Alternate Electoral Maps III

Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by killertahu22, Jan 28, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    That makes sense. North Arkansas (the Ozarks) is a traditionally Republican region, so it wouldn't surprise me that he would do the best there. And I know that Thurmond was very strong in Black Belt counties throughout the South in 1948, where white voters fiercely opposed civil rights.

    Did you see my question on the other maps thread?
     
  2. prime-minister Commander of High Authoritah

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2015
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Like the Illinois map from yesterday, this is in the same TL as the American Federation from this post.

    upload_2019-8-8_20-37-28.png

    The Republic of Ponca, like several other nations in the western AF, is a rural country with a fairly low population, but differs from those countries in several important aspects. The most notable of these, in political terms, is its de jure nonpartisan legislature; Poncan political parties may endorse candidates for office and consult with Parliamentary Delegates (PDs) if they wish, but state law strictly forbids members of a 'political activist group' from running for office. In practical terms, of course, this often just means PDs formally resign their membership of a party before running for a seat in the House of Delegates.

    The House itself, Ponca's unicameral legislature, consists of 90 seats across 30 constituencies with a population of roughly 60,000 people each, with three members elected by the Jefferson method. (In general, however, news reporting ranks the seats won by one party together, hence the way the results are organized here.) Ponca is notable for being the only unicameral nation in the AF, which gives the House significant power over legislative affairs and has led to a notable accountability system in which the Poncan Chief Executive is elected by a simple majority of PDs; any PD may be nominated once, usually the party leaders, and if 5 different candidates are rejected, another election must be called, which most recently occurred after the March 1989 election.

    Going into 2017, the Agrarian Party, with Ben Sasse as Chief Executive, had been in power since the 2009 election, when the centrist Kerrey government had been brought down by the impact of the Great Recession. However, Sasse was fairly unpopular with Poncan voters; left-wing ones were opposed to his increasing shift towards neoliberal economics while right-wing ones were incensed by his distaste for populism that had been the Agrarians' traditional asset. While a lack of commitment to welfare spending was hardly new for the Agrarians; practically every Agrarian Chief Executive since Edward Zorinsky had been fairly economically conservative; the party had been fairly limited in its adoption of far-right populist rhetoric, and this left things open for parties to the right of Sasse's Agrarians.

    One of the two main parties to benefit, Pete Ricketts' Constitutionalists, had been a regular fixture in the House of Delegates, generally securing a couple of seats in every election since 1985. However, the other party was only founded by 'conservative libertarian' Laura Ebike in 2016, namely the Poncan National Party (PNP), a party which advocated for Ponca to demand a greater share of profit from the Keystone Pipeline in negotiations with Canada and Dakota, for a heavy immigration crackdown (a policy which endeared it to the Constitutionalists) and a new series of tariffs on highly urban (and liberal) countries like Sierra. To make matters worse for the Agrarians, the PNP and Constitutionalists arranged a non-competition pact in which they would not endorse candidates running against each other, but on the condition that they would uniformly vote for Ricketts and Ebike if one of them were nominated for Chief Executive.

    On the other side of the political spectrum, the Social Democratic Party, whose de facto leader had been Patty Pansing Brooks since 2010, had been steadily casting off its 'third way' approach that it had held since Kerrey took over as its most senior figure in 1990, and its 2017 manifesto was its most ambitious in decades, promising an increase in the minimum wage from $10.50 to $14 an hour, the abolition of the death penalty and a 10% increase in the top rate of tax. This led to a surge in support for the Soc Dems, which proved to cause problems for Ernie Chambers' Socialist Party, which had for almost two decades been an effective protest vote against the two biggest parties, but was having its vote squeezed by the left-wing populism of the Soc Dems and their appeal to working-class whites compromised by the appeal to xenophobia from the PNP and Constitutionalists. This was also a problem for the small number of Unaligned politicians, as independents in Poncan politics are traditionally known to differentiate them from the way all PDs are de jure known due to the hypothetically nonpartisan makeup of the chamber.

    On election day, the 12th July, the Soc Dem surge managed to somewhat blunt the appeal of the PNP and Constitutionalists, who won more seats than the Soc Dems combined but fewer votes and came nowhere close to beating them alone. The big losers of the election proved to be the Socialists, whose vote was almost halved due to Soc Dems gaining at their expense; the Unaligned PDs, all but one of whom were unseated; and of course the Agrarians, who despite winning a small majority in 2013 of 48 seats and 47.7% of the vote lost over a quarter of that in 2017. Sasse immediately announced he would not run again as Chief Executive, although pundits noted he looked dismayed at his count in Norfolk, and the fragmented nature of the results made for considerable interest in who would succeed him.

    Pansing Brooks immediately put herself forward to replace Sasse, but when a vote was held, she lost by 53 votes to 37, as only the whole Soc Dem and Socialist caucuses, the Unaligned PD and eight Agrarians supported her. As the de facto leader of the third-largest party, Ebike was the next to run, losing by 65 votes to 25, as all members outside the PNP and Constitutionalists opposed her. Fears began to stoke about the possibility of another election, so when Ricketts stood, many Agrarian PDs chose to support him in the hopes of shifting the blame from their party; he was elected by 49 votes to 41, the first Poncan Chief Executive since Dwight Burney left office in 1961 to be allied with neither the Soc Dems nor the Agrarians.

    As one might expect, there was considerable uproar, especially from left-leaning Poncans, that PDs had elected as Chief Executive a man whose party had taken less than 11% of the vote as Chief Executive, and since he took power Ricketts has faced what some analysts have nicknamed the 'trolling Delegation', as delegates from the left-wing parties routinely vote against him on principle and Agrarians frequently vote against him to humiliate him. This has led to him calling seven votes of confidence, the most of any Chief Executive in history; ironically, the involvement of the Agrarians in trying to humiliate Ricketts has not been well-received by voters either, with a poll from March 2019 finding 55% of Poncans felt that the Agrarians are 'obstructing' Ricketts compared to just 31% who felt they were 'just holding him to account'.

    The main beneficiary of this seems to have been the Soc Dems, who are currently leading the polls for the next election in 2021, but it seems unlikely they will be able to win a majority despite this. It remains to be seen whether their lead will grow in the wake of continuing stagnation with the feud over Ricketts' policy agenda, or if the PNP will begin to benefit more from the Constitutionalists and Agrarians fighting. It is certainly true that Ebike has a higher approval rating than any other major Poncan politician, including Pansing Brooks, and the party has been rising in recent months, but whether this will last is unclear.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  3. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Highlighting the extreme sectionalism of the 1860 election, and highlighting the massive importance of the Electoral College, here's a map of the 1860 election if all of the anti-Lincoln voters-those who voted for Stephen Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell, as well as the few others-had been united behind a single candidate (for's simplicity's sake, let's say Douglas):

    [​IMG]
    Abraham Lincoln (R-IL)/Hannibal Hamlin (R-ME)-169 EV-39.82%
    Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL)/Herschel Vespasian Johnson (D-GA)-134 EV-60.18%
    Despite losing the PV by 20%, because of the extreme Democratic landslides throughout the South (and the closeness of the results in large Northern states such as New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania), Lincoln would have still won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, and hence the election. California and Oregon are the only states that would have flipped to the Democrats, and New Jersey would be the only Northern state (not counting the West) to have given the Democrats a majority. South Carolina did not have PV at that time, but would have cast its votes for the Democratic candidate. The Electoral College, in this instance, truly would have been responsible for Lincoln's election, and hence, for triggering the Civil War.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  4. redjirachi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Wow...people complain about Trump's gap in the popular vote, and complained about Hayes', but this is insane
     
  5. Soup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    Bohemian Flats
    So the New Deal gets a little less challenged in the courts, and a couple lucky (depending on your point of view) heart attacks/strokes means that FDR never goes for court-packing. That plus a lessened double-dip means that the GOP has basically completely imploded across the country by the early 40s, leaving a power vacuum that is slowly being filled with new parties, but mostly just means one-party dominance during the nearly 40-year Sixth Party System.

    FDR's death in 1942 means President Wallace, to the dismay of party bosses. He proves too popular in wartime and being viewed as FDR's heir to be forced out in '44, but it's made clear that he will not run in '48, and the new Senator from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, is to be his VP. Johnson, being a Southerner, moderate on racial views, but a firm supporter of the New Deal is thought to be ideal to keep America's Party intact.

    Of course, LBJ is not enough for the Dixiecrats, and both the beginnings of desegregation in the military and especially picking a labor-friendly Yankee who wrote anti-lynching bills leads to a revolt of the South. And this in turn inspires the regional parties to strike out and try to force concessions from the One Big Tent.

    1948
    sixth party system 1948.png

    Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic Center-TX)/Sen. Robert F. Wagner (Democratic Left-NY) -372

    Sen. Strom Thurmond (Democratic [State's Rights]-SC)/Gov. Fielding Wright (Democratic [State's Rights]-MI)-73
    Sen. Floyd Olson (Farmer-Labor-MN)/Rep. William Lemke (Farmer-Labor-ND)-46
    Gov. Dwight Griswold (Prairie-NE)/Sen. John Gurney (Prairie-SD)-28
    Gov. Charles Dale (Republican-NH)/Rep. Charles Plumley (Republican-VT)-12
     
  6. Caprice Psephologising since 2011

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    How does the Jefferson system work in an officially nonpartisan state?
     
    Adam The Nerd and Omar04 like this.
  7. prime-minister Commander of High Authoritah

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2015
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Basically, instead of having official party groups like most countries with that system, candidates can ally together to be part of a list section. There aren't any parties given on the ballot paper, but the members of each (except the Nonpartisan one) are picked out by parties (although technically all list systems are open-list, generally party members are the ones to vote on it; they can't ban it, but there are security measures and the like). Nonpartisan candidates have fully open list systems, although of course this leads to big disparities between party positions for candidates on the same list.
    It has become a common joke with Poncans that party campaign posters look quite like posters for concerts with the running order of bands and artists, as they tell voters all the candidates who the party has endorsed.
     
    Adam The Nerd and Omar04 like this.
  8. Adam The Nerd A weird nerd

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Damn, Democrats have both of the top two
     
  9. Erinthecute Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2018
    Location:
    Australia
  10. prime-minister Commander of High Authoritah

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2015
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Another thing in the universe of this post. (I need to come up with a name for it at some point, but I'm not sure what.)

    *

    upload_2019-8-10_16-7-6.png

    Texas has had a long and fascinating political history, and the 2018 election seems to have marked a watershed moment in that history. As the third-largest state in the American Federation, with only New England and the Californias being more populous, the ramifications of this across the AF are particularly significant.

    Ever since it was originally admitted to the Federation, Texas has had a significant importance politically. Its close proximity to Mexico, the country from which it seceded, has made it a major centre of political conflict and its more conservative premiers have gone as far as to threaten armed conflict against the so-called 'Old Land'; its support from the rest of the AF was part of why it achieved such large territorial claims to the west of its original borders. What is most relevant to the nation in terms of domestic politics, however, is its racial divide. Much of the south and west of the country is home to a sizeable contingent of Hispanic voters, coloquially known as 'Tejanos', whose presence has been the cause of considerable tension from the white settlers in the east.

    In effect, this racial divide was the cause of Texas's long tradition of single-party rule. Once Texas achieved independence from Mexico in 1845, the previously nonpartisan politicians organized themselves into the Democratic Party of Texas, allied with similar Democratic Parties across the South. Ironically, of course, Texan democracy was strictly restricted to white men, the vast majority of whom supported the Democrats due to their support for slavery and upholding the political status quo. The small number of abolitionist voters, generally concentrated in the southern Hill Country (since most Tejano voters in the south and southwest were banned from voting at this time), instead supported the Whig Party of Texas, which at that time mainly had a policy of abolitionism and a few of its die-hard supporters favoured the gradual expansion of the franchise.

    It was not until the 1870s, when Texas was hit by aggressive tariffs from northern states motivated by opposition to slavery and its economy had begun to deteriorate, that the Democratic Party began to change its political agenda. Seeking to strike a balance between white voters who wanted to preserve white supremacy in Texas and the demands of international trade, the Democratic Party reluctantly abolished slavery in Texas, although to placate angry whites it immediately enacted restrictions on the civil rights of black freedmen (and Tejanos). The party became a sort of big-tent which nevertheless retained a rightward slant, being compared by some political scholars to the Japanese LDP. The Whig Party remained a left-wing challenger of sorts, but even in the wake of catastrophes like the Great Depression, the Democrats stayed in power by simply raising public spending and suggesting the Whigs would cause a race war by allowing Tejanos and other minorities access to voting.

    The Democrats finally began to turn away from unabashed racism in the 1950s and 60s. Under the premiership of Lyndon Johnson from 1950 to 1966, the Cabinet looked into ways to phase out segregation and allow voting rights to all Texans regardless of ethnicity, and with Johnson's forceful commitment to the issue and his huge experience at whipping politicians, it finally managed to force through the Civil Rights and Voting Practices Act in October 1965, forcing all public places to desegregate within a decade and immediately providing voting rights to black and Tejano citizens. This civil rights bill came almost a decade before any other Southern state, but it was met with enormous hostility; in the election the following year, the first held under the new law and also the first not to use the districts drawn for the first Texan House of Commons election in 1846, with the Democrats split between the Johnson faction and a rival faction led by hardline conservative John Tower, and with liberals swinging towards the Whigs and minorities starting to support the new Tejano rights party Raza Unida, the Democrats lost their majority for the first time in Texan history, and Tower took over as PM when he managed to galvanize support from the Johnson faction.

    Ironically, Tower gradually shifted leftwards as his premiership went on, eventually going on to decriminalize abortion and abandoning his intentions to renege on the desegregation element of the CRVP Act, but this ultimately benefited the Democrats by stymieing Raza Unida when it relaunched in association with left-wing white groups and the (fairly weak) Texas labor unions to form the social democratic Labor Party of Texas in 1977, and allowing Tower to win his final four-year term in 1978. Tower's successors remained moderate to liberal until, in 1993, the conservative wing of the Democrats made a significant comeback as Ann Richards, the first female Prime Minister of Texas, lost a leadership challenge to Tom DeLay, and both his successors, Rick Perry and John Cornyn, were very much from the right of the party.

    This context is part of why some analysts had been suggesting Texas might be transitioning from a one-party democracy to a two-party democracy, as the opposing parties have gradually grown in strength since the 1994 election. In addition to Labor and the Whigs (who remain a minor centrist party with tribal support from whites in the Hill Country), the Democrats have also recently begun to bleed support to the Libertarian Party, a small socially liberal and economically neoliberal party which tends to underperform in Texan elections, and this has been made a more serious problem thanks to the emergence of white nationalist rhetoric from Democrats.

    This last point was also a huge boon to Labor in the run-up to the 2018 election. Labor's new leader Beto O'Rourke managed to become the first leader of the party in history to overtake the Democratic leader they opposed, and by July Labor was within one point of the Democrats in the polls as well. While the polls fluctuated significantly as to how close to winning O'Rourke's party was, he managed to drum up large amounts of positive publicity and attention both within Texas and internationally. While the result took a large amount of time to finalize, four days after the polls closed on the 6th November, Labor had won power for the first time ever with a majority of 16, making O'Rourke both the first Tejano Prime Minister of Texas and the first Texan premier since independence not to be a Democrat.

    It remains to be seen whether the end of 173 years of Democratic power in Texas will indeed mark a new era of multi-party competition in Texan politics, or whether Labor will go the way of the Japanese DPJ due to its inexperience with political power. Either way, the 2018 result is certainly one for the history books.
     
    Deblano, Ameck16, aaa and 13 others like this.
  11. Sailor Haumea Liberal Hawk

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2018
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Map of the results of the 2016 presidential election. Red indicates states won by the Democratic nominee, former First Lady and Arkansas Senator Hillary Clinton, blue indicates states won by the Republican nominee, incumbent President and former Governor of Texas Jeb Bush, and green indicates states won by the Labor nominee, Ohio Senator Tim Ryan. Since the electoral college had been abolished during the Reagan administration (specifically in 1979), who won which state really didn't have an impact on the election, but people still keep track of it for posterity.

    Screenshot_2019-08-11-16-04-01.png
    Screenshot_2019-08-11-16-04-01(2).png
     
  12. GermanDjinn Apprentice of the Dark Lord Hickenlooper Kicked

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Location:
    PA
    So is O'Rourke ITTL Tejano? It's a very good map and the write-up is even better it's just that caught me off guard towards the end.
     
    Adam The Nerd likes this.
  13. Sailor Haumea Liberal Hawk

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2018
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Map of the results of the 1980 presidential election. Red indicates states won by the Democratic nominee, incumbent President and former Governor of California Ronald Reagan. He utterly trounced the opposition candidates in the first election since the abolition of Electoral College, beating the Republican nominee, Kansas Senator Bob Dole, and the Labor nominee, Indiana Senator Birch Bayh, winning an absolute majority of the popular vote and every state, plus the District of Columbia.

    Screenshot_2019-08-11-19-41-26.png
    Screenshot_2019-08-11-19-41-26(2).png
     
  14. PierceJJones Julian Castro revolutionary

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2019
    Location:
    Maryland
    I really want to see a party system write up on this map. This looks like on of most intresting ones out here. Mostly for why New England is solidly Republican.
     
    gap80 and Adam The Nerd like this.
  15. Titanicus Very Well-Hated Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    How? What the hell happened?
     
    Ohheckitsian likes this.
  16. Adam The Nerd A weird nerd

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    1932 Election if the Business Plot was real and used the same strategy the nazis did

    [​IMG]

    Gov. Franklin Roosevelt (Democratic-NY)/Speaker John Nance Garner (Democratic-TX): 16,291,813 votes (41.01%) and 370 Electoral Votes

    Gen. Smedley Butler (Independent-PA)/Gen. Douglas MacArthur (Independent-AR): 10,633,736 votes (26.77%) and 156 Electoral Votes
    President Herbert Hoover (Republican-CA)/Vice President Charles Curtis (Republican-KS): 7,483,653 votes (18.84%) and 5 Electoral Votes
    Norman Thomas (Socialist-NY)/James H. Maurer (Socialist-PA): 5,315,697 votes (13.38%)

    I wasn't going to post this, but since I spent a third of my day making it, you should waste time looking at it.
     
  17. prime-minister Commander of High Authoritah

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2015
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Yeah, he is ITTL. Sorry if that was confusing, but I'm glad you enjoyed the write-up and the map!
     
  18. Tex Arkana Goodbye Sadness

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Location:
    Hell
    I'm about to start working on a composite GOP landslide map which incorporates the best Republican performance in each county in each election from 1920-1928, and I have a question. if you were to guess, what would the state map be, and how about the PV?
     
    Prussian1871 and wolfhound817 like this.
  19. Calthrina950 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Every state outside of the Deep South would definitely vote Republican, and Alabama may as well. Georgia, I imagine, would possibly be within single digits. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina would still vote Democratic.
     
    Tex Arkana likes this.
  20. MorganKingsley Kicked

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2018
    • Kick
    In this timeline people don't get to bitch about trump losing by 2.1 since when compared to this, 2.1 is basically a tie. I've brought this up to people often the last two years, and every time I do, it instantly shuts them up
     
Loading...