Alternate Electoral Maps

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm...

How about...

Carter (1976) vs. Hoover (1928)?
Hoover would win in a landslide, but I'll keep it on the list.


Speaking of Jimmy Carter, here's one that's a bit more fair to him:

Carter (1976) vs. Bush (2004)


genusmap.php

Republican: George W. Bush (Texas)/Dick Cheney (Wyoming) - 281 EVs, 50.32%

Democratic: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)/Walter Mondale (Minnesota) - 257 EVs, 49.68%
 
Reagan (1980) vs. Obama (2008)


genusmap.php

Democratic: Barack Obama (Illinois)/Joe Biden (Delaware) - 290 EVs, 51.05%
Republican: Ronald Reagan (California)/George Bush (Texas) - 248 EVs, 48.95%

Ohio was extremely close, with the margin between Reagan and Obama being 0.007%. For comparison, the margin between Bush and Gore in Florida in OTL 2000 was 0.009%. That's right, Ohio here was closer than Florida in 2000.

North Carolina and Virginia were also won by margins of less than 1%.
 
You could try Carter (1980) vs. Hoover (1932), that'd probably be more even
Then Carter would win pretty big.

I guess I'll try both to see which one is more even, but not now. It's late. Those three were just because I found the comparisons interesting:

Nixon/Clinton: Candidate wins in a three way race between the incumbent party and a significant third party challenger. This President keeps many of his predecessors' policies in place, but with a new conservative/liberal face. Despite being reelected by a large margin, He was (nearly) impeached two years after being reelected.

Carter/Bush: The devout Christian governor of a large, Southern state was (re)elected by a narrow margin. He was a good man, but was troubled by a bad economy, crisis in the Middle East, and not being prepared to be President. He left office with low approval ratings, to be succeeded by...

Reagan/Obama: The charismatic outsider campaigned on restoring Hope. He was elected by a large margin, but governed much more moderately than he campaigned. The economy still improved under his tenure. He is a very polarizing President, and is likely to be succeeded by a member of his own party who is experienced in foreign policy issues.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Technically, but that hasn't stopped politicians before.

Actually it is a pretty hard and fast rule: when you see apparently noncontiguous districts in the modern US, it's because they've exploited a rule that lets you count connection through water as contiguity, so you can have a bit of this island and part of this riverbank a huge distance away from it and so on.
 
Actually it is a pretty hard and fast rule: when you see apparently noncontiguous districts in the modern US, it's because they've exploited a rule that lets you count connection through water as contiguity, so you can have a bit of this island and part of this riverbank a huge distance away from it and so on.

That's the "bridge too far" in redistricting Maryland. Periodically there are Democratic Gerrymanders proposed which would connect the Southern "Eastern Shore" with the Western Shore (probably across the Chesapeake Bay bridge, but some don't even bother with that) to get rid of the last Republican Majority congressional district in Maryland, but it didn't happen this last time around.
 
You could try Carter (1980) vs. Hoover (1932), that'd probably be more even
Never mind, this actually is pretty even:

genusmap.php


Republican: Herbert Hoover (Iowa)/Charles Curtis (Kansas) - 268 EVs, 49.15%
Democratic: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)/Walter Mondale (Minnesota) - 260 EVs, 50.85%
 
Last edited:
Actually it is a pretty hard and fast rule: when you see apparently noncontiguous districts in the modern US, it's because they've exploited a rule that lets you count connection through water as contiguity, so you can have a bit of this island and part of this riverbank a huge distance away from it and so on.

Of course, I drew the red one as I did to pick up as many Democratic areas as possible in one district.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top