Alternate Electoral Maps III


random independent california

Conservative- center right to center party
Liberal- center left to center party
Progressive- left party
Agraria- farmers issues, popular in central valley
Northern Bloc- NorCal nationalism

Government is a coalition of Liberals+Progressives
I'm going to do something a bit different, this will basically be an alternative timeline, but not a fully fleshed out one. to sum up, the 1992 Presidential election is between David Duke - who barely won the Republican primary after initially finishing in third behind Patrick Buchanan and incumbent President George H.W Bush, who were nearly deadlocked after it was revealed that H.W had some involvement in Iran Contra - however at the convention Duke made a deal with Buchanan whereby if he agreed to name Buchanan as his running mate, Buchanan would get his delegates to vote for Duke and allow him to win the nomination. meanwhile on the Democratic side, popular Kentucky Senator Wendell Ford narrowly defeated Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and several other more minor candidates to clinch the Democratic nomination. Ford, sensing a possible weakness in the deep South due to Duke's open racism, decided to pick Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a very centrist Southern Democrat, to help keep the Deep South in Democratic hands. Independent candidate Ross Perot was initially running and sometimes pulling as much as 25-30% in national polls, but when David Duke clinched the Republican nomination, Perot dropped out and endorsed Wendell Ford - believing that defeating the radical white supremacist Duke was far more important than running a third party bid which he knew was quite unlikely to succed in the end. after the party nominations were settled, Ford consistently led Duke in the polls by gargantuan margins, never once falling below the 60% mark in any credible poll and far exceeding that in many others. the day before Election Day, this was the polling map:


Dark Red states are considered safely in Ford's corner, medium red States appear very likely to vote for Ford but may be somewhat competitive, and pink states appear to be in play for Duke, although with Ford still having the edge. As election day approaches, the only question on anyone's mind is whether Duke will even manage to win a single state or crack 35% of the popular vote. barring an unprecedented, massive polling error, Duke is likely going to lose in the largest landslide since the modern two party system began.

To Be Continued...
I will be showing county results for all 50 states, individually, in alphabetical order. we start off with Alabama, a state where Ford consistently maintained a large lead in the polls due to having popular Alabama Senator Richard Shelby as his running mate.


In the end, Ford did indeed carry the state by a wide margin - winning by nearly 30% over David Duke. while Alabama had been considered Safe for Ford nearly from the moment he picked Richard Shelby to be his running mate, the final margin has to be very concerning for Duke, and indicates that national polls were indeed accurate in showing that Duke would lose in a historic blowout.

As we can see from the county results, Ford easily won ancestrally Democratic rural white areas, as well as the majority African-American black belt counties, where turnout spiked due to Duke's candidacy, while also doing exceptionally well in the suburban and urban areas, which had gone strongly for Republican George H.W Bush 4 years earlier. Ford even won Shelby County, which has become the most Republican county in the state in recent years, but bucked that trend this time around. Duke was only able to narrowly win two counties, Baldwin (51-49%) and St. Clair (50.2-49.8%). overall these results indicate, as was expected, that Duke is almost certainly going to lose all 50 states - but it's still very early, and only time will tell whether this trend holds throughout the rest of the nation.

Next, we'll be taking a look at Alaska, where Duke had been consistently behind in most polls but was thought to still have some chance of pulling off a victory.
I will be showing county results for all 50 states, individually, in alphabetical order.

If you're doing all 50, would you mind setting up a separate thread? Otherwise, they're going to be scattered throughout this one.

(Heck, you could really go all out and index it with thread marks and everything!)

The penultimate state, Polypotamia.

The Seventh Party System: Part LXVI
Map of the United States
Part I - Metropotamia
Part II - Alta California
Part III - North Carolina
Part IV - New Jersey
Part V - Adams
Part VI - Alabama
Part VII - Rhode Island
Part VIII - Sequoyah
Part IX - Assenisipia
Part X - East Florida
Part XI - Tennessee
Part XII - Kansas
Part XIII - Dakota
Part XIV - Arizona
Part XV - Delaware
Part XVI - Oregon
Part XVII - Ozark
Part XVIII - New Hampshire
Part XIX - Western Connecticut
Part XX - New York
Part XXI - Santo Domingo
Part XXII - South Carolina
Part XXIII - Baja California
Part XXIV - Chersonesus
Part XXV - Canal Zone Territory
Part XXVI - West Florida
Part XXVII - Missouri
Part XXVIII - Colorado
Part XXIX - Trinidad and Tobago
Part XXX - Pennsylvania
Part XXXI - Wisconsin
Part XXXII - Lincoln
Part XXXIII - Deseret
Part XXXIV - Platte
Part XXXV - Kiribati
Part XXXVI - New Mexico
Part XXXVII - Maine
Part XXXVIII - Alaska
Part XXXIX - Hamilton
Part XXXX - Mississippi
Part XXXXI - North Virginia
Part XXXXII - Bioko
Part XXXXIII - Hawaii
Part XXXXIV - Louisiana
Part XXXXV - Seward
Part XXXXVI - Illinoia
Part XXXXVII - Georgia
Part XXXXVIII - Columbia
Part XXXXIX - Maryland
Part L - Texas
Part LI - District of Columbia
Part LII - Vermont
Part LIII - Yazoo
Part LIV - Jefferson
Part LV - Virgin Islands
Part LVI - Washington
Part LVII - Puerto Rico
Part LVIII - Kentucky
Part LIX - Massachusetts
Part LX - South Virginia
Part LXI - Arkansas
Part LXII - Saratoga
Part LXIII - Connecticut
Part LXIV - Nickajack
Part LXV - Indiana

Labor Coalition
Democrats and Social Credit
Hispanos Unidos and Allies

Political Positions of State Governments


Original DeviantArt Post Here

Polypotamia is another Upper South state with an interesting history based in its Civil War legacy. This state was one of the last states to join the Confederacy by a slim margin of 51.9% in favor of leaving the Union, and as such suffered from many defections particularly from the more Northern part of the state. However due to the state's rather indefensible position it would also became the first Confederate state to fall in 1857. Yet with the Confederates winning the Maryland Civil War, followed shortly by the fall of Washington D.C. the CSA was once again resurgent, and managed to recapture Polypotamia in 1858. With Confederate forces reaching as far north as Chicago, it would not be until after French aid to the Confederacy was discovered and stopped that the state would once again become a battleground between the Union and Confederate forces.

In 1861 Union troops once again marched into state sweeping south from Chicago, encircling a 40,000 strong Confederate army in the capital city of Cairo, Polypotamia. Lead by their Bishop-General Leonidas Polk the Confederate forces in Cairo soon descended into madness, with Polk going so far as to commit human sacrifices of his slaves to try and turn the tide of battle. However, such efforts were futile, and when the city was finally broken into on June 14th, 1861 Polk and a hundred of his most devout followers were dead of suicide on the floor of Fort Defiance. It would be this ungodly act that led to the city being renamed Babylon by the Union forces.

However, after the war the name of Babylon became a badge of honor for the residents who lived there as a sign of their resistance and spite towards the "genocidal" North. And more recently in the later half of the 20th century and into the 21st century it has been known not only as the state capital but also as the seat of the Satanic Temple's High Priest.

Outside of Babylon however the idea of Satanism is very much frowned upon the rest of the devoutly Christian and socially conservative state. Acting more like the Deep South in terms of the dominance of the Democratic party, Democrats have always formed the largest party in this state since the end of Reconstruction. The election of 2016 was significant in that it marked the first election of the 21th century where Labor fell to fourth place, due to the Democrats dominating among the white working class vote. While Labor has managed to recover some of its votes in the 2018 election the Democrats continue to hold a majority of the seats by themselves and thus were able to form an one party government for the second time in a row.

Democrats - The natural governing party of Polypotamia, they have forever been in charge of this state, though they also often sought the support of other parties to support them. In particular, Democratic-Republican coalitions have been fairly popular due to the Buckley factions dominance in the Polypotamia GOP, though Democratic-Labor governments have also occurred when Labor is stronger.

Republicans - The second largest party in Polypotamia, they are also socially conservative with the Buckley faction dominating their branch and while still to the left of Democrats socially are much more to their right economically.
Labor - The only left of center party in the state, they represent not only the state's small African-American population but also the state's labor unions. Given how conservative of a state Polypotamia is they do not even hold a majority in most of the states cities but still hold support among the state's coal miners through their dedication to being more socially conservative than the national Labor party.
Constitution - The smallest party of the state, they hold a far right Christian conservative and economically right wing ideology which has allowed them to grow in support among the state's rural population, but they have yet to be able to enter government as the Democrats in Polypotamia continue to prefer working with Republicans and Labor over a party which is entirely opposed to any sort of welfare.


Credit for the basemap goes to Chicxulub.
Last edited:
Hey, this is my first post in like half a year or something, but I was wondering something out of interest: Is there a way to harpoon Truman in the 1948 campaign trail so badly that Thurmond actually wins more than just 4 states?
I've done a lot of 1964 maps, but for this one I only made minor changes. I gave LBJ Arizona, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia while swinging Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi towards him by varying margins. I didn't touch the other states because I think this makes for a more realistic 48-state landslide map. Goldwater still wins Alabama and Mississippi very decisively even while losing literally every other state.

I've done a lot of 1964 maps, but for this one I only made minor changes. I gave LBJ Arizona, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia while swinging Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi towards him by varying margins. I didn't touch the other states because I think this makes for a more realistic 48-state landslide map. Goldwater still wins Alabama and Mississippi very decisively even while losing literally every other state.


Since you're like the 1964 god, what do you think was Goldwaters realistic best point in popular and electoral vote
Since you're like the 1964 god, what do you think was Goldwaters realistic best point in popular and electoral vote
There's no way in hell he would win or come anywhere close to it given the circumstances, but in his absolute best case scenario he possibly could have won every state LBJ won by 10% or less, which gives us this map:


LBJ still wins the electoral college 440-98, and the popular vote 56.1% to 43.5%.
This is from the same TL as the democratic China I did in the Alternate Wikiboxes thread.


The Beijing City Council, the devolved assembly of China's capital, was one of the very first reforms produced after the Tiananmen Square Revolution, for obvious reasons. Beforehand, the Mayoralty had been an appointed position, but in 1989 an election was held for the position for the first time. Unlike most Chinese states, in Beijing a number of factors left the Kuomintang severely weakened, most obviously the split between hardliners who were willing to defend incumbent Mayor Li Peng, and modernizers who wished to push for a less controversial figure. Li narrowly came second in the open primary for the 1989 election, but being unsurprisingly unpopular with all but a small reactionary section of Beijing's electorate he lost the runoff in a landslide to student protest leader and Progressive candidate Wang Juntao.

This set the stage for the Progressives mostly dominating citywide politics. In every election to the city council (aside from the second election, held 5 years after the first in 1994, each election has taken place 6 years after the last in August of each year), that party has won the most seats, and aside from Wang Qishan's single term (2000-06, winning mostly due to the continuing impact of the Asian financial crisis) every democratically elected Mayor of Beijing has been a Progressive. The system for electing the mayor is somewhat odd- an 'open primary', which despite the name is closer to a jungle primary, is held in which voters use a ranked-choice system to pick their preferred candidate, and the two nominees who get the most votes (in each election, this has been the Progressives and Kuomintang, but in theory it can be any party) move on to the 'instant runoff', based on eliminating the other choices and ranking them by preference (so if one puts the Progressive third and the Kuomintang fifth, that counts as a vote for the Progressive).

The Council Members Election is held concurrently with the mayoral election, and comprises 220 members elected from the sixteen districts by closed list voting, with members proportionally assigned to each district. The PR system used in Beijing has led to no single party ever winning an overall majority, despite the Progressives winning as much as 49.2% of the vote in the 2006 election; Progressive critics have argued the PR system is in place in Beijing in lieu of other places in the nation to make controlling the capital harder for them. Despite this, they have still controlled Beijing for much of the time this arrangement has been in place, due to the opposition being so conflicted.

In 2012, however, the minority parties did manage to convene against the Progressives and form a rag-tag coalition, headed by the Kuomintang with support from the Economic Liberal Party (right-libertarians, basically), Reactionaries (right-wing populists) and a number of sympathetic Independents. However, by 2018 support had fallen significantly for the incumbent coalition, and an alternate one seemed to be in place, as relations seemed fairly friendly between the Progressives, Communists (despite the name, they are functionally a left-populist party rather than a full-on communist one, much like the parties in France or Japan) and Greens, especially with the rising concern over environmental issues. The presence of incumbent Progressive Mayor Zang Xihong, who had high approval ratings despite only narrowly winning the 2012 mayoral race, certainly didn't hurt either.

In the event, not only did Zang win re-election by seventeen points, but the Progressives rose from only an eleven seat advantage over the Kuomintang to a 31-seat advantage, and with the Communists and Greens they had a fairly comfortable majority of 130 of the 220 seats. With the city doing fairly well financially and attracting sizeable tourism and positive press, Zang has even been mooted as a potential presidential candidate next year, though whether she will follow through on this has yet to be seen.
Last edited:
2000 McCain vs. Gore.PNG

John Sidney McCain III (Republican-Arizona)/John Richard Kasich Jr. (Republican-Ohio) 277 Electoral Votes, 51,060,553 votes, 48.42%
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. (Democratic-Tennessee)/John Forbes Kerry (Democratic-Massachusetts) 260 Electoral Votes, 50,395,446 votes, 47.79%
Last edited:
Crossposting from the UAR thread:


Michigan elects it's lord-governor by way of an electoral college. The electoral college is composed of 200 members divided amongst eight electoral districts coinciding with the eight legislative districts of Michigan's Chamber of Delegates. The eight electoral districts are redrawn every 50 years, but their electoral vote total in any given year depends on the most recent census. The electoral map has had the above divisions since 1955 (the 2005 convention resulted in the same boundaries). On Election Day, the citizens of Michigan vote for their preferred candidate in a winner-take-all format ballot. The winner of the district, whether by plurality or outright majority, takes all of the district's electoral votes because delegates to the electoral college are bound to vote for the winner. Originally, voters were simply selecting the delegates to the electoral college, who then could vote freely - this was changed after the adopted of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of Michigan. For a candidate to win the election outright, they must win 50%+1 of the electoral votes. There are 200 electoral votes, meaning a candidate must receive at least 101 electoral votes to win the election.

The Michigan legislature is a bicameral institution divided between the Chamber of Delegates, the popularly elected lower chamber, and the Chamber of Earls, the semi-popularly elected upper chamber. Michigan is subdivided into 68 earldoms (akin to an OTL county) and each popularly elects one earl for life. Each earl oversees both the municipalities within their respective earldom, and the legislative functions associated with the Chamber of Earls. When no candidate wins at least 101 electoral votes, the top two candidates based on electoral votes proceed to a second election conducted by the Chamber of Earls. A candidate must receive 60% of the vote in order win, and the Chamber has three ballots to ensure that a Lord-Governor-elect is selected. Although rather archaic and , the unique electoral

The Conservative-Reform Party nominated Speaker of the Chamber Jennifer Amash, known for her hard fiscally liberal platform; the Radical Peoples Party nominated CD Michael Morrison, a member of the party's hardline establishment; the Farmer-Labor Party nominated Joseph Mueller, 7th Earl of Ogemaw; lastly, the Social-Reform Party nominated Erika Meadows, President of the University of Michigan - Ravena. The Speaker had overseen a resurgence for the Conservative-Reform Party following the 2015 general elections, and was hoping that would translate into an outright victory on Election Day. Otherwise, she'd have to cut significant deals to get the Chamber of Earls to elect her. The Chamber of Earls retains significant membership from before the CFP resurgence, including a significant number of RPP earls from the 1990s.

Unfortunately for the Speaker, she did not win an electoral majority on election. Speaker Amash won three of the electoral districts and took 82 electoral votes to match a ~27% realm-wide showing. She would lead in both electoral and popular vote, but she remained 19 shy of an outright victory. In second place came Michael Morrison who won 63 electoral votes, despite having less than 100,000 more votes than fourth place finisher Erika Meadows. Meadows would receive only 24 electoral votes, despite receiving the third most votes realm wide, behind Earl Mueller's 32 electoral vote showing on just 15% of the vote.

Party leader Morrison and the Radical Peoples Party immediately sought an alliance with the Social-Reform Party and the Farmer-Labor Party. The Social-Reform Party agreed on the grounds that they'd get to select the Attorney General on a guaranteed term of at least 4 years. The FLP was not swayed, however, particularly considering Morrison's history for anti-religious remarks. The FLP did not formally endorse either of the second rounders, it's leadership encouraging party members to vote their conscience. However, the FLP was a major factor in the second round. The area encompassing the two districts the FLP candidate won sits atop nearly half of the earldoms, despite representing less than 20% of the Michigan's population. In fact, that fall of 2019, the Chamber of Earls was made up of 27 FLP Earls, 21 CRP Earls, 11 RPP, and 9 SRP Earls. That meant Speaker Amash had 21 votes locked in to Morrison's had 20. The vote of the FLP became critical as to which of two futures Michigan would follow: one that continues the reign of a Radical Peoples executive after the historic victory of the late Lord-Governor Charles (RPP - 1989-2019); or one that would usher back the Conservative-Reformists after a long absence from power.

Because the Chamber of Earls was a body that changed in composition very infrequently, the CRP had predicted a situation just like this years ago. For that reason the party had pushed into a molding a socially rightwing, liberal populist branch that would target the old industrial communities and other areas of western Michigan. This was a longstanding plan to build up support in traditional strongholds of the FLP and it worked to surprising degree. In fact, it was largely the reason for the resurgence the CRP rode to leadership in the 2015 general elections. Speaker Amash and the CRP certainly appealed to the largely Columbian-adherents of the FLP more-so than DC Morrison who has a history of scandalous remarks and hedonism. Of course, the FLP was also economically left wing and the late Lord-Governor Charles' victory in 1989 was the result of the FLP earls joining a wide-ranging leftwing alliance between the RPP, the FLP and the SRP.

On the first ballot, the vote was 34 Amash and 34 Morrison, a tie, a bad omen for the Morrison camp. On the second ballot a day later, the results came in 36 Amash and 32 Morrison, indicating little progress had been made by either camp to convince the swing Earls, or worse, that there were no swing Earls. The Michigan Constitution gave the Chamber of Earls three ballots to select a candidate with 60% of the Earls in favor. If the Chamber failed to do so, a new lordship election would have to be called altogether, leaving the executive branch of the realm in limbo for months to come. It had never happened in the realms past, and it wouldn't happen in 2019. In the early morning hours of the third day of balloting, reports began circulating that the Amash camp had reached an agreement with the SRP. #SRPTraitors, #LordGovernorElectAmash, and #SRPFlips were the three highest hashtags in Michigan on social networking platform Chirpnet just thirty minutes before the Earls voted one final time.

The third and final ballot was 44 Amash - 24 Morrison, the reports were proven true, and Speaker Amash became the first woman elected Lord-Governor in Michigan's history. Her election marks the first Conservative-Reformist administration since the mid-20th Century. It also marks the conclusion of the Radical Peoples Party's first ever control of the executive branch after 30 years in power.
Prior Lord-Governor: Charles (Marks) Radical-Peoples Party (1989-2019)
Lord-Governor-elect: Jennifer (Amash) Conservative-Reform Party (2019-present)