Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VII (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

R.de3c89557348c5803d70a05750d5a76e


The Giscardverse: What if Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had been re elected president of France in 1981?
------​
View attachment 898148
View attachment 898149
View attachment 898150

------
I heard parliaments are a thing​
View attachment 898140
------
I heard there are some countries on Earth that do not have the luck to be France...
View attachment 898141
View attachment 898152
------
View attachment 898144View attachment 898145
If DC were made a state, there would only be 537 electoral votes.
 
Huh, why did it take until after 2019 to abolish the septennat? Also, without Mitterand changing the system briefly in 1986, why does France move to a proportional system and stay there?
It simply took two decades longer to go to five-years terms because no one was really interested in limiting their own power when in office lol. It was adopted along with PR and new regions (wich are awful on purpose) during the centrist reformist Borloo presidency.

I thought that in a TL with a country named Eurasia, independent Kanaky, no german reunification and Northern Ireland out of the UK these administrative reforms being delayed wouldnt be the most shocking thing lol
 
DemsBOIEEEE.png

The Democratic Party was a political party in the United States that existed during the 19th century. It emerged in the late 1820's following the collapse of the Democratic-Republican Party, being the union of that party's elements who had backed Andrew Jackson in the 1824 election and opposing the pro-Adams, pro-Clay sections that would form the National Republican and later Whig Parties which it would compete with during the Second Party System, in which it was considered the dominant party. It produced five presidents who governed over 24 years, from 1829 to 1841, 1845 to 1849, and 1853 to 1861.

The party embodied the ideology of its founder, Andrew Jackson, who dominated U.S. politics during the 1830's and would be the party's defining figure for its entire history. It was the pure evolution of Thomas Jefferson's ideas, based on agrarianism and individualism, but with innovations; especially after the 1824 election and its infamous "Corrupt Bargain," Jackson was a stalwart believer in the popular will, and his organization was key in expanding suffrage, shifting the practice of selecting electors via a popular vote rather than via state legislatures (as had previously been more common), as well as removing property requirements for suffrage. The party also stood for expansionism, most notably embodied by the Mexican-American War sought by President James K. Polk, in which much of the American West was annexed, in contrast to the less expansionist Whigs. The party also stood for a strong executive, in the vein of strongmen like Andrew Jackson, in contrast to the approach of Whigs like Henry Clay who gave more deference to the legislature.

The party, like the Whigs, held both northern and southern wings that dramatically diverged on the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats varied on levels of opposition to slavery, from Stephen A. Douglas, the 1850's leader of the party's northern wing, who advocated popular sovereignty; to Martin Van Buren, who after his term ended ran as the Free-Soil Party nominee in 1848; to powerfully anti-slavery men like Hannibal Hamlin who largely ultimately defected to the Republican Party. Southern Democrats were, unsurprisingly, powerfully pro-slavery; after the Whig collapse in 1854, many Southern Whigs slowly made their way to the Democrats as the new alternatives that emerged were either the vocally anti-slavery Republicans or absorbed by them. During the late 1850's, as a result, the Southern elements of the party were dominant, resulting in the very pro-slavery administrations of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, widely considered some of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

The party began to fall apart in the early 1860's. A deadly regional split between northern Democrats who back Stephen Douglas's bid and southern Democrats who backed that of John Breckenridge ensured the party's defeat in the 1860 election, which saw Abraham Lincoln elected president. The subsequent secession of the southern states gutted the southern-dominated party; though they initially managed to attract most anti-Republican supporters during the 1862 and 1864 elections, the split of the National Union Party from the Republicans took a lot of support from them. The sections of the party that remained were majority composed of former Copperheads (pro-peace Democrats) and they nominated George H. Pendleton for president in the 1868 election. Many voters were turned off either by Pendleton's Copperhead past or his economic policies, and many defected to Vice-President Andrew Johnson's National Union run. In the aftermath of that election, most anti-Republican voters headed to the National Union, ending the Democrats' time as a major party. They negotiated a fusion deal with the National Union in 1872; after that almost all remaining major Democratic politicians joined the National Union. Though "national conventions" of the party would formally take place during 1876, 1880, and 1884 to endorse the nominees of other major parties, and politicians running on the party's line subsisted until the 1880's, the party organization was largely defunct after 1874 and no 1888 convention was ever called, organized, or held. As a result, most cite its final 1884 meeting as its date of dissolution. Most of its remaining members had, by that point, joined the Liberal Party, whose competition with the Republican Party in the Third Party System from 1880 to 1930 ended the "Long Dealignment," the period between 1854 and 1880 in which the U.S. lacked a stable, two-party system.

The name "Democratic Party," it should be noted, is an anachronistic term largely used by scholars, along with the term "Jacksonian Party." Though used often in the modern day, in the party's time it was rarely, if ever, referred to as such. Its contemporaries referred to it as "the Democracy," and in effect the term "Democratic Party" brings the name more in line with modern party name conventions. In contrast, the also anachronistic term "Democratic-Republican Party," or "Jeffersonian Republican Party," seeks to differentiate the first Republican Party that existed from 1792 to 1824 from the second Republican Party that existed from 1854 to 1944, rather than use the alternative "Democratic Party" that is more commonly used to refer to the Jacksonian Democracy.
 
Now that I think of it I guess its because the Electoral Votes for the presidential election is based on the number of Reps and Senators of that State in Congress.

DC has three, the minimum, wich means 2 senators that each states get+1 rep

The thing is that rep is a "fantom" one as DC does not actually have representation in congress but also the number of Representatives is limited and if DC received statehood and représentation in congress, one seat in the house should be taken away from one of the others 50 and given to DC, thus replacing the "fantom" seat by a real one at the cost of one Electoral vote from another state and lowering the total to 537


Well I guess
 
Now that I think of it I guess its because the Electoral Votes for the presidential election is based on the number of Reps and Senators of that State in Congress.

DC has three, the minimum, wich means 2 senators that each states get+1 rep

The thing is that rep is a "fantom" one as DC does not actually have representation in congress but also the number of Representatives is limited and if DC received statehood and représentation in congress, one seat in the house should be taken away from one of the others 50 and given to DC, thus replacing the "fantom" seat by a real one at the cost of one Electoral vote from another state and lowering the total to 537


Well I guess
I don't think that's how it works. The "fantom" seat would just become a real one and the electoral count remains the same (1 Representative+2 Senators=3 Electoral Votes; the same as Wyoming even though Wyoming has a lower population). In the end it stays the same with 538 electoral college total with 270towin.
 
I don't think that's how it works. The "fantom" seat would just become a real one and the electoral count remains the same (1 Representative+2 Senators=3 Electoral Votes; the same as Wyoming even though Wyoming has a lower population). In the end it stays the same with 538 electoral college total with 270towin.

The issue is the House is capped in the number of representatives it has. The non voting territorial representatives do not count within this but if DC became a state it's representative would count (unless a new amendment changed allocation/size limit). Therefore yes, the number of electors would fall by one as next redistribution of house seats one state would lose a representative to account for the DC one.
 
The issue is the House is capped in the number of representatives it has. The non voting territorial representatives do not count within this but if DC became a state it's representative would count (unless a new amendment changed allocation/size limit). Therefore yes, the number of electors would fall by one as next redistribution of house seats one state would lose a representative to account for the DC one.
Huh, I never knew that before. I didn't know that the House was capped.
 
The issue is the House is capped in the number of representatives it has. The non voting territorial representatives do not count within this but if DC became a state it's representative would count (unless a new amendment changed allocation/size limit). Therefore yes, the number of electors would fall by one as next redistribution of house seats one state would lose a representative to account for the DC one.

This is a possible issue that I think about every now and then: that if it ever looked like U.S. statehood for DC or (say) Puerto Rico might really happen, at some point people would start doing apportionment math to assess the relative potential impact to each major party. Presumably this would factor into the politics of statehood happening at all.

To illustrate: if you keep the statutory size of the House fixed at 435 seats and re-run the apportionment based on the 2020 Census, the state of Columbia is allocated 1 seat -- and Minnesota loses 1 seat. By a funny coincidence, Minnesota's US House delegation is split 4D-4R right now. With Democratic majorities in both houses of the MN legislature and a Democratic governor, redistricting MN with 7 seats instead of 8 could mean some relatively-safe-for-Republicans seat goes away. (NB: not trying to make a political argument here, just to show how a certain kind of "zero-sum" political dispute might arise in the hypothetical situation where DC statehood was near to happening.)

If you try it with the House size changed to 436 seats, Columbia gets 1 seat and nothing else changes; the Republicans don't lose a seat but the Democrats do (it's safe to assume) gain one. Still grounds for a fight. Hmm.

Conveniently(?) enough, at 439 seats, 1 extra seat each goes to "Columbia", New York, Ohio, and Texas. Two blue states, two red states! Maybe that's a "good-enough" "fix" for this "problem"? ;)

Of course, Columbia's two senators, all but certainly coming both from the Democratic Party, would I think probably be the bigger sticking point!
 
On May 5, 1865 the United States entered into crisis as all senior officials of the Executive Branch were assassinated. In a grand conspiracy, several former Confederate officials and Southern sympathizers sought to decapitate the Federal Government and continue the war. President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant were both shot after meeting with each other in Washington, both dying of their wounds minuets after the shooting. Secretary of State William S. Seward was attacked in his house, where he was stabbed in the neck, bleeding out before help could arrive. Finally, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin was shot near his home, succumbing to his wounds a few hours after being attacked. By 6:00 PM, the US was in total crisis.

With their deaths, Layfette S. Foster became acting president, and a special election was soon organized. During the 1865 Republican National Convention, radical Benjamin Butler quickly emerged as the front runner, where he won his parties nomination. In contrast, Democrats organized under the "Union" coalition nominated Horatio Seymour. In the end Butler won a comfortable victory, but it was not the landslide the Republicans expected. The fate of the American Republic rested in Butler's hands in March 1866, as fears of a further Southern Rebellion permeated throughout Washington.
1865 Presidential Election.png
 
Top