Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes III
- Thread starter shiftygiant
- Start date
- Status
Sabot Cat
Banned
Data for the 2015 and 2011 Canadian federal elections held under the binomial voting system here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzeuieNNJX4BzzesGCniIZbWmifwL39om5LY3BQwevc/edit?usp=sharing
Binomial
2015
Liberal Party = 328/676 (48.52% of the seats, 39.47% of the popular vote)
Conservative Party = 222/676 (32.84% of the seats, 31.89% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 107/676 (15.83% of the seats, 19.71% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 16/676 (2.36% of the seats, 4.66% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 3/676 (0.44% of the seats, 3.45% of the popular vote)
2011
Conservative Party = 308/616 (50.00% of the seats, 39.62% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 171/616 (27.76% of the seats, 30.63% of the popular vote)
Liberal Party = 94/616 (15.26% of the seats, 18.91% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 42/616 (6.82% of the seats, 6.04% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/616 (0.16% of the seats, 3.91% of the popular vote)
FPTP
2015
Liberal Party = 184/308 (59.74% of the seats, 39.47% of the popular vote)
Conservative Party = 99/308 (32.14% of the seats, 31.89% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 44/308 (14.29% of the seats, 19.71% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 10/308 (3.25% of the seats, 4.66% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/308 (0.32% of the seats, 3.45% of the popular vote)
2011
Conservative Party = 166/308 (53.90% of the seats, 39.62% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 103/308 (33.44% of the seats, 30.63% of the popular vote)
Liberal Party = 34/308 (11.04% of the seats, 18.91% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 4/308 (1.30% of the seats, 6.04% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/308 (0.32% of the seats, 3.91% of the popular vote)
So it appears the while the binomial voting system favors the winner of the popular vote and comes to close to awarding them a majority both in 2015 and 2011, it is marginally more proportional than FPTP.
Binomial
2015
Liberal Party = 328/676 (48.52% of the seats, 39.47% of the popular vote)
Conservative Party = 222/676 (32.84% of the seats, 31.89% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 107/676 (15.83% of the seats, 19.71% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 16/676 (2.36% of the seats, 4.66% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 3/676 (0.44% of the seats, 3.45% of the popular vote)
2011
Conservative Party = 308/616 (50.00% of the seats, 39.62% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 171/616 (27.76% of the seats, 30.63% of the popular vote)
Liberal Party = 94/616 (15.26% of the seats, 18.91% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 42/616 (6.82% of the seats, 6.04% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/616 (0.16% of the seats, 3.91% of the popular vote)
FPTP
2015
Liberal Party = 184/308 (59.74% of the seats, 39.47% of the popular vote)
Conservative Party = 99/308 (32.14% of the seats, 31.89% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 44/308 (14.29% of the seats, 19.71% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 10/308 (3.25% of the seats, 4.66% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/308 (0.32% of the seats, 3.45% of the popular vote)
2011
Conservative Party = 166/308 (53.90% of the seats, 39.62% of the popular vote)
New Democratic Party = 103/308 (33.44% of the seats, 30.63% of the popular vote)
Liberal Party = 34/308 (11.04% of the seats, 18.91% of the popular vote)
Bloc Québécois = 4/308 (1.30% of the seats, 6.04% of the popular vote)
Green Party = 1/308 (0.32% of the seats, 3.91% of the popular vote)
So it appears the while the binomial voting system favors the winner of the popular vote and comes to close to awarding them a majority both in 2015 and 2011, it is marginally more proportional than FPTP.
Lowell Weicker decides not to run for re-election in 1988 due to conservative backlash. The Connecticut Republican Party then convinces Gilmore, the well to-do businessman to run. He does after much thought. He goes on to win the primary. In the general, Lieberman's campaign starts a smear campaign about Gilmore's daughter, Lorelai, the unwed teen mother. Richard responds with something along the lines of "she's doing very well for her self now, and I'm not sorry for the birth of my granddaughter." Gilmore wins by 53-47 against Leiberman. In the Senate, Gilmore is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He gains the name Gentlemen Gill, due to his politeness and non-confrontational attitude. In 2003, he becaumes the Finance Commitee Chairman. By 2005, Gillmore becomes dismayed at the Republican Party, due to how religious and how unwilling to compromise the Republican Party is. In 2007 he leaves the Republican Party and becomes an independent. He serves until 2013 when his wife, Emily, wants him to retire. In 2014 he his diagnosed with brain cancer. He soon begins writing his memoirs, he finishes them, but they are published only a few weeks after his death in December 2014. His daughter, Lorelai, a Democrat, was elected Town Selectman of Stars Hollow in 2006. In 2016 she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
And, on a Lighter note...
What was Rhodesia's song - "White Christmas"?
What was ISIS' song?
And, on a Lighter note...
LOL! Do want to see more Eurovision wikis on here though.
Yes please. I want to see the Third Reich put up "Springtime for Hitler."
A list of major parties from the TL in my signature.
But By Report
Allan Bertram
Henry IX and President Leo Amery
But By Report
Allan Bertram
Henry IX and President Leo Amery
Last edited:
So, this will likely be my last set of boxes for the thread this summer. I'm going on a fishing trip on Tuesday, and any further boxes I sneak in will be published to deviantart and to the index directly. I will list both in my sig before I head out. Also, I think I may have messed up on the exact seats due to senate classes. I may remake the maps, but the narrative and final count will be the same.
Thanks.
===============================
U.S. Election of 2066
The Moderates had hoped that the midterms would give them some respite. They had made gains in the house against the socialists in 2062, due to reduced enthusiasm and their institutional advantages. If 2066 was similar, then it could put the Party hardliners and donors at ease, at least for the moment. The leadership would then have the breathing room to come up with a plan to reverse the Party's decline.
For a while, it looked like this would be the case. Bickering had only intensified between the Liberationists and Municipalists. The socialists were sour over losing a Senate seat in Florida to the Right, especially after they had retreated in the Municipalists' favor across the mid-Atlantic. The race in Georgia between the opposition parties was shaping up to be a fierce one. Atlanta was a Municipalist stronghold, and the moonies dominated both its government and public life. The state government was divided between the rural Left and urban Right, and the two factions were constantly at each others throats. Florida was little better, with its state politics dominated by a constant struggle between the libertarians in Tallahassee and Jacksonville and the Municipalists in Tampa and New Miami. The Liberation parties of both states were angry with the federal party allowing ground to be ceded to the right, and for the most part, it looked like the Liberationist cross-voting would not easily be repeated.
However, few had a clear picture of how the election would turn out. Both the Party and the polling companies were desperately trying to retool their models after their incorrect predictions of a Moderate sweep. The opposition was no help in this regard, with both parties instructing their activists and partisans to refuse to comply with the polls and otherwise disrupt the information gathering process. The Moderates' polling apparatus took note of this effort, as their direct polling found opposition support unrealistically rare. When the word that the Party had hit a brick wall on polling hit the information market, metadata prices skyrocketed, putting pressure on the Party coffers as their analyses scrambled to get anything that could help direct party spending. The opposition parties, having worked to disrupt the public polls, had little information themselves, but they worked to make up for this disadvantage with a strong ground game and grass roots effort. It had been decades since the Party had sullied its hands in such activity, and the teams that it had thrown together were the subject of mockery by the general public. By August, no one in America knew what the new congress would look like. The pundits and media were uncomfortably quiet, not willing to stake their reputation on blind guesses. With its election budget spent, Party had begun to tap into its emergency funding pool to launch a media surge across the Northeast, hoping to counter Municipalist efforts there. To do so, the Party had to effectively abandon the deep south, with several of their candidates dropping out, seeing little reason to waste more time and money to try and uproot the socialists.
November soon came, the exit polls reported lower, albeit not abysmal, turnout. They also reported overwhelming victory for the Moderates, which was known by most to be a lie, just another spit in the government's face.
While the raw percentages were not too far off the 2064 house elections, the seat change told a different story. Once again, there had been more cross-voting than had been expected, and Party analysts were kicking themselves for making the same mistake once again. While tensions were running high been the state parties, the lay voters were less affected, and were much more willing to vote for those they detested if it meant weakening the AMP. The AMP's most painful single loss was the senate seat up for New York City, a seat that they had assured themselves was impenetrable. South Carolina was also painful, as the state would likely go towards the socialists in the next presidential election. However, the real failure was in the House. While still in control, another loss of this magnitude would cost the Moderates the House, and thus the ability to pass a budget. Already, the markets were in decline, with investors getting their money out now so they could avoid economic crisis a few years down the road.
With Bak reticent on the election, two narratives emerged inside the Party.
The first was that of the hardliners, lead by David Stamm. Stamm first entered the national stage as Texas attorney general, earning controversy for seeking the death penalty for more than five hundred rebels following the May 31st revolts. While the court only ended sentencing 34 of the mass trial's defendants to death, Stamm earned reputation as a ruthless proponent of law and order. He capitalized on this reputation to take a house seat, moving up the ranks for twenty years before being elected as Speaker. To Stamm, the Party's troubles were directly due to its capitulation and reform. Such an act of weakness only invited disloyalty and subversion. For Stamm, peaceful rebellion was just that, rebellion, and should be treated as such.
Another, more generous view was held by Santa Clara Senator Dustin Raya. A former hardliner, Raya's views had softened after seeing the positive results brought by the reforms. To Raya, the issue was that they did not go far enough. Raya also condemned the Party's practice of funding centrist fake opposition parties during the Long Crisis. Was it any surprise that support flocked to radicals. A more gentle rule would mean that the public would vote for a less radical opposition, reducing the threat to the economy and Party rule.
The Municipalist were pleased by the result, if not as ecstatic as in 2064. The Liberationists were relatively happy, but seethed over losing both their senate seat and majority in the lower house in Georgia. The Municipalists now had their first trifecta and the mandate to implement as much of their policies as the courts would allow.
Rumors floated of the opposition seeking a more formal alliance for the 2068 elections. While this made activists of both parties uneasy, eliminating the AMP majority in the house was more than tempting.
Thanks.
===============================
U.S. Election of 2066
The Moderates had hoped that the midterms would give them some respite. They had made gains in the house against the socialists in 2062, due to reduced enthusiasm and their institutional advantages. If 2066 was similar, then it could put the Party hardliners and donors at ease, at least for the moment. The leadership would then have the breathing room to come up with a plan to reverse the Party's decline.
For a while, it looked like this would be the case. Bickering had only intensified between the Liberationists and Municipalists. The socialists were sour over losing a Senate seat in Florida to the Right, especially after they had retreated in the Municipalists' favor across the mid-Atlantic. The race in Georgia between the opposition parties was shaping up to be a fierce one. Atlanta was a Municipalist stronghold, and the moonies dominated both its government and public life. The state government was divided between the rural Left and urban Right, and the two factions were constantly at each others throats. Florida was little better, with its state politics dominated by a constant struggle between the libertarians in Tallahassee and Jacksonville and the Municipalists in Tampa and New Miami. The Liberation parties of both states were angry with the federal party allowing ground to be ceded to the right, and for the most part, it looked like the Liberationist cross-voting would not easily be repeated.
However, few had a clear picture of how the election would turn out. Both the Party and the polling companies were desperately trying to retool their models after their incorrect predictions of a Moderate sweep. The opposition was no help in this regard, with both parties instructing their activists and partisans to refuse to comply with the polls and otherwise disrupt the information gathering process. The Moderates' polling apparatus took note of this effort, as their direct polling found opposition support unrealistically rare. When the word that the Party had hit a brick wall on polling hit the information market, metadata prices skyrocketed, putting pressure on the Party coffers as their analyses scrambled to get anything that could help direct party spending. The opposition parties, having worked to disrupt the public polls, had little information themselves, but they worked to make up for this disadvantage with a strong ground game and grass roots effort. It had been decades since the Party had sullied its hands in such activity, and the teams that it had thrown together were the subject of mockery by the general public. By August, no one in America knew what the new congress would look like. The pundits and media were uncomfortably quiet, not willing to stake their reputation on blind guesses. With its election budget spent, Party had begun to tap into its emergency funding pool to launch a media surge across the Northeast, hoping to counter Municipalist efforts there. To do so, the Party had to effectively abandon the deep south, with several of their candidates dropping out, seeing little reason to waste more time and money to try and uproot the socialists.
November soon came, the exit polls reported lower, albeit not abysmal, turnout. They also reported overwhelming victory for the Moderates, which was known by most to be a lie, just another spit in the government's face.
While the raw percentages were not too far off the 2064 house elections, the seat change told a different story. Once again, there had been more cross-voting than had been expected, and Party analysts were kicking themselves for making the same mistake once again. While tensions were running high been the state parties, the lay voters were less affected, and were much more willing to vote for those they detested if it meant weakening the AMP. The AMP's most painful single loss was the senate seat up for New York City, a seat that they had assured themselves was impenetrable. South Carolina was also painful, as the state would likely go towards the socialists in the next presidential election. However, the real failure was in the House. While still in control, another loss of this magnitude would cost the Moderates the House, and thus the ability to pass a budget. Already, the markets were in decline, with investors getting their money out now so they could avoid economic crisis a few years down the road.
With Bak reticent on the election, two narratives emerged inside the Party.
The first was that of the hardliners, lead by David Stamm. Stamm first entered the national stage as Texas attorney general, earning controversy for seeking the death penalty for more than five hundred rebels following the May 31st revolts. While the court only ended sentencing 34 of the mass trial's defendants to death, Stamm earned reputation as a ruthless proponent of law and order. He capitalized on this reputation to take a house seat, moving up the ranks for twenty years before being elected as Speaker. To Stamm, the Party's troubles were directly due to its capitulation and reform. Such an act of weakness only invited disloyalty and subversion. For Stamm, peaceful rebellion was just that, rebellion, and should be treated as such.
Another, more generous view was held by Santa Clara Senator Dustin Raya. A former hardliner, Raya's views had softened after seeing the positive results brought by the reforms. To Raya, the issue was that they did not go far enough. Raya also condemned the Party's practice of funding centrist fake opposition parties during the Long Crisis. Was it any surprise that support flocked to radicals. A more gentle rule would mean that the public would vote for a less radical opposition, reducing the threat to the economy and Party rule.
The Municipalist were pleased by the result, if not as ecstatic as in 2064. The Liberationists were relatively happy, but seethed over losing both their senate seat and majority in the lower house in Georgia. The Municipalists now had their first trifecta and the mandate to implement as much of their policies as the courts would allow.
Rumors floated of the opposition seeking a more formal alliance for the 2068 elections. While this made activists of both parties uneasy, eliminating the AMP majority in the house was more than tempting.
Last edited:
Some good final boxes there, @machinekng. I'm gonna miss them and I look forward to their return in whatever form they may take.
An alliance between the Liberationists and the Municipalists seems like a common sense idea but there seems to be a lot of bad blood there. Might take a miracle for them to work together.
An alliance between the Liberationists and the Municipalists seems like a common sense idea but there seems to be a lot of bad blood there. Might take a miracle for them to work together.
Sabot Cat
Banned
What if the United Kingdom general election in 2015 were held under the binomial voting system (the winning party elects two MPs from a seat if it has double or more of the popular vote than the runner-up, otherwise both the winning party and the runner-up get a MP each)? I decided to find out!
Overall Results
Conservative Party: 603/1300*
Labour Party: 512/1300
Scottish National Party: 69/1300
Liberal Democrats: 50/1300
United Kingdom Independence Party: 21/1300
Democratic Unionist Party: 14/1300
Sinn Féin: 11/1300
Plaid Cymru: 7/1300
Green Party: 2/1300
Ulster Unionist Party: 4/1300
Social Democratic Labour Party: 4/1300
Independents: 2/1300
Alliance: 1/1300
*Including the Speaker.
Full data available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HEvY7AqIJWHccfc_uFstwe64ULl0pbF2EnQCwYhwJYU/edit?usp=sharing
Overall Results
Conservative Party: 603/1300*
Labour Party: 512/1300
Scottish National Party: 69/1300
Liberal Democrats: 50/1300
United Kingdom Independence Party: 21/1300
Democratic Unionist Party: 14/1300
Sinn Féin: 11/1300
Plaid Cymru: 7/1300
Green Party: 2/1300
Ulster Unionist Party: 4/1300
Social Democratic Labour Party: 4/1300
Independents: 2/1300
Alliance: 1/1300
*Including the Speaker.
Full data available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HEvY7AqIJWHccfc_uFstwe64ULl0pbF2EnQCwYhwJYU/edit?usp=sharing
Last edited:
Sabot Cat
Banned
I would say a more representative - and in my view, better - system would give them far more.
Their share of the popular vote was more than double that of the runner-up, and I'm not really sure how to represent the results otherwise.
Here is the 1979 Canadian federal election under proportional representation.
The one missing seat on the infobox is held by the Rhinoeceros Party, who were barely able to secure a seat.
YEEAH! More Trudeau!
Really beautiful work. I see the Unionists borrowed a bit of their logo from the 1980s PC's.
- Status