,104 (44.03%)
Others: 1,239 (.26%)
McManus: Iowa can be projected for Senator Manchin at this hour. Another strong showing for Manchin in the Rust Belt, he is currently outperforming recent polls, though the exact margin is yet to be seen since only 31% of the vote is in. Let's take a look at the electoral map:
McManus: Baker's lead in the electoral college has slimmed to 7, with Manchin now clocking in at 158 electoral votes vs. Baker's 165. 212 are uncalled, and 3 are in the state that hasn't been called yet, Alaska.
McManus: Welcome back to Election Night, America. We have poll closings in five states, leaving Alaska as the only state with polls still open.
CALIFORNIA - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 31,249 (54.45%)
Baker/Sandoval: 25,123 (43.77%)
Others: 1,024 (1.78%)
McManus: A solidly Democratic state, we can call California for Manchin. Our data shows that Baker will likely vastly improve upon Romney and Trump's performances in California, but it is not enough to flip the Golden State.
HAWAII - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 10 (45.45%)
Baker/Sandoval: 7 (31.82%)
Others: 5 (22.73%)
McManus: Another steel blue state, the Sunshine State can be called for Manchin. Hawaii last voted Republican in 1984 for Ronald Reagan.
WASHINGTON (too close to call) - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 42 (51.22%)
Baker/Sandoval: 39 (47.56%)
Others: 1 (1.22%)
McManus: Last considered competitive in the early 2000s, Washington has once again become competitive due to Baker's moderate Republicanism and Manchin's conservative Democratic ideas.
OREGON (too close to call) - <1% reporting
Manchin/Klobuchar: 401 (51.28%)
Baker/Sandoval: 378 (48.34%)
Others: 3 (.38%)
McManus: Oregon has not voted Republican since 1984, but George W. Bush lost it by a hair in 2000. Similar circumstances to its northern neighbor have put it in play for this cycle, and it has been considered critical for both campaigns to win the White House since a close race could teeter on Oregon's results. We are also able to project a few states where polls have already been closed:
MAINE - 74% reporting
Baker/Sandoval: 314,948 (56.25%)
Manchin/Klobuchar: 242,721 (43.35%)
Others: 2,210 (.40%)
McManus: We can now call the Pine Tree State for Baker. Baker's Rockefeller Republican platform and New England connection has resonated well with Mainers, which has produced a decisive victory for the Baker Campaign. Note that Maine's 1st congressional district remains too close to call, and has been flipping between the candidates throughout the night. We probably won't have a projection until over 90% of the vote is in.
IOWA - 31% in
Manchin/Klobuchar: 267,120 (55.71%)
Baker/Sandoval: 211,104 (44.03%)
Others: 1,239 (.26%)
McManus: Iowa can be projected for Senator Manchin at this hour. Another strong showing for Manchin in the Rust Belt, he is currently outperforming recent polls, though the exact margin is yet to be seen since only 31% of the vote is in. Let's take a look at the electoral map:
McManus: Baker's lead in the electoral college has slimmed to 7, with Manchin now clocking in at 158 electoral votes vs. Baker's 165. 212 are uncalled, and 3 are in the state that hasn't been called yet, Alaska.
Why would Pence win the NY primary if he was not a shoo-in for the nomination, especially given Kasich's strength in parts of the state in 2016?
Could somebody here do me a big favor?
I'm looking for a map of redrawn US House seats had the Dems still held a majority + most of the state legislatures at the 2010 census. Doesn't have to be a heavy gerrymander ala the GOP in 2010, but something with different boundaries that fits the idea (bonus if it also looks like the maps on wikipedia) would work.
Cards on the table, I may be thinking of doing a TL, and it would be a wonderful resource to have for that...
In advance, thanks, danke, grazie, merci, arigato, etc, etc.
I'm looking for a map of redrawn US House seats had the Dems still held a majority + most of the state legislatures at the 2010 census. Doesn't have to be a heavy gerrymander ala the GOP in 2010, but something with different boundaries that fits the idea (bonus if it also looks like the maps on wikipedia) would work.
Cards on the table, I may be thinking of doing a TL, and it would be a wonderful resource to have for that...
In advance, thanks, danke, grazie, merci, arigato, etc, etc.
Why would Democrats win Hawaii while loosing much bluer states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California and Vermont?
The swing which gives California to the Republicans by 1,418 votes was applied to every state - therefore, Hawaii is more Democratic than the states you mentioned.
Something I simply came up with on the fly, a rough merging of recent and previous British and German elections within the United States – created using DRA.
The 2016 election was a tale of rejections. The unpopular Austerity Programs of the Federalist and Libertarian government had been in place since the rejection 2012. The government had governed with the confident majority won in response to the Great Collapse, constantly facing the criticism of the Left. In response to the crushing defeat in the 2012 election, the Labor Party selected Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts to be their parliamentary leader. The selection of Kennedy, the youngest Labor leader yet, was a clear aim at trying to bring in younger voters who had left the party for the Libertarians, Greens, and Left-Reform. He also brought with him the Kennedy name, a power tool to win over the backroom Labor leadership.
Disgust with the Federalists was not just limited to the left. 2012 saw the right-wing Citizens Party win their first ever seats in Congress. These seats gave the Citizens Party a platform to preach their criticism of austerity and generally, anything, that came from the government. However, the 2014-15 migrant crisis from Latin America transformed the party. Both Labor and the Federalists refused to crack down on the migrants, and instead were perceived to support open doors. The 2015 selection of Lou Barletta as leader saw the party move towards populism and ownership of the migrant issue. These positions however put the party in a position where neither of the big two was open towards accepting Citizens into their coalition.
The campaign itself was comparatively an uneventful affair. Compared to the 2012 campaign, which saw popular Labor representative Bob Brady expelled from the chamber for previously accepting bribe money, and 2008 which was held in the shadow of the Federalist Foley Scandal, no single ethical issue hung over the campaign. The campaign was also called ‘calm’ by commentators, especially in comparison to the mud-slinging 2012 campaign. The traditional three debates were held – one with every party, one with just the minor parties, and one with the two big parties. Polling after the debates concluded that Kennedy won the first, Si se Puede’s Loretta Sanchez the minor party debate, despite a hard hammering from Barletta. The final debate was inconclusive, with polls suggesting neither Kennedy nor Tiberi had won.
Polling before the election suggested that Federalists would lose control of government. An average of all final polls found that even as the Federalists would win the popular vote (thanks to the divisions in the left vote) Labor would emerge with more Representatives thanks to the FPTP seats and a plurality of the first vote. Less confident were the projections on whether the combined Left or Right would win more second votes and seats. The fact that the Libertarians were on track to be locked out of many leveling groups, and the Citizens Party was going to enter many for the first time, complicated matters.
It was therefore a surprise when exit polls found that the Federalists had maintained their plurality, and the Right was projected to win the second vote. Famously, Labor spokesman California Representative Jerry Brown remarked on CNN that he “would eat his hat if the exit poll is true.” As the first results trickled in, it became increasingly clear though that the Right was having a better night than expected, largely on the back of the Citizens Party. However, as the second votes were counted it became clear that even though the Right had won a majority of the vote, they had come short of a majority of the seats – Citizens and the Libertarians had failed to meet the threshold in too many electoral regions.
The immediate results led to talks between the Federalists, Democrats, and Greens towards forming an initial government. Labor however would refuse to give up the possibility of forming a government, since the Combined left had received a working majority thanks to the abstention of the People’s Party. The Green Party however agreed to enter government alongside Si se Puede, to prevent domination by the right wing parties.
Voter movement studies post-election found the reason why the pre-election polls were off by such a degree. Contrary to the perceived change in the party percentages, a significant number of voters moved between the parties this election. Large numbers of 2012 Federalist/Democrat voters moved to the left because of the Austerity programs. The Libertarian vote share utterly collapsed because of the coalition, with many voters moving back to the Federalists or to the Greens. Some left wing voters moved to the smaller parties out of disgust with Labor. The one place where polls did miss though was Citizens. The polls picked up movement from the Federalists and Labor to Citizens, however not in the numbers actually reflected in the results. This particularly hurt Labor, as the number of voters who moved left because of austerity were nearly canceled out by the number of rural populists who moved to Citizens.
There was an independent elected in a Special Election in Texas, who lost reelection in 2016. This is why there are only 999 seats previously.
The Parliament of the United States contains 1000 elected representatives. 700 representatives are elected from Single-Member First-Past-the-Post districts across the country. These districts are apportioned across the country based on the census, and then are drawn and approved by a state-appointed body of representative citizens with the first priority towards historic communities.
The remaining 300 representatives are apportioned to (presently) 18 groupings of states to be apportioned proportionally to parties using the second vote. 100 of these 300 seats are considered ‘proportional’ seats, apportioned based on the second vote margins in the 18 groupings. These 100 seas are largely holdovers from the former system. They are referred to as ‘Senate’ seats, in contrast to the other 900 representative seats. These 100 members get priority speaking rights in debate among other benefits, and so the party leadership are chosen as the candidates for these seats. The remaining 200 seats are leveling seats, awarded using D’Hondt/Jefferson method. In order for a party to meet the requirements for these groups, they must win 5% or more within that geographic grouping. This allows a geographically centralized party, like the abstentionist People’s Party, to win proportional seats in their stronghold despite getting 1% of the vote nationally.
This system as a whole tends to favor the two big parties. While the smaller parties run candidates in most FPTP seats, the main Right and Left parties win the vast majority of seats. These smaller parties win the majority of their seats in the proportional seats, so have traditionally got less seats than under a perfect apportionment. If one of these parties fail to make the 5% cutoff in certain regions, it may fall far below the expected amount of returned seats.
The remaining 300 representatives are apportioned to (presently) 18 groupings of states to be apportioned proportionally to parties using the second vote. 100 of these 300 seats are considered ‘proportional’ seats, apportioned based on the second vote margins in the 18 groupings. These 100 seas are largely holdovers from the former system. They are referred to as ‘Senate’ seats, in contrast to the other 900 representative seats. These 100 members get priority speaking rights in debate among other benefits, and so the party leadership are chosen as the candidates for these seats. The remaining 200 seats are leveling seats, awarded using D’Hondt/Jefferson method. In order for a party to meet the requirements for these groups, they must win 5% or more within that geographic grouping. This allows a geographically centralized party, like the abstentionist People’s Party, to win proportional seats in their stronghold despite getting 1% of the vote nationally.
This system as a whole tends to favor the two big parties. While the smaller parties run candidates in most FPTP seats, the main Right and Left parties win the vast majority of seats. These smaller parties win the majority of their seats in the proportional seats, so have traditionally got less seats than under a perfect apportionment. If one of these parties fail to make the 5% cutoff in certain regions, it may fall far below the expected amount of returned seats.
Right
Federalist Party + Democratic Party: The traditional political alliance of the right, with the Democrats acting as a southern sister party for the Federalists since the mid-50s. The Democratic base is the South where they regularly win absolute majorities of the vote, despite the divisions on the second ballot. The Federalists are based out of wealthy Suburbs and rural conservatives. Their modern ‘home’ state is thought of as Texas. The two parties differ on very little, though there are differences. The Democratic Party is closer to the economic center then the right, though is very socially conservative.
Libertarian Party: Originally the only minor party in the right. The party is less ‘radical’ as the similar party in OTL, legitimized by the multiparty system. It calls for balanced budgets and debt reductions, along with a greater role for the private sector. The party is strongest west of the Mississippi, particularly in the areas that expanded during the post-war boom. It is quite common for Federalist voters to cast their second ballot for the Libertarian Party.
Citizens Party: The Citizens Party is a relatively new party, contesting the national election for the first time in 2012. At the core of the Citizen philosophy is an opposition to globalism and the big parties that promote it, both the Federalists and Labor. In the first half of the decade during the Great Collapse, the party was mainly an anti-Austerity party aimed at disaffected rightists in the suburbs. During 2015 and 2016, it rebranded itself as a right-wing Populist party, advocating an end to Free-Trade deals and Immigration from the South. It lacks a true base, but the Midwest is where the party has consistently polled the strongest.
Left
Labor Party: The big Left-Wing Party of the United States. The Labor coalition is awkward when compared to the Federalist one, less geographically unified and less harmonious between the various groups. Former and present mining and union zones, urban minorities, rural populists, and various youth leftists. Such a diverse coalition means that the Labor vote plummets on the second ballot. Left-Wing governments usually include one or multiple minor leftist parties because of dropoff. Labor has no traditional home or base because of this factionalism, but instead many small ones: Appalachia, the Driftless Zone, the Inner Acela, the California coast.
Green Party: A small leftist party that has grown out of the environmental activism and counter-culture movement of the 70s. Like its right-wing opposite in the Libertarians, the Green Party of America is a larger and enjoys greater acceptance when contrasted with OTL. The party’s main policy is environmentalism and clean energy. To achieve these aims, a strong state with wide tax-and-spend powers is a necessity. However, the party is not beyond forming coalitions with the Federalists, and the rest of the Right wing. The Green party base is New England, where the party regularly wins seats based out of the Green, White, and Adirondack mountains. Most green party votes though come on the second ballot, where a large number of Labor voters cross over and vote green.
Si se Puede: Si se Puede was born in the hot fields of California on the back of Cesar Chavez’s inability to integrate his Hispanic Labor movement into the Eastern based establishment of the Labor Party. During these days, Si se Puede was a much more left-wing alternative party to Labor for Hispanics, often winning every FPTP seat in rural California with a large number of voting Hispanics. However, when Chavez began enforcing ideological purity on the UFW in the 80s –the loosely aligned union to Si se Puede, the party decided to distance itself from Chavez. Today, the party is neither truly economically right or left, though its former ties to the labor movement have left a legacy of labor activism. Instead, the party acts as a vehicle for Hispanic rights and migrant concerns, particularly along the border with Mexico.
Left-Reform Party: The official color of the Left-Reform party is not grey but Black, from the original left-Anarchist colors of Black and Red. This is ironic in American politics since the most loyal voters for the Left-Reform Party are rural African Americans. The party is relatively new, but that is because the modern iteration of the Left-Reform Party is a merger of mergers and splinter parties. The original party, if it can be called that, was the Social Progress Party of the 1960s. This merged with the various other African American parties of the time to form the Progress and Reform Party. Faced with declining membership and a failure obtain large numbers of seats in the 80s led to the party rebranding and merging with the failing True Left Party into the Progressive Left Party. In the 90s, the party collected all the various Communist parties abandoned after the fall of the Soviet Union and formed the Left-Reform Party. Today, the Party has two bases of voters – Rural African Americans (and a few urban ones on the second ballot) and far left radicals in the cities and universities. Continuing its tradition, the modern Left-Reform party continues to collect various populist and insurgent Left-wing micro-parties from across the nation, to try to build itself a strong brand loyalty.
Others
People's Party: A purely Mormon party. Following the repressions and crackdowns against the Mormon insurgents in the 1940s, the party was formed to send a message to the government in Washington. Various actions by Washington in the 50s, 60s, and 70s continued the process of ostracizing the Mormon Community through social issues. When the Right Wing government in the 80s failed to turn back the tide on these fronts, the Mormon community gave up on Washington. The community announced their policy of abstention from Washington, until “Washington needs the Mormon community and begs for their assistance in the Darkest Hour.”
Federalist Party + Democratic Party: The traditional political alliance of the right, with the Democrats acting as a southern sister party for the Federalists since the mid-50s. The Democratic base is the South where they regularly win absolute majorities of the vote, despite the divisions on the second ballot. The Federalists are based out of wealthy Suburbs and rural conservatives. Their modern ‘home’ state is thought of as Texas. The two parties differ on very little, though there are differences. The Democratic Party is closer to the economic center then the right, though is very socially conservative.
Libertarian Party: Originally the only minor party in the right. The party is less ‘radical’ as the similar party in OTL, legitimized by the multiparty system. It calls for balanced budgets and debt reductions, along with a greater role for the private sector. The party is strongest west of the Mississippi, particularly in the areas that expanded during the post-war boom. It is quite common for Federalist voters to cast their second ballot for the Libertarian Party.
Citizens Party: The Citizens Party is a relatively new party, contesting the national election for the first time in 2012. At the core of the Citizen philosophy is an opposition to globalism and the big parties that promote it, both the Federalists and Labor. In the first half of the decade during the Great Collapse, the party was mainly an anti-Austerity party aimed at disaffected rightists in the suburbs. During 2015 and 2016, it rebranded itself as a right-wing Populist party, advocating an end to Free-Trade deals and Immigration from the South. It lacks a true base, but the Midwest is where the party has consistently polled the strongest.
Left
Labor Party: The big Left-Wing Party of the United States. The Labor coalition is awkward when compared to the Federalist one, less geographically unified and less harmonious between the various groups. Former and present mining and union zones, urban minorities, rural populists, and various youth leftists. Such a diverse coalition means that the Labor vote plummets on the second ballot. Left-Wing governments usually include one or multiple minor leftist parties because of dropoff. Labor has no traditional home or base because of this factionalism, but instead many small ones: Appalachia, the Driftless Zone, the Inner Acela, the California coast.
Green Party: A small leftist party that has grown out of the environmental activism and counter-culture movement of the 70s. Like its right-wing opposite in the Libertarians, the Green Party of America is a larger and enjoys greater acceptance when contrasted with OTL. The party’s main policy is environmentalism and clean energy. To achieve these aims, a strong state with wide tax-and-spend powers is a necessity. However, the party is not beyond forming coalitions with the Federalists, and the rest of the Right wing. The Green party base is New England, where the party regularly wins seats based out of the Green, White, and Adirondack mountains. Most green party votes though come on the second ballot, where a large number of Labor voters cross over and vote green.
Si se Puede: Si se Puede was born in the hot fields of California on the back of Cesar Chavez’s inability to integrate his Hispanic Labor movement into the Eastern based establishment of the Labor Party. During these days, Si se Puede was a much more left-wing alternative party to Labor for Hispanics, often winning every FPTP seat in rural California with a large number of voting Hispanics. However, when Chavez began enforcing ideological purity on the UFW in the 80s –the loosely aligned union to Si se Puede, the party decided to distance itself from Chavez. Today, the party is neither truly economically right or left, though its former ties to the labor movement have left a legacy of labor activism. Instead, the party acts as a vehicle for Hispanic rights and migrant concerns, particularly along the border with Mexico.
Left-Reform Party: The official color of the Left-Reform party is not grey but Black, from the original left-Anarchist colors of Black and Red. This is ironic in American politics since the most loyal voters for the Left-Reform Party are rural African Americans. The party is relatively new, but that is because the modern iteration of the Left-Reform Party is a merger of mergers and splinter parties. The original party, if it can be called that, was the Social Progress Party of the 1960s. This merged with the various other African American parties of the time to form the Progress and Reform Party. Faced with declining membership and a failure obtain large numbers of seats in the 80s led to the party rebranding and merging with the failing True Left Party into the Progressive Left Party. In the 90s, the party collected all the various Communist parties abandoned after the fall of the Soviet Union and formed the Left-Reform Party. Today, the Party has two bases of voters – Rural African Americans (and a few urban ones on the second ballot) and far left radicals in the cities and universities. Continuing its tradition, the modern Left-Reform party continues to collect various populist and insurgent Left-wing micro-parties from across the nation, to try to build itself a strong brand loyalty.
Others
People's Party: A purely Mormon party. Following the repressions and crackdowns against the Mormon insurgents in the 1940s, the party was formed to send a message to the government in Washington. Various actions by Washington in the 50s, 60s, and 70s continued the process of ostracizing the Mormon Community through social issues. When the Right Wing government in the 80s failed to turn back the tide on these fronts, the Mormon community gave up on Washington. The community announced their policy of abstention from Washington, until “Washington needs the Mormon community and begs for their assistance in the Darkest Hour.”
The 2016 election was a tale of rejections. The unpopular Austerity Programs of the Federalist and Libertarian government had been in place since the rejection 2012. The government had governed with the confident majority won in response to the Great Collapse, constantly facing the criticism of the Left. In response to the crushing defeat in the 2012 election, the Labor Party selected Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts to be their parliamentary leader. The selection of Kennedy, the youngest Labor leader yet, was a clear aim at trying to bring in younger voters who had left the party for the Libertarians, Greens, and Left-Reform. He also brought with him the Kennedy name, a power tool to win over the backroom Labor leadership.
Disgust with the Federalists was not just limited to the left. 2012 saw the right-wing Citizens Party win their first ever seats in Congress. These seats gave the Citizens Party a platform to preach their criticism of austerity and generally, anything, that came from the government. However, the 2014-15 migrant crisis from Latin America transformed the party. Both Labor and the Federalists refused to crack down on the migrants, and instead were perceived to support open doors. The 2015 selection of Lou Barletta as leader saw the party move towards populism and ownership of the migrant issue. These positions however put the party in a position where neither of the big two was open towards accepting Citizens into their coalition.
The campaign itself was comparatively an uneventful affair. Compared to the 2012 campaign, which saw popular Labor representative Bob Brady expelled from the chamber for previously accepting bribe money, and 2008 which was held in the shadow of the Federalist Foley Scandal, no single ethical issue hung over the campaign. The campaign was also called ‘calm’ by commentators, especially in comparison to the mud-slinging 2012 campaign. The traditional three debates were held – one with every party, one with just the minor parties, and one with the two big parties. Polling after the debates concluded that Kennedy won the first, Si se Puede’s Loretta Sanchez the minor party debate, despite a hard hammering from Barletta. The final debate was inconclusive, with polls suggesting neither Kennedy nor Tiberi had won.
Polling before the election suggested that Federalists would lose control of government. An average of all final polls found that even as the Federalists would win the popular vote (thanks to the divisions in the left vote) Labor would emerge with more Representatives thanks to the FPTP seats and a plurality of the first vote. Less confident were the projections on whether the combined Left or Right would win more second votes and seats. The fact that the Libertarians were on track to be locked out of many leveling groups, and the Citizens Party was going to enter many for the first time, complicated matters.
It was therefore a surprise when exit polls found that the Federalists had maintained their plurality, and the Right was projected to win the second vote. Famously, Labor spokesman California Representative Jerry Brown remarked on CNN that he “would eat his hat if the exit poll is true.” As the first results trickled in, it became increasingly clear though that the Right was having a better night than expected, largely on the back of the Citizens Party. However, as the second votes were counted it became clear that even though the Right had won a majority of the vote, they had come short of a majority of the seats – Citizens and the Libertarians had failed to meet the threshold in too many electoral regions.
The immediate results led to talks between the Federalists, Democrats, and Greens towards forming an initial government. Labor however would refuse to give up the possibility of forming a government, since the Combined left had received a working majority thanks to the abstention of the People’s Party. The Green Party however agreed to enter government alongside Si se Puede, to prevent domination by the right wing parties.
Voter movement studies post-election found the reason why the pre-election polls were off by such a degree. Contrary to the perceived change in the party percentages, a significant number of voters moved between the parties this election. Large numbers of 2012 Federalist/Democrat voters moved to the left because of the Austerity programs. The Libertarian vote share utterly collapsed because of the coalition, with many voters moving back to the Federalists or to the Greens. Some left wing voters moved to the smaller parties out of disgust with Labor. The one place where polls did miss though was Citizens. The polls picked up movement from the Federalists and Labor to Citizens, however not in the numbers actually reflected in the results. This particularly hurt Labor, as the number of voters who moved left because of austerity were nearly canceled out by the number of rural populists who moved to Citizens.
There was an independent elected in a Special Election in Texas, who lost reelection in 2016. This is why there are only 999 seats previously.
It's a 30% swing. Giving 15% to Trump and taking 15% away from Clinton.
It's a 15.06% swing.
OFFICIAL DEFINITION
From Wikipedia - "If Party One's vote rises by 4 points and Party Two's vote falls 5 points, the swing is 4.5 points (Party 2 to Party 1)."
From the Swingometer section of the BBC's Election 2010 website -
"HOW SWING WORKS
Swing is a shorthand way for showing the change in the share of the vote, usually between two parties over two separate elections. The calculation is simple.
Step 1. Add the rise in one party's share in the vote to the fall in the second party's share of the vote.
Step 2. Divide your figure by two. The resulting figure is the swing."
I understand my definition of a swing is apparently different than the official definition. It's a 30% overall swing in my mind.
MoralisticCommunist
Banned
This is an incredible set of maps, I really love the party system which you have created here. Hopefully you can continue this series to show the 2008 and 2012 elections?
Something I simply came up with on the fly, a rough merging of recent and previous British and German elections within the United States – created using DRA.
The Parliament of the United States contains 1000 elected representatives. 700 representatives are elected from Single-Member First-Past-the-Post districts across the country. These districts are apportioned across the country based on the census, and then are drawn and approved by a state-appointed body of representative citizens with the first priority towards historic communities.
The remaining 300 representatives are apportioned to (presently) 18 groupings of states to be apportioned proportionally to parties using the second vote. 100 of these 300 seats are considered ‘proportional’ seats, apportioned based on the second vote margins in the 18 groupings. These 100 seas are largely holdovers from the former system. They are referred to as ‘Senate’ seats, in contrast to the other 900 representative seats. These 100 members get priority speaking rights in debate among other benefits, and so the party leadership are chosen as the candidates for these seats. The remaining 200 seats are leveling seats, awarded using D’Hondt/Jefferson method. In order for a party to meet the requirements for these groups, they must win 5% or more within that geographic grouping. This allows a geographically centralized party, like the abstentionist People’s Party, to win proportional seats in their stronghold despite getting 1% of the vote nationally.
This system as a whole tends to favor the two big parties. While the smaller parties run candidates in most FPTP seats, the main Right and Left parties win the vast majority of seats. These smaller parties win the majority of their seats in the proportional seats, so have traditionally got less seats than under a perfect apportionment. If one of these parties fail to make the 5% cutoff in certain regions, it may fall far below the expected amount of returned seats.
Right
Federalist Party + Democratic Party: The traditional political alliance of the right, with the Democrats acting as a southern sister party for the Federalists since the mid-50s. The Democratic base is the South where they regularly win absolute majorities of the vote, despite the divisions on the second ballot. The Federalists are based out of wealthy Suburbs and rural conservatives. Their modern ‘home’ state is thought of as Texas. The two parties differ on very little, though there are differences. The Democratic Party is closer to the economic center then the right, though is very socially conservative.
Libertarian Party: Originally the only minor party in the right. The party is less ‘radical’ as the similar party in OTL, legitimized by the multiparty system. It calls for balanced budgets and debt reductions, along with a greater role for the private sector. The party is strongest west of the Mississippi, particularly in the areas that expanded during the post-war boom. It is quite common for Federalist voters to cast their second ballot for the Libertarian Party.
Citizens Party: The Citizens Party is a relatively new party, contesting the national election for the first time in 2012. At the core of the Citizen philosophy is an opposition to globalism and the big parties that promote it, both the Federalists and Labor. In the first half of the decade during the Great Collapse, the party was mainly an anti-Austerity party aimed at disaffected rightists in the suburbs. During 2015 and 2016, it rebranded itself as a right-wing Populist party, advocating an end to Free-Trade deals and Immigration from the South. It lacks a true base, but the Midwest is where the party has consistently polled the strongest.
Left
Labor Party: The big Left-Wing Party of the United States. The Labor coalition is awkward when compared to the Federalist one, less geographically unified and less harmonious between the various groups. Former and present mining and union zones, urban minorities, rural populists, and various youth leftists. Such a diverse coalition means that the Labor vote plummets on the second ballot. Left-Wing governments usually include one or multiple minor leftist parties because of dropoff. Labor has no traditional home or base because of this factionalism, but instead many small ones: Appalachia, the Driftless Zone, the Inner Acela, the California coast.
Green Party: A small leftist party that has grown out of the environmental activism and counter-culture movement of the 70s. Like its right-wing opposite in the Libertarians, the Green Party of America is a larger and enjoys greater acceptance when contrasted with OTL. The party’s main policy is environmentalism and clean energy. To achieve these aims, a strong state with wide tax-and-spend powers is a necessity. However, the party is not beyond forming coalitions with the Federalists, and the rest of the Right wing. The Green party base is New England, where the party regularly wins seats based out of the Green, White, and Adirondack mountains. Most green party votes though come on the second ballot, where a large number of Labor voters cross over and vote green.
Si se Puede: Si se Puede was born in the hot fields of California on the back of Cesar Chavez’s inability to integrate his Hispanic Labor movement into the Eastern based establishment of the Labor Party. During these days, Si se Puede was a much more left-wing alternative party to Labor for Hispanics, often winning every FPTP seat in rural California with a large number of voting Hispanics. However, when Chavez began enforcing ideological purity on the UFW in the 80s –the loosely aligned union to Si se Puede, the party decided to distance itself from Chavez. Today, the party is neither truly economically right or left, though its former ties to the labor movement have left a legacy of labor activism. Instead, the party acts as a vehicle for Hispanic rights and migrant concerns, particularly along the border with Mexico.
Left-Reform Party: The official color of the Left-Reform party is not grey but Black, from the original left-Anarchist colors of Black and Red. This is ironic in American politics since the most loyal voters for the Left-Reform Party are rural African Americans. The party is relatively new, but that is because the modern iteration of the Left-Reform Party is a merger of mergers and splinter parties. The original party, if it can be called that, was the Social Progress Party of the 1960s. This merged with the various other African American parties of the time to form the Progress and Reform Party. Faced with declining membership and a failure obtain large numbers of seats in the 80s led to the party rebranding and merging with the failing True Left Party into the Progressive Left Party. In the 90s, the party collected all the various Communist parties abandoned after the fall of the Soviet Union and formed the Left-Reform Party. Today, the Party has two bases of voters – Rural African Americans (and a few urban ones on the second ballot) and far left radicals in the cities and universities. Continuing its tradition, the modern Left-Reform party continues to collect various populist and insurgent Left-wing micro-parties from across the nation, to try to build itself a strong brand loyalty.
Others
People's Party: A purely Mormon party. Following the repressions and crackdowns against the Mormon insurgents in the 1940s, the party was formed to send a message to the government in Washington. Various actions by Washington in the 50s, 60s, and 70s continued the process of ostracizing the Mormon Community through social issues. When the Right Wing government in the 80s failed to turn back the tide on these fronts, the Mormon community gave up on Washington. The community announced their policy of abstention from Washington, until “Washington needs the Mormon community and begs for their assistance in the Darkest Hour.”
The 2016 election was a tale of rejections. The unpopular Austerity Programs of the Federalist and Libertarian government had been in place since the rejection 2012. The government had governed with the confident majority won in response to the Great Collapse, constantly facing the criticism of the Left. In response to the crushing defeat in the 2012 election, the Labor Party selected Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts to be their parliamentary leader. The selection of Kennedy, the youngest Labor leader yet, was a clear aim at trying to bring in younger voters who had left the party for the Libertarians, Greens, and Left-Reform. He also brought with him the Kennedy name, a power tool to win over the backroom Labor leadership.
Disgust with the Federalists was not just limited to the left. 2012 saw the right-wing Citizens Party win their first ever seats in Congress. These seats gave the Citizens Party a platform to preach their criticism of austerity and generally, anything, that came from the government. However, the 2014-15 migrant crisis from Latin America transformed the party. Both Labor and the Federalists refused to crack down on the migrants, and instead were perceived to support open doors. The 2015 selection of Lou Barletta as leader saw the party move towards populism and ownership of the migrant issue. These positions however put the party in a position where neither of the big two was open towards accepting Citizens into their coalition.
The campaign itself was comparatively an uneventful affair. Compared to the 2012 campaign, which saw popular Labor representative Bob Brady expelled from the chamber for previously accepting bribe money, and 2008 which was held in the shadow of the Federalist Foley Scandal, no single ethical issue hung over the campaign. The campaign was also called ‘calm’ by commentators, especially in comparison to the mud-slinging 2012 campaign. The traditional three debates were held – one with every party, one with just the minor parties, and one with the two big parties. Polling after the debates concluded that Kennedy won the first, Si se Puede’s Loretta Sanchez the minor party debate, despite a hard hammering from Barletta. The final debate was inconclusive, with polls suggesting neither Kennedy nor Tiberi had won.
Polling before the election suggested that Federalists would lose control of government. An average of all final polls found that even as the Federalists would win the popular vote (thanks to the divisions in the left vote) Labor would emerge with more Representatives thanks to the FPTP seats and a plurality of the first vote. Less confident were the projections on whether the combined Left or Right would win more second votes and seats. The fact that the Libertarians were on track to be locked out of many leveling groups, and the Citizens Party was going to enter many for the first time, complicated matters.
It was therefore a surprise when exit polls found that the Federalists had maintained their plurality, and the Right was projected to win the second vote. Famously, Labor spokesman California Representative Jerry Brown remarked on CNN that he “would eat his hat if the exit poll is true.” As the first results trickled in, it became increasingly clear though that the Right was having a better night than expected, largely on the back of the Citizens Party. However, as the second votes were counted it became clear that even though the Right had won a majority of the vote, they had come short of a majority of the seats – Citizens and the Libertarians had failed to meet the threshold in too many electoral regions.
The immediate results led to talks between the Federalists, Democrats, and Greens towards forming an initial government. Labor however would refuse to give up the possibility of forming a government, since the Combined left had received a working majority thanks to the abstention of the People’s Party. The Green Party however agreed to enter government alongside Si se Puede, to prevent domination by the right wing parties.
Voter movement studies post-election found the reason why the pre-election polls were off by such a degree. Contrary to the perceived change in the party percentages, a significant number of voters moved between the parties this election. Large numbers of 2012 Federalist/Democrat voters moved to the left because of the Austerity programs. The Libertarian vote share utterly collapsed because of the coalition, with many voters moving back to the Federalists or to the Greens. Some left wing voters moved to the smaller parties out of disgust with Labor. The one place where polls did miss though was Citizens. The polls picked up movement from the Federalists and Labor to Citizens, however not in the numbers actually reflected in the results. This particularly hurt Labor, as the number of voters who moved left because of austerity were nearly canceled out by the number of rural populists who moved to Citizens.
There was an independent elected in a Special Election in Texas, who lost reelection in 2016. This is why there are only 999 seats previously.
Amazing map.
I also like how you redrew the districts.
If people want it I can certainly do the 2012, I have about half the data already. I also wouldn't mind doing a local election in Virginia, I already thought of something fun for there a while ago. However, I only designed this as a one off since it took a lot of time, and I presently have internship applications, classes, and now a data and elections twitter handle to keep on top of.
Dave's Redistricting App allows anyone to do it, just be sure to do it on Firefox, it works the best over IE.
Do you know any alternatives, since it's running using a program that will be defunct in 2 years, and can't be used on Chrome?
- Status