Alternate Electoral Maps III

@Osk What are the ideologies of each of those parties?

They're actually coalitions of varying parties due to the more decentralized nature of the country.

The LAP is a big tent coalition that is largely focused on moderate issues, maintaining the current status quo when it comes to confederal versus realm power, and generally support business interests. They are by far the dominant force at the Confederal level. The CAL is a union of generally left-of-center politicians and minority groups who believe in a stronger hand by the confederal government in ensuring the rights of minorities and the poor are protected at the realm level. The UWF is a coalition of labor groups that started as an alliance between farmers and laborers, and which is typically left-wing on economic issues, socially conservative, supportive of unions and populist. The CCR is the alliance for those that believe in a weaker confederal government, stronger realm powers to do as they please, and are typically conservative, though this isn't a rule as their main concern is reducing confederal authority and increasing realm authority. They are realmist, which is this world's word for being nationalist about their respective realms. So imagine Texans who want an independent Texas, but like, across multiple states. The SPF is what you'd think, the more far left group - they generally support radical economic policies and radical reform of the government; this includes the dissolution of "executives-for-life" and the monarchy. Their detractors claim that the SPF is funded by the Union of Almajlis Socialist Republics. Lastly, the PRCM is a semi-single issue party who's goal is the advancement of the confederal government and centralization of Union affairs away from the hands of individual realms; aside from this they're typically in line with the LAP.

There are other minor parties that don't necessarily join the broader coalitions, though none won seats in the Midatlantic nor are rather noteworthy. The Democratic Party may be the most notable of these minor confederal level parties - they are a single issue party that runs entirely on abolishing the monarchy, the executives for life and the nobility, similar to the SPF, but do not adhere to left wing politics past that singular issue.
An alternate 1860 election map. A wikibox and writeup for it is here.

Basically, Virginia abolishes slavery in 1832 (there was an OTL debate in the state to do it at that time, it failed but here it passes). Maryland and Delaware quickly follow. The rest of the south still hardens in support of slavery. The Whigs are able to be more successful in the 1830s and 1850s (maybe aided by Harrison not immediately dying), and increasingly shift towards anti-slavery positions (aided in that shift by more of the country being Free states, and also aided by association due to increased ability for the Whigs to do actually get in the position to do things at the Federal level)

By 1860, the Northern Whigs had more or less become the Radical Republicans of OTL, and nominated a John C. Fremont/Charles Sumner ticket. The Southern Whigs (supporting a very gradual emancipation policy and opposing the land reform and civil rights proposals of the Northerners) break away, and unite with the remnants of the Know-Nothings to form the American Union Party, running a ticket of William Alexander Graham/Sam Houston. The Northern and Southern Democrats still split as per OTL, but Douglas chooses a Northerner (Horatio Seymour) as his running mate, and Breckinridge chooses fire-eater William Lowndes Yancey as his running mate

Fremont and the Northern Whigs more or less take the position of the GOP OTL here, but win a larger victory, due to a general public more supportive of abolition despite Southern opposition, more states being Free States, and public support for Whig economic policy

Here's a 50 state Democratic landslide I made, using the 1996 results as a starting point. what I did was I swung the individual state results so that Clinton gets the same margins that LBJ got throughout most of the country while getting the margins Jimmy Carter got in the Deep South, with the exceptions of Arizona, Louisiana, and Florida where Clinton did better than both LBJ and Carter, so I left them unchanged from the actual 1996 results. Clinton wins 2,504 counties to Dole's 638, with Clinton winning every county in 10 states (Hawaii, Alaska, Minnesota, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut).

Behold, another American Federation TL map.


The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, one of the original thirteen commonwealths of the Federation, has had a colorful political history and presently has one of the oddest party systems in the Federation. Since the emergence of the labor movement in the early 20th century, three parties have held government in Pennsylvania; the Democratic Party, which is generally conservative on social issues and moderate on economic ones; the Labor Party, which is left-leaning economically and centrist on social issues; and the Whig Party, the most liberal of the three on social policy but more economically liberal than its opponents. Unlike most Western countries, however, these three parties have not only all held government at numerous times, but frequently form grand coalitions with each other due to the difficult arithmetic of forming a Pennsylvanian government.

The mixed-PR system of the Pennsylvania House of Delegates (the upper house, although unlike most countries, the two houses of Pennsylvania's legislature have fairly similar levels of power) sees the proportionally elected seats divided into two types. The first kind are the regional seats, elected by each of Pennsylvania's eight regions and two metropolises (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with one seat assigned per 100,000 residents a region has; these 131 seats are elected by the Jefferson method in each region. The second is the national constituency, similar to those of Israel and the Netherlands, where a further 131 seats are elected via 'pure' PR, so if a party gets, say, 10% of the vote, this would give them 13 national seats. All of these seats are elected by a party list system.

Since 2010, when Whig Chancellor Arlen Specter was voted out of power, the Democrats had controlled the House of Delegates, with the right-wing Rick Santorum serving as Chancellor in minority government with the support of the more socially conservative Labor and Whig delegates. However, after eight years in power Santorum's unpopularity with left-leaning Pennsylvanians was finally catching up with him, and the Whig leader in the HoD Tom Wolf and new Labor leader Conor Lamb agreed they would cooperate on rolling back the intense cuts which Santorum's administration had instigated and push for gay marriage and anti-LGBTQ discrimination laws to be passed in Pennsylvania, something agreed with Labor Prime Minister Bob Casey Jr. (who has proven significantly more liberal than his father on social issues).

While Santorum tried to use this to his advantage by painting the other parties as 'degenerates', he only succeeded in reinforcing his negative image with most Pennsylvanians. Before long, the Democrats were trailing both the Whigs and Labor in polls for the upper house election, and while they did not come third by a huge margin in the eventual election, the 28.1% of the national vote and 25.9% of the regional vote was a far cry from the 37.8% and 34.1% they had achieved four years prior. For the first time since the end of Hugh Scott's Whig-Labor coalition in 1978, the Democrats would not be in government in either chamber in Pennsylvania.

Something else worth noting is the generally strong performance of third parties in the upper house of Pennsylvania. Like most states, it has a Green Party that does well in urban areas on an ecological platform, and which benefited from rising concerns about the impact of climate change in the 2018 elections, but the two more unusual parties to generally do well are the Black Panther Party, a far-left group that advocates for black nationalism and secures a sizeable amount of support from the 12% of Pennsylvanians who are black, and the Amisch Party, a group which predominantly advocates for political rights for Pennsylvania's Amish population, but has gradually begun to speak for broader rural interests as well, forming a sort of rival to the Democrats (although they have been known to cooperate on numerous issues).
Last edited:
And the finale of the "Ultimate America" presidential elections. Thank you for your generous support and i might do a "Annual speculation map" of swing & safe states for each party and on to the show.

Ulimate Election 2016.png

2016: The populist wave
Conservative: Chairman Donald Trump (NY)/Representative Geert Wilders (NL): 46.1% Popular Vote
Liberal Democrat: Fmr Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (NY)/Governor Matteo Renzi (IT): 40% Popular vote
Labor: Senator Bernie Sanders (VT)/Governor Andrés Manuel López Obrador (MX): 13.9% Popular vote

Ulimate Election 2020.png

2020: The triumph of liberalism
Liberal Democrat: Fmr Governor Tony Blair (EG)/Senator Kamala Harris (CA): 49.2% Popular vote
Conservative: President Donald Trump (NY)/Vice President Geert Wilders (NL): 42.1% Popular vote
Labor: Senator Jeremy Corbyn (EG)/Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI): 8.7% Popular vote
Last edited:
2019 Arkansas House of Delegates Special Elections

On November 1, 2019, the second round of four special House of Delegates elections were held in Arkansas. In June of 2019, the Dixie Supreme Court struck down the 4 districts because of discrimination against francophones in Southeast Arkansas. The Court order the AR state legislature to redraw the four districts and to hold special elections for the districts as soon as possible. The new map of the districts included a francophone majority district and one now much more National Party friendly district (all 4 previously had Unionist incumbents). The first round of the special elections was held in October and had all four Unionist incumbents proceeding with 3 National challengers and one PLL challenger in the now francophone majority district.

6th District
In the 6th district, Unionist incumbent Mike Ross of Nevada County defeated AR State Delegate Sonia Barker of King County. The 6th is the most Unionist of the 4 districts and the one that Mitch Landrieu won by the largest margin in 2018. Ross who serves as a member of House leadership as Chair of the Unionist Policy Committee comfortably defeated Barker carrying 9/10 counties in the district, however his 9 point win over Barker is his closest election since he was first elected to the House in 2000. Ross also carried the 6th by a smaller margin than Landrieu 1 year earlier. This is largely attributed to the low turnout in the special elections. Barker only carried one county in the election which includes her district in the AR House.


7th District

In the 7th district, Parti La Louisiane member Jean Bergeron of Lincoln County (who started the suit that led to the Supreme Court case in the first place), defeated incumbent Eddie Cheatham of Ashley County. Bergeron ran in the old 7th district in both 2015 and 2018 as the PLL nominee but failed to make the 2nd round in both cases. Bergeron performed best unsurprisingly in the higher French-speaking areas in the center of the district. Cheatham did the best with the higher Anglo areas in the South and Northeast of the district. Bergeron's win was mostly attributed to his surprising strength in Alcorn County, the largest in the district by population and includes most of the city of Bonneville. With his win, Bergeron became the first PLL member to hold federal office in Arkansas.


8th District
In the 8th district, Unionist incumbent Phil Reynolds of Woodruff County was defeated by AR State Delegate Johnathon Dismang of White County. This district was changed by the National controlled AR State Legislature to be much more National than its predecessor. Some of the more heavily Unionist parts of this district were moved to the 7th while the very National Lonoke County was moved into the 8th. Even though Reynolds would win the non-Lonoke parts of the district by 21 votes, the inclusion of Lonoke would be enough to swing the election toward Dismang.


14th District

In the 14th district, Unionist incumbent Reginald Murdock of St. Francis County defeated Cross County Commissioner Ronald Caldwell. The 14th is the district that changed the least in its redrawing and the Unionist-favored district only moved slightly to the right with the redraw. Murdock would perform best in the more heavily black areas of the district. Caldwell would carry is home county of Cross and would do well in the newly added Independence and Jackson Counties, handily winning the former and only narrowly loosing the latter.


With the loss of two districts in the special elections, the Unionists go from 192 seats in the House to 190 shrinking their 4-seat majority to only 2. The Nationals gain from 143 seats to 144 and the PLL from 16 seats to 17.
Here's a 50-state Republican landslide, based on the 1984 Presidential results. here, I changed Reagan's margins in each state + DC to match the highest margin that Eisenhower got in '52 or '56 as well as the margins that Nixon got in '72, with the exception of a handful of states where Reagan did better than Nixon or Eisenhower, which are unchanged from the actual 1984 results here. not a single state is decided by single digits and the closest is Minnesota which is still R+11. Reagan wins 3,017 counties to Mondale's 125, slightly beating the number of counties Nixon won in his 1972 landslide. Reagan wins every county in 18 states and only loses a single county in a further 6 states. I'd appreciate it if anybody could calculate what the PV would be here, as well as what the vote by demographic (using 1984 demographics) would be.

1964 John F Kennedy vs Barry Goldwater.png

John F. Kennedy/Terry Sanford (Democratic) 393 Electoral Votes; 37,551,661 votes (53.16%)
Barry M. Goldwater/Bourke Hickenlooper (Republican) 145 electoral votes; 32,789,334 votes (46.42%)
Other: 0 electoral votes; 298,239 votes (0.42%)

The bullet that killed JFK in OTL hits LBJ instead. LBJ dies in Dallas on November 22, 1963 at the age of 55. As a result, the 1964 election is a lot closer than in OTL. Kennedy is not a martyr to be used in the campaign, while Johnson is martyred to an extent. Without the death of his good friend in JFK, Goldwater does not get the depression that derailed his campaign so badly. Speaking of the Goldwater-JFK friendship, the 1964 election is much more civil than in OTL, and more Republicans wise up to supporting Goldwater. Even this, however, does not prevent a 2nd term for JFK, who was too popular to be beat. However, with Goldwater being a more accepted candidate this go around, The conservative base that ran him in 64 may run him again in 68. Richard Nixon has also stated he may run in 68 too, so a heated battle between Nixon and Goldwater might take place in the Convention. The Democrats may have a contentious Convention battle too. President Kennedy has still not yet made his decision as to who his successor should be, so its really up in the air at this point. Vice-President Sanford would be an obvious choice, but Kennedy has questioned him on his commitment to civil rights. Kennedy is not alone on this though, as another potential contender, Hubert Humphrey, Senator from Minnesota, has questioned him too. Others look to JFK's brother, Freshman New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Other potential names include Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ralph Yarborough, etc. The election of 1968 looks to be a close one no matter which way you spin it. We will just have to see how it plays out.

(Part 2 coming as soon as I have time)
John F. Kennedy/Terry Sanford (Democratic) 393 Electoral Votes; 37,551,661 votes (53.16%)
Barry M. Goldwater/Bourke Hickenlooper (Republican) 145 electoral votes; 32,789,334 votes (46.42%)
Other: 0 electoral votes; 298,239 votes (0.42%)

Cool map/scenario, but in reality Goldwater wouldn't have run at all in 1964 if JFK hadn't been assassinated. I think it would have been JFK vs. Nelson Rockefeller, or possibly even a rematch of 1960 with Kennedy vs. Nixon again.
Cool map/scenario, but in reality Goldwater wouldn't have run at all in 1964 if JFK hadn't been assassinated. I think it would have been JFK vs. Nelson Rockefeller, or possibly even a rematch of 1960 with Kennedy vs. Nixon again.
Goldwater had been anticipating a run against Kennedy as early as 1962, and had spent almost all of 1963 campaigning beforehand, even holding a rally in July, where 8,000 people attended. Rockefeller knew this and criticized Goldwater as early as May 1963 for galvanizing support from Western and Southern states.

The Republic of Sequoyah, created simultaneously with the Republic of Oklahoma to its west from what was previously known as the Indian Reserve, was one of the last countries to become a full member of the Federation, joining it in 1902, twenty-two years after its 'occupied' neighbor to the west, Oklahoma. Unlike its neighbor, Sequoyah was not subject to rural land runs, either upon statehood or afterwards, due to the nature of the so-called '5 civilized tribes' whose nations constituted most of its population and area- the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek/Muskogee, and Seminole. Since they practiced many of the same behaviors as white settlers, like market participation, centralized government, Christianity and slavery, the Federation did not encourage settlement on their land through land runs, although the threat of opening the Reserve to land runs while what became Oklahoma was still part of it was used several times, most notably to force emancipation of the region's slaves.

When the Sequoyahn House of Councillors was founded and democratic elections established across the whole Republic as part of the post-emancipation reforms in 1867, initially competition between parties representing each tribe for their interests in the Homma Chuka (literally 'people's building'*, effectively meant to mean 'people's assembly'), but this would change dramatically when oil was discovered in the city of Tulsa in 1901. The oil boom led to mass migration to the city, and it would become not only the biggest city in Sequoyah (far bigger than its capital, Creek), but the centre of an urban area populated by over 643,000 people as of 2019, nearly a third of the republic's population.

This oil boom and population boom in Tulsa led to the foundation of the Democratic Party, which was named for similar parties across the South and originally intended to champion, in the words of its founder and first leader Charles Haskell, 'an entrepreneurial spirit for future industries in this country', although many of its members were not only white but also advocates of white supremacy at that time. When the first election it participated in in 1904 saw it become one of the strongest parties in the House of Councillors, the tribal parties decided to ally against it to preserve native interests. The so-called Party of the 5 Civilized Tribes (P5CT) has generally championed the rights of the native American population of Sequoyah ever since, while the Democrats generally receive heavy support from white Sequoyahns and the third party, the Socialists, are more defined by a commitment to workers' rights, and generally do well in the southeastern coal country of 'Little Dixie' and inner city Tulsa.

Until the watershed 1930 election, the first after the onset of the Great Depression, the P5CT held onto power consistently, but the impact of the economic decline on the rural areas of the country as Tusla's oil industry continued to allow it to boom led to the Democrats effectively reaching out to younger Sequoyahns, many of whom had never voted for them before; after being elected, they changed the number of members of the House of Councillors from 128 to just thirty and cut the salaries of politicians, as well as focusing on bringing the boom of the city to the countryside through agricultural grants (though it was mostly whites who took these up). They would not lose power again until 1946, when the economy started declining even in Tulsa; after this, the P5CT managed to stay in power partly by efficient budgeting and partly because of their acquiescence to programs supported by the Socialists such as universal health insurance and the formation of unions for workers in the coal and oil industry, something the Democrats have adamantly opposed since their formation.

When the Democrats finally regained power again in 1978, as recession began to hit Sequoyah again, they had shifted considerably to the right, capitalizing not only on the upswing in support for free-market neoliberal economics but also incorporating a large dose of social conservatism on practically every issue except native American rights, which Sequoyah's largely native and mixed-race population has unsurprisingly been more liberal on than most countries in the Federation. It would not be until 1994 that the P5CT won back power, and they would go on to lose it again in 2010 in the wake of the Great Recession.

This context highlights just how unusual the 2018 general election was. The P5CT's new leader, Kendra Horn, was a moderate focused on delivering healthcare reform in the wake of the opioid crisis that had hit the state under Democratic Prime Minister James Lankford, while the Socialists took a more radical platform under their leader Connie Johnson, criticizing the Democrats for passing a transphobic 'bathroom bill' restricting the rights of transgender individuals in Sequoyah and for their strident budget cuts. Very few people expected a breakthrough for the two parties, especially given the Democrats had won re-election handily in 2014.

In actuality, however, the result was the first hung Parliament in Sequoyah since 1974. The P5CT were one seat behind the Democrats, and Johnson announced two days after the election that she would be willing to cooperate with Horn, but not Lankford, saying, 'The result between the two major parties was so narrow and the divide in their willingness to compromise with others is so great that I see no alternative but supporting the P5CT.' While the Democrats' supporters were predictably outraged, outside the state Horn's government has been looked upon rather positively, to the point that journalists have speculated Sequoyah might finally be about to shake its old reputation of being 'the land of oil, Hanson and basically nothing else'.

*Apologies that this is probably awful word choice, but my comprehension of Choctaw is practically nonexistent. If anyone has a suggestion for a better word choice, feel free to suggest it.
Goldwater had been anticipating a run against Kennedy as early as 1962, and had spent almost all of 1963 campaigning beforehand, even holding a rally in July, where 8,000 people attended. Rockefeller knew this and criticized Goldwater as early as May 1963 for galvanizing support from Western and Southern states.
My bad, I recalled reading somewhere that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Kennedy and Goldwater, where Goldwater wouldn't run if Kennedy ran for reelection, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
I had a bit of an out-there idea: even though Oklahoma is a red state through and through these days, it has a sizeable amount of registered Democrats who voted in its primary, so I decided to dig out the 2018 primary results and put votes for the runners up of the two parties' primaries (Connie Johnson for the Dems, Mick Cornett for the GOP) against each other, mostly because it amused me that despite how left-wing she is for Oklahoma, Johnson would win that race with 53.47% of the vote to 46.53% for Cornett. Admittedly the primary turnout is obviously a lot lower, but it's interesting to see that under these circumstances the results resemble a traditional close election in Oklahoma much more, with the Democrats strong in the rural southern parts and relatively weak in the urban areas.