Alternate Electoral Maps III

ElectoralCollege1948 (1).png


This is the 1948 Presidential Election for a TL I'm working on. Part of it includes LBJ winning the Senate race in 1941, becoming FDR's VP in 44, the alternate WW2 does extend to 1946 leading to Democrats winning the midterms there. Johnson pushing hard on Civil Rights and Welfare post-war. There's more details of this ATL that I'd rather save for the TL posts but wanted to share this.
Lyndon B. Johnson/Eleanor Roosevelt 506 EVs
Douglas MacArthur/John W. Bricker 28 EVs
 
View attachment 613983

This is the 1948 Presidential Election for a TL I'm working on. Part of it includes LBJ winning the Senate race in 1941, becoming FDR's VP in 44, the alternate WW2 does extend to 1946 leading to Democrats winning the midterms there. Johnson pushing hard on Civil Rights and Welfare post-war. There's more details of this ATL that I'd rather save for the TL posts but wanted to share this.
Lyndon B. Johnson/Eleanor Roosevelt 506 EVs
Douglas MacArthur/John W. Bricker 28 EVs
Even in this hypothetical timeline, I feel like 1948 was just too early for the Deep South to be voting Republican. far more likely imo that MS, AL, and SC vote for a Dixiecrat third party than an actual Republican.
 
View attachment 613983

This is the 1948 Presidential Election for a TL I'm working on. Part of it includes LBJ winning the Senate race in 1941, becoming FDR's VP in 44, the alternate WW2 does extend to 1946 leading to Democrats winning the midterms there. Johnson pushing hard on Civil Rights and Welfare post-war. There's more details of this ATL that I'd rather save for the TL posts but wanted to share this.
Lyndon B. Johnson/Eleanor Roosevelt 506 EVs
Douglas MacArthur/John W. Bricker 28 EVs
I already love this idea, I can't wait for the actual timeline!
 
Huges '16 vs. Smith '28


Hughes / Fairbanks - 401 EVs
Smith / Robertson - 130 EVs


I compared and contrasted every state they were on and chose the winner based of the percent they got, Massachusetts was close but in the end Huges won it by a few decimals.

Bush '88 vs. Gore '00


Bush / Quayle - 337 EVs
Gore / Lieberman - 201 EVs
 
Huges '16 vs. Smith '28


Hughes / Fairbanks - 401 EVs
Smith / Robertson - 130 EVs


I compared and contrasted every state they were on and chose the winner based of the percent they got, Massachusetts was close but in the end Huges won it by a few decimals.

Bush '88 vs. Gore '00


Bush / Quayle - 337 EVs
Gore / Lieberman - 201 EVs

Charles Evans Hughes performed poorly in Texas in 1916. While Al Smith also lost the state in 1928, he got a lot more votes than Hughes did.

In 1916, Hughes got 64,999 popular votes and only 17.45%. Smith in 1928 got 341, 032 popular votes and received 48.1%. Therefore, Texas should be blue on the Hughes vs Smith map.

Apart from that, you did a pretty good job, Hulkster.
 
This one is an alternate 2006 Utah gubernatorial election if a fundamentalist Mormon Party (for conservative Mormons) and the Republican party (for less conservative Mormons) split the Mormon vote. This allows Bill Orton to win with a bit under 40% of the vote:

1609971664866.png


Bill Orton (D): 39.8%
Thomas Monson (M): 38.5%
Mike Leavitt* (R): 21.7%
 
Here's another China TL election map. This time, it's Fujian.

*

1610159650014.png


Fujian stands out today as one of the most fiercely pro-Kuomintang regions of China; even in the 2009 landslide where the party lost their overall majority in the National Congress, the party has never once lost a contest for any of the province’s electoral districts, and in the 2020 provincial election, even with COVID-19 affecting the province, the party was re-elected in a landslide.

The reasons for this are almost a century old: in late 1933, about a year before Chiang’s regime wiped out the last of the original Communist forces, a revolutionary government was formed known as the Fujian People’s Government. While this was not an explicitly communist regime, it was adamantly leftist and perceived as seeking to agitate and divide China at a time when Japan was becoming increasingly imperialist. It undermined its popularity with the Fujianese public by raising taxes to support its army, and the Communists and 28 Bolsheviks opposed the regime, leaving it vulnerable. By January 1934, the Kuomintang had defeated the provisional government, and the memory of the crisis has cast a shadow over the Chinese left in Fujian for decades since.

Further adding to this support for the Kuomintang is that the city of Amoy (which, unlike most of the rest of China’s cities, generally uses its historic name rather than the pinyin form), which in the early 20th century had been declining due to the British moving to getting tea from plantations in India rather than buying Fujianese exports, started to improve economically after World War II thanks to its port connections with the Philippines and (ironically enough) Japan. Other, larger cities also improved financially, particularly the capital Fuzhou, which has grown to become one of the global top 100 cities for scientific research.

Interestingly, though, Fujian’s reliance on international trade made it resolutely supportive of the democratizing aims of the Tiananmen Square Revolution. Even though the progressive goals of the protestors were objected to by many Fujianese, the general consensus in the province was that a violent end to the uprising would severely hurt China’s image worldwide and weaken its position in the international marketplace, and they correctly guessed that even under democracy the Kuomintang would probably retain its power. Since the revolution did indeed end peacefully with democratizing reforms, and Fujian remained a highly financially successful region, it’s stuck resolutely behind the Kuomintang in democratic politics.

As one might guess from all this, provincial elections in Fujian are often a bit of a walkover for the Kuomintang. The Communists are completely moribund here and rarely run candidates, and aside from a few bits of inner-city Putian and Quanzhou the Progressives hardly get anywhere either. The real opposition comes from the Economic Liberals, as is the case in most of the eastern Chinese provinces where the Kuomintang are extremely strong, and unsually enough, a regionalist party.

That regionalist party is the Min Dang, named for a pun on Min Dong, or Eastern Min, a major language of the province prominently spoken in Fuzhou and northern Fujian, and the term ‘dǎng’, denoting a political party in Chinese. The Min Dang’s political agenda is fairly nebulous, though it has consistently advocated for Min language access, and its main function is a protest vote- it certainly doesn’t support independence or anything given how disastrously that would be received by the population. Effectively, it exists to swipe the Kuomintang from either the left or the right depending on which is politically expedient, rather than basically always doing so from the right as the Economic Liberals are wont to do.

This, however, was enough for them and their smaller regionalist allied party in the south, the Amoy Party (which, despite the name, operates in the area of the Amoy dialect rather than just the city itself, though the city is where it’s most powerful), to deprive the Kuomintang of an overall majority in the 2008 election and take over the legislature under Yang Zhenwu. While Yang’s government remained popular among regionalists (and Yang has held his seat in the Quemoy Islands just as easily as most Kuomintang politicians hold theirs), by 2014 the inter-party bickering had become too much for many voters, and they voted the Kuomintang back in fairly resoundingly.

It’s worth taking a moment to discuss the Fujian electoral system, because even leaving aside the extreme popularity of the Kuomintang there, even the voting system helps entrench them. There are a few important factors- for one thing, Fujian has the longest term of any Chinese provincial government, a fixed term of six years, meaning major scandals or crises don’t really threaten the Kuomintang unless they’re extremely long-lasting or close to the election itself.

On top of that, like Guangdong, Fujian has two sets of seats elected to its assembly every cycle. The first set is the members elected largely by county, with all the malapportionment that entails (though this is not quite as bad as the malapportionment in Guangdong, as the seats are not 100% required to stick to city and county lines anymore- until the Yang government implemented this reform, however, you had situations like Zherong County’s 88,000 residents and Fuqing city’s 1.38 million residents both electing 1 member to the assembly).

The second set, though, is a particularly deceptive one- you might think Fujian has 27 multi-member PR seats based on the prefectures on top of the single-member FPTP ones like Guangdong, Shanxi or Sichuan, but no. Presumably to alleviate the threat of PR giving more seats to those pesky opposition parties, the second set of seats are also FPTP, but are elected by bloc vote.

This system basically enshrines the Kuomintang as the largest party indefinitely, and not surprisingly, any effort to tamper with the system is met with intense conflict from that party’s members (and even a fair number of the other parties’ representatives are concerned that fairer apportionment of the seats will put the majorities in their seats in danger from the Kuomintang). As a result, when the 2020 election came round in April, despite COVID-19 taking its toll on Fujian’s economy, Chen decided not to postpone the election and ran a spirited campaign urging Fujianese voters not to succumb to the misery induced by the pandemic with the slogan, ‘The show must go on’ (even producing ads that utilized the Queen song to emphasize the theme).

Since the election was held during the nadir of Jiang Jielian’s presidential campaign, the momentum was at Chen’s back, and sure enough the Kuomintang won another overall majority. The Progressives ended up coming joint last of the parties to get seats, and last in terms of voteshare, a disheartening result given their national woes at the time (though these turned out to be unfounded).

In the 9 months since Chen’s victory, he has tried to position himself as a prominent critic of new President Jiang and his agenda, presenting Fujian’s early 20th century history as a warning of the dangers of the Progressives and its recent history as why China needs the Kuomintang. Despite this, Jiang and his supporters have mostly laughed him off, particularly given the questionable electoral politics of his home province; Jiang once responded to a reporter quoting Chen’s criticism of him by saying, ‘He can get back to me when his province has equal numbers of people represented by each member’; and with COVID-19 badly affecting Fujian in this time, the framing of it as some ideal for China has become more questionable.
 
So, the first three United States presidential elections from my timeline, If You Can Keep It.

The Election of 1800 pit the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and his vice-presidential candidate Aaron Burr, against the Federalist Party, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. The Election was marked by Federal occupation of Virginia after its nullification of the Sedition Act in 1799, ostensibly under the pretext of national security, as the United States had recently embarked on war with France. The election was particularly contentious, considering the fact that none of the two Presidential candidates won; instead, Federalist vice-presidential candidate Alexander Hamilton pressured Virginia's electors to vote for John Jay. "Hamilton's Folly" resulted in the presidency of Alexander Hamilton as well as the start of the American Civil War of 1800-1802. The contingent election to elect the Vice-President, held on January 4, 1801, resulted in the election of Thomas Jefferson as Vice-President; however, he refused to be sworn in as such, instead leading to declare open insurgency against Hamilton.
ElectoralCollege1800.png

Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) - 86 electoral votes
John Adams (Federalist) - 65 electoral votes
Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) - 52 electoral votes
Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican) - 52 electoral votes
John Jay (Federalist) - 21 electoral votes

The Election of 1804 was, as part of the Compromise of 1802 that ended the first American Civil War, a far more unified deal. This election saw a "compromise" ticket of Aaron Burr and James Madison be elected as the Presidency, with official nomination from both the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican Parties. The Election of 1804 was also the first election of the State of Ohio. Despite rogue electors supporting several different candidacies by previously fundamental actors in Hamilton's Folly, none of them managed to get more than ten electoral votes, signalling that, for all of them, their time in national politics had been cut short due to their participation in America's first civil conflict.



Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican) - 159 votes
James Madison (Democratic-Republican) - 157 votes

Alexander Hamilton (Wabash Federalist) - 8 votes
John Adams (Federalist) - 6 votes
Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) - 3 votes

The Election of 1808 saw the Federalist and Democratic-Republican political elite once again turn against their elected president as Aaron Burr resulted a far more radical candidate than expected. Instead of supporting his re-election, the overwhelming majority of the country instead turned to James Madison as its savior from political extremism. The Election of 1808 would be the detonating factor in the creation of the Armed Mob and the start of Burr's War, as Burr (often deemed the Sulla of America) refused to have his position taken away from him by the parties of the country.


James Madison (Democratic-Republican) - 154 votes
Charles C. Pickney (Federalist) - 14 votes
Aaron Burr (Burrite) - 10 votes
 
Was the 12th amendment adopted earlier? If not, then Adams would've been elected Vice President. Interesting map and scenario!
I thought there had to be a majority vote for the Vice-President as well! Oops. Gotta correct that, although honestly the effects aren't that many.

Thank you so much!! :)
 
I thought there had to be a majority vote for the Vice-President as well! Oops. Gotta correct that, although honestly the effects aren't that many.

Thank you so much!! :)

No problem! And don't worry, the pre-12th Amendment process is notoriously confusing.
 
View attachment 613983

This is the 1948 Presidential Election for a TL I'm working on. Part of it includes LBJ winning the Senate race in 1941, becoming FDR's VP in 44, the alternate WW2 does extend to 1946 leading to Democrats winning the midterms there. Johnson pushing hard on Civil Rights and Welfare post-war. There's more details of this ATL that I'd rather save for the TL posts but wanted to share this.
Lyndon B. Johnson/Eleanor Roosevelt 506 EVs
Douglas MacArthur/John W. Bricker 28 EVs
How does Johnson hold onto the state of Louisiana?
 
How does Johnson hold onto the state of Louisiana?
It’s in many ways a perfect storm for LBJ, WW2 is much bigger ITL and so to help with man power the army is desegregated, with Democrats still holding control of Congress making gains in 46 both fiscal and socially liberal policies are in acted including Civil Rights , I’m actually debating having Alabam and SC be Red too as someone said even with civil right as an issue they might not vote Red but I’m keeping MS, but among other things LBJ being a Southern Man, Eleanor Roosevelt being his VP and Eisenhower endorsing Johnson over MacArthur makes Johnson win in a landslide.
Also having it where Johnson, who was a strident New Dealer, after getting into the Senate earlier uses connections to bring more industry into the south overall that helps unionization efforts overall in the south with there being an actual somewhat successful Operation Dixie.

I might change Alabama and SC as I’m thinking of having it where Strom Thurmond is more pro-Civil rights in part due to serving alongside African AmericanS in Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
It’s in many ways a perfect storm for LBJ, WW2 is much bigger ITL and so to help with man power the army is desegregated, with Democrats still holding control of Congress making gains in 46 both fiscal and socially liberal policies are in acted including Civil Rights , I’m actually debating having Alabam and SC be Red too as someone said even with civil right as an issue they might not vote Red but I’m keeping MS, but among other things LBJ being a Southern Man, Eleanor Roosevelt being his VP and Eisenhower endorsing Johnson over MacArthur makes Johnson win in a landslide.
Also having it where Johnson, who was a strident New Dealer, after getting into the Senate earlier uses connections to bring more industry into the south overall that helps unionization efforts overall in the south with there being an actual somewhat successful Operation Dixie.

I might change Alabama and SC as I’m thinking of having it where Strom Thurmond is more pro-Civil rights in part due to serving alongside African AmericanS in Western Europe.
Does that mean no Taft-Hartley?
 
Something I was just thinking to myself was, one of the big stories of the 2020 election was a massive increase in turnout and support for the two main parties which meant Trump lost despite gaining 11 million votes compared to 2016, and Biden won 15 1/2 million voters more than Clinton in 2016. So I figured it'd be interesting to work out how the increase in turnout affects the electoral map if you put Biden's raw vote total in 2020 against Trump's in 2016, and Trump's in 2020 against Clinton's in 2016.

1610574885209.png

Biden 2020 vs Trump 2016: not surprisingly, Biden's victory turns into a landslide. He gains Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Utah (mostly because of Trump bleeding votes to Evan McMullin) compared to OTL 2020 and takes 394 EVs to Trump's 144. Interestingly, he doesn't manage to flip Iowa, Maine's 2nd district or Ohio.

1610575446352.png

Trump 2020 vs Clinton 2016: with an 8.4 million popular vote lead over Clinton, Trump flips Colorado, Maine's at-large vote, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico, and widens his victory margin in the electoral college to 339 EVs to 191 for Clinton (which would make her the first Democrat to win less than 200 EVs since Michael Dukakis). Just like how Biden couldn't flip Iowa or Ohio with a massively increased popular vote lead, though, Trump can't flip Virginia even with his 2020 vote total.
 
Something I was just thinking to myself was, one of the big stories of the 2020 election was a massive increase in turnout and support for the two main parties which meant Trump lost despite gaining 11 million votes compared to 2016, and Biden won 15 1/2 million voters more than Clinton in 2016. So I figured it'd be interesting to work out how the increase in turnout affects the electoral map if you put Biden's raw vote total in 2020 against Trump's in 2016, and Trump's in 2020 against Clinton's in 2016.

View attachment 616204
Biden 2020 vs Trump 2016: not surprisingly, Biden's victory turns into a landslide. He gains Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Utah (mostly because of Trump bleeding votes to Evan McMullin) compared to OTL 2020 and takes 394 EVs to Trump's 144. Interestingly, he doesn't manage to flip Iowa, Maine's 2nd district or Ohio.

View attachment 616208
Trump 2020 vs Clinton 2016: with an 8.4 million popular vote lead over Clinton, Trump flips Colorado, Maine's at-large vote, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico, and widens his victory margin in the electoral college to 339 EVs to 191 for Clinton (which would make her the first Democrat to win less than 200 EVs since Michael Dukakis). Just like how Biden couldn't flip Iowa or Ohio with a massively increased popular vote lead, though, Trump can't flip Virginia even with his 2020 vote total.
Uh, isn't this technically "current politics"?

Here's the current politics electoral map thread to put the maps on if the admins remove your images.
 
Top