Alternate Electoral Maps III

1992 is Perot got an extra ten percent, 6 from Bush and 4 from Clinton



406 Cinton, 105 Bush, 27 Perot

1992 if Perot got an extra ten percent, 4 from Bush and 6 from Clinton



321 Clinton, 197 Bush, 20 Perot
 
I made a map based off a hypothetical Perot victory in 1992.

upload_2019-6-3_20-59-59.png


First I took the polling results from the 1992 section of these polls and divided them by the actual election results of each candidates popular vote. Then I multiplied each candidates individual total in each state to the result of the division of the Gallup poll.
 
44-51 1936.png

If the results of the 1936 election more accurately reflected the average polling numbers:
Franklin Roosevelt (D): 406 EVs, 51% PV
Alf Landon (R): 125 EVs, 44% PV
 
Fun map, plus a good counterpoint to the “Carter was always doomed!” argument.
Thank you, a successful Operation Eagle Claw, friendlier media, and no John Anderson probably would have given Carter a (small) victory.

Now, the Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush 2000 election: A different kind of crises

upload_2019-6-9_21-34-25.png


I calculated it by dividing the 2000 population of a state by the 1996 population of a state, then multiplied it by the amount of vote Bill Clinton got. Then I divided the 2000 election turnout by the 1996 election turnout, then multiplied that by the amount of votes Bill Clinton on top of the previous multiplication. No adjustment was made to George W. Bush's votes.

I could improve it by doing state by state turnout, but national turnout is enough for now. Also, Bill Clinton probably does better than this because Ross Perot depresses Bill's raw vote total in 1996.

The 2000 election is cursed in any timeline.
 
1976 Presidential Election

George McGovern/Ted Kennedy [D] EC: 305
Gerald Ford/Bob Dole [R] EC: 233



"Holy shit. We lost the whole of the South."
George McGovern to Ted Kennedy following the election


Not sure how this is likely, but I just wanted to post an interesting take on "what if". The idea is that Humphrey takes the 1972 nomination and loses, but McGovern enters the race once again in 1976 and this time he wins because he isn't fighting with all of the problems that he had in OTL 1972, plus the Republican Party is weakened after Watergate. I didn't calculate the PV, sorry, but as you can see, McGovern barely won - with very tight margins in the states he did - you can imagine that he encountered some problems. Perhaps Southern Democrats (see: Jimmy Carter) decided to oppose him at any point. It's probably why the whole south is Republican.
 


Calvin Coolidge - 334 electoral votes (57.8 percent) / 44.04 percent popular vote
John Davis - 205 electoral votes (35.5 percent) / 33.82 percent popular vote
Rob LaFollette - 39 electoral votes (6.7 percent) / 21.61 percent popular vote

*South Carolina unanimously votes for John Davis in this situation

** California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, and Iowa should all be one shade lower

*** If people wanted to do a county map for this, that would be awesome. Or I can if people really wanted me to I guess. The gist is Coolidge does 10 percent worse everywhere, LaFollete does five percent better everywhere, and Davis does five percent better as well everywhere, barring South Carolina, where he would go beyond 100 percent, so I just cap it at 100

**** If people wanted me or for themselves to do a district map, that would also be pretty cool. The idea is 1924 to present and beyond with no 435 rule, and states only losing electoral votes on the event they lose population

***** Last one, I promise... If people wanted a context sheet to this election, I will give it. I plan to make this a real timeline. I tried this like 9-10 times, but this time I want to be serious about it. If I do it. Covering every election from 1840 to 2020.
 
Last edited:


Calvin Coolidge - 334 electoral votes (57.8 percent) / 44.04 percent popular vote
John Davis - 205 electoral votes (35.5 percent) / 33.82 percent popular vote
Rob LaFollette - 39 electoral votes (6.7 percent) / 21.61 percent popular vote

*South Carolina unanimously votes for John Davis in this situation

** California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, and Iowa should all be one shade lower

*** If people wanted to do a county map for this, that would be awesome. Or I can if people really wanted me to I guess. The gist is Coolidge does 10 percent worse everywhere, LaFollete does five percent better everywhere, and Davis does five percent better as well everywhere, barring South Carolina, where he would go beyond 100 percent, so I just cap it at 100

**** If people wanted me or for themselves to do a district map, that would also be pretty cool. The idea is 1924 to present and beyond with no 435 rule, and states only losing electoral votes on the event they lose population

***** Last one, I promise... If people wanted a context sheet to this election, I will give it. I plan to make this a real timeline. I tried this like 9-10 times, but this time I want to be serious about it. If I do it. Covering every election from 1840 to 2020.
I could attempt to do a county map for this, if I can find data for all counties
 
I could attempt to do a county map for this, if I can find data for all counties

You should be able to use Wikipedia, if nothing else.

They have Presidential results for almost every county in the US, although this would be more complicated given there were a lot of different county boundaries in 1924, and so on.
 
In this situation, since he would win every county he lost by less than 15 percent, LaFollete might win every single county in Wisconsin. He almost certainly would win all 12 districts
 
You should be able to use Wikipedia, if nothing else.

They have Presidential results for almost every county in the US, although this would be more complicated given there were a lot of different county boundaries in 1924, and so on.
Wikipedia doesn't always have all of them, so I'll probably to head over to the election atlas a little bit

Wikipedia does have county maps, though, so I can edit one of those
 
Ok, I am willing to make a deal: If I can get a person who is willing to volunteer making county / district maps for these elections, I will make this into a real timeline. I will credit you on every map, and I will even credit as a co author as a result. I will probably just start with 1924, since 1924 is the first election to really use the gimmick of non static electoral college, therefore just even that alone already changes the course of history with a wider house of representatives, so more politicians in the pot, and what not. So in this, I will just say pre 1924 is the same as OTL, unless stated otherwise eventually.

I will also have to change it to where LaFollette wins Idaho and South Dakota, since the Coolidge ten worse and Davis and LaFollette five better each would mean they would win every state lost by less than 15, which would include Idaho and South Dakota. Everything else can stay
 
I made a map of Kentucky with 23 districts because why not. Whether they're congressional or state legislative is up to your imagination. I did not think it out other than 23 equal districts. I actually started it a while back because I was bored. Around an hour ago, I thought "Why not finish what I started?" and completed it. Not the most productive use of an hour, but still, enjoy!

 
Ok, I am willing to make a deal: If I can get a person who is willing to volunteer making county / district maps for these elections, I will make this into a real timeline. I will credit you on every map, and I will even credit as a co author as a result. I will probably just start with 1924, since 1924 is the first election to really use the gimmick of non static electoral college, therefore just even that alone already changes the course of history with a wider house of representatives, so more politicians in the pot, and what not. So in this, I will just say pre 1924 is the same as OTL, unless stated otherwise eventually.

I will also have to change it to where LaFollette wins Idaho and South Dakota, since the Coolidge ten worse and Davis and LaFollette five better each would mean they would win every state lost by less than 15, which would include Idaho and South Dakota. Everything else can stay
I'll volunteer
 
I'll volunteer

If you want to, and mean it, that would be great, and I can start up the writing of this stuff. I will just start piecing this together, and when I get the first set of images, I will post the story and images as the first update. I will have to write a resolution to the 1920 census pretty effectively which would be the hardest part. While I feel like on the spot things will be pretty similar to OTL on the national level at least for the first few elections, it is really mid terms and later elections that will be really interesting to work out, and I feel like with expanded representatives, this might be sort of taking a new turn around the 40's or 50's
 

Bomster

Gone Fishin'
Fortune favors the bold.

The Senator had a decision to make, a decision that could shape the entire election. John Kerry needed to choose a running mate to present to the American people, and he needed to choose wisely. His opponent, President George W. Bush, despite presiding over one of the most tragic events in American history, had divided America with his conduct of the War on Terror and the dubiously-legal Iraq War. With a nation reeling from tragedy and discord, Kerry understood that in order to win the election he had to show that he was not a man of his party but a man of his country, he needed to reflect a sense unity in the face of Bush’s divisiveness. In order to do this, Kerry had to choose a running mate who would represent this. However, he came to realize that they couldn’t come from the same party. He would have to do something unheard of in modern politics, something that had not been done since the election of 1864 in the wake of the divineness of the Civil War. And there was only one man he had in mind, his good friend and fellow veteran-turned-Senator John McCain.

As one John pitched the idea to the other, McCain felt hesitant. To bolt from his party and join the opposing ticket would be paramount to treason, and would surely be political suicide. Indeed Kerry felt hesitation as well, as he wasn’t sure the Republican McCain would be accepted by the Democrats. However, he swept his fears aside and urged McCain to do the same, arguing that the fate of America held far more importance than their own political careers. Finally finding solace in the proposal, the Maverick agreed to join Kerry’s ticket and oust Bush from the Oval Office.

When the announcement was made there was much rancor from both sides, with Republicans calling McCain a traitor and Democrats saying he was too conservative to represent their agenda, but despite their anger Kerry and McCain held firm in their decision. And it payed off. Shortly after the announcement the Kerry/McCain ticket surged in the polls, stabilizing at a 14 point lead over Bush/Cheney. The American people, desiring unity in these uncertain times, were thrilled by the themes of unity espoused by the Kerry/McCain campaign. The Bush campaign went into a panic, resorting to a calling John McCain an revenge-minded opportunist and calling John Kerry a radical left-winger who would neuter America’s military and enable jihadist terrorists. While this sabre-rattling did excite the most devout of Bush/Cheney supporters, in the end it only strengthened the Kerry campaign’s rhetoric about the President bring a radical and unfit to continue serving. As election night neared, it was clear who was winning and who was losing, however all that was certain was that the result would change America forever...


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - 385 EV, 55.26% PV
Pres. George W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice Pres. Dick Cheney (R-WY) - 153 EV, 43.73% PV

“Tonight in America, we no longer accept the divisions of the past-we stand united!”
-John Kerry and John McCain to supporters after being declared the winners
 
Last edited:
Top