Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes IV (Do not post Current Politics Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ASoIaF wikiboxes! All dates for Robb Stark and Jon Snow are taken from a fan created timeline based on information gathered in the books. Most of the dates for Robert Baratheon are made up except for his death. I made a few assumptions about Jon Snow's birth. All other information taken from the books.
RgouIAq.png
gLnL9VD.png
ypHr3lK.png
 
Nice, okay. Some follow ups then, if you don't mind, and only because this scenario is so cool: if the mandates provide who to vote for to the electors, how did Chase, who got only 12% of the mandates in comparison to Garrett, have a plurality of electors. It is rather confusing :coldsweat: And of course it's obvious that the Jefferson's didn't combine their support, our question is why didn't/couldn't they.
Mandates are held by individuals, who give them to electors; electors aren't guaranteed to have the same number of mandates. If elector A has 50 mandates and electors B and C have 20 mandates each, elector A's choice is the winner. It's like showing the number of states won on the US President boxes- Ford won 27 states in 1976, but Carter became president, and California still had more electoral votes than Nevada.

As for the Jeffersons- simply because they share the same surname, again, means nothing about their political positions, and as this is a royal election, it's quite reasonable a lot of the candidates will come from the same families; a reasonable inference might be that only people of a certain closeness of relation to the deceased can become candidates (and that reasonable inference would very likely be correct)*, so there may only be a few dozen possible candidates with only a handful of surnames. And when the time came where the choice of running, withdrawing, or endorsing had to be set in stone, these six remained in the race.

So the simple answer is- they weren't running for the family, they were running against each other, on different platforms, with different goals. It's wholly possible Hannah Garrett is a blood-Jefferson and Toliver only by marriage, and Elizabeth Powell is Jefferson only by marriage, though I wouldn't go so far as to presume that.

*(Another reasonable inference you might make could be that only people who are in some way descended from some subset of the prior monarchs are possible candidates, which could very easily mean that not being elected might disqualify some or all of your future descendants, so indeed the bloodline-based incentives for close family members to run against each other might be higher, since the descendants of more distant relations would be able to marry back in to the royal line sooner, though I'd imagine the actual political positions probably hold more weight for them than whether a yet-to-exist great-grandchild can qualify for the kingdom after two or three more deaths.)
 
I'm working on a Thirteen Colonies participation in English parliament wiki box where one colony has one MP but I am struggling with MP candidates outside of Massachusetts. Are there any good candidates?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I'm working on a Thirteen Colonies participation in English parliament wiki box where one colony has one MP but I am struggling with MP candidates outside of Massachusetts. Are there any good candidates?
Members of the House of Represetavies or the State House using the Thandian Method of Alternative Naming usually does the trick.

For example, in a wikibox last thread, I referred to IDS as George Summers, as George is his first name and Summers was his mother's maiden name.
 
An Unapologetic Dem-Wank:
Lose a Battle to Win the War.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton manages to narrowly beat Illinois Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic Primaries, after a long and bruising campaign. Clinton chose Indiana Senator Evan Bayh to be her running mate. Some suggested that she should have chosen Obama, but concerns over Obama overshadowing here were evident, and Clinton decided to cautiously choose her long-preferred and uncontroversial first choice. Hillary Clinton's campaign ran on her husband's presidency's track record, her liberal domestic agenda, and cautious criticism of the Bush foreign policy.

In opposition to Clinton was Republican Senator John McCain. McCain, a war hero and former prisoner of war during Vietnam, had served in the Senate for decades and was unquestionably qualified. However, if he were elected, he would be the oldest president ever. McCain had a "maverick" reputation, and had been known for breaking with the unpopular George W. Bush Administration on many issues. However, this led to many conservatives not quite trusting McCain. Hoping to assuage these concerns, McCain chose staunchly conservative South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to be his running mate (allegedly after Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declined the offer, citing his inexperience and casting doubt on the idea he'd bring minorities who voted for Obama). The fundamentals of the election were in favor of Clinton, but McCain fight a tough fight.

The campaign was known for swinging back in forth. Both candidates made gaffes; Clinton when asked about the Iraq War at one town hall stumbled and gave a "I support and oppose it" comment, while McCain made some haphazard attempts to bring up the Clinton scandals from the 90s, a tactic which was panned. The debates, both presidential and vice-presidential, were widely considered to be a draw overall. Clinton failed to tie McCain to Bush as a "Bush's 3rd Term" due to the fact that her voting for the Iraq war made it difficult to attack him on the most important question of the day, and let him use his maverick reputation to run as a new type of Republican. Many Democrats hoped to attack the Republicans on the economy, but predictions of approaching disaster did not turn out, and were dismissed by McCain as unAmerican fearmongering. The polls were close heading into election day.

Superdems2008.png


Election night did not provide a winner. Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire were all too close to call when the polls closed. Only after recounts in all of those states could McCain be certified as the winner. Hillary Clinton had narrowly lost the election. She took solace in the fact that the man she'd lost the election to was indisputably a well-qualified American hero.

SuperDems2008Senate.png


With the Democrats narrowly winning the popular vote, they managed to make gains in the Senate despite their defeat in the Presidential election, and managed to win an outright majority for the first time since the 1994 Republican Revolution. The Democrats would take another seat when Arizona governor Janet Napolitano appointed a Democrat to succeed McCain, but this would be countered by Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell appointing a Republican Senator to replace Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who had been named Secretary of State. The Democrats took minor losses in the House, but retained a narrow majority. All gubernatorial elections went as OTL, except for Pat McCrory winning the North Carolina gubernatorial election, a victory which was not large enough to flip the North Carolina legislature.

On January 20, 2009, John McCain took office as the 44th President of the United States of America. In his inaugural address, he promised that new leadership would see an end to the divisive Republican Party of the previous decades, victory in the Middle East, and continued prosperity. He reiterated that the fundaments of the American economy were sound.

11 days later, the Lehman Brothers Financial Services Firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
 
Mandates are held by individuals, who give them to electors; electors aren't guaranteed to have the same number of mandates. If elector A has 50 mandates and electors B and C have 20 mandates each, elector A's choice is the winner. It's like showing the number of states won on the US President boxes- Ford won 27 states in 1976, but Carter became president, and California still had more electoral votes than Nevada.

As for the Jeffersons- simply because they share the same surname, again, means nothing about their political positions, and as this is a royal election, it's quite reasonable a lot of the candidates will come from the same families; a reasonable inference might be that only people of a certain closeness of relation to the deceased can become candidates (and that reasonable inference would very likely be correct)*, so there may only be a few dozen possible candidates with only a handful of surnames. And when the time came where the choice of running, withdrawing, or endorsing had to be set in stone, these six remained in the race.

So the simple answer is- they weren't running for the family, they were running against each other, on different platforms, with different goals. It's wholly possible Hannah Garrett is a blood-Jefferson and Toliver only by marriage, and Elizabeth Powell is Jefferson only by marriage, though I wouldn't go so far as to presume that.

*(Another reasonable inference you might make could be that only people who are in some way descended from some subset of the prior monarchs are possible candidates, which could very easily mean that not being elected might disqualify some or all of your future descendants, so indeed the bloodline-based incentives for close family members to run against each other might be higher, since the descendants of more distant relations would be able to marry back in to the royal line sooner, though I'd imagine the actual political positions probably hold more weight for them than whether a yet-to-exist great-grandchild can qualify for the kingdom after two or three more deaths.)

Pretty damn awesome to say the least.

Also, you alluded to a smoke filled room where the true shenanigans led to the victor, and so I inferred that in that room it would be entirely possible for the obvious favorite Jefferson to waddle over to the less favorite Jefferson and make a deal. Since the role of Families is not explained at all, it isn't unreasonable for me to have wondered if families were close, etc. :p You seem dedicated to portraying my inquiries as rather unreasonable and seemingly dumb, with obvious answers, but truly I think all of my inquiries have been reasonable considering how little information was actually provided.

Also answering some questions by stating "well look at the box, x didn't happen because it didn't, isn't it obvious" doesn't help. Still, very interesting scenario here and thanks for the clarifications.
 
Also, you alluded to a smoke filled room where the true shenanigans led to the victor, and so I inferred that in that room it would be entirely possible for the obvious favorite Jefferson to waddle over to the less favorite Jefferson and make a deal. Since the role of Families is not explained at all, it isn't unreasonable for me to have wondered if families were close, etc.
The Jeffersons are all a little miffed at one another over exactly who bears the most blame for the sixth place finisher, who I notice no one considered likely to be party to a deal even before any explanation.
 
An Unapologetic Dem-Wank:
Delayed crash + no Palin = President McCain? Yep, I can see that. Obama probably has the 2012 nomination locked up, in which case the "dem wank" is a super-majority Obama presidency. That or Obama gets in an unfortunate car crash "no W" style and we get, like, a Kucinich-esque leftist. I eagerly await more...
 
What would a completely PV proportional EC look like? Well, here is 1904.

1904prop.PNG


The election is much closer than real life, which was a blow out for Roosevelt. Third parties have also benefited, Debs being the biggest example. One state is "flipped", that being Maryland (but technically it went Republican in OTL)
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top