Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes

[lord caedus]

1992 in the "US with Canadian parties" series.

I was certain this was going to be an electoral clusterfuck, but a couple of things stopped it from being so: outside of the south (where Bush's vote was divided with Buchanan), Perot always trailed Bush except in Maine. And since Perot's support was weak in the south, even having both major parties' OTL vote divided meant he didn't get any states from the south.

Brown's got a similar problem: the states where he either won the OTL primaries or got more votes than Clinton (meaning he got a majority of Clinton's OTL vote and would win the state if Bush/Buchanan/Perot didn't top him) were largely in areas that Bush won IOTL or where Clinton's OTL vote wasn't high enough where Brown could split it and still carry the state.

And then there was Buchanan. He didn't win any primaries in the south, but he acted as a spoiler for Bush in all but Texas & Oklahoma.



So it's a decidedly boring (relatively) electoral map. Clinton barely pulls out an EC victory despite winning only a third of the vote!

 

[True Grit]

1992 in the "US with Canadian parties" series.

Huh, wow. Wonderful infobox, but a real surprising map, as you said. Hard to believe that a presidential election with five(!) major candidates could still result in a map absolutely dominated by both the Democrats and Republicans.

 

[Utgard96]

I wonder how that would've looked if Perot never dropped out and re-entered.

 

[lord caedus]

Huh, wow. Wonderful infobox, but a real surprising map, as you said. Hard to believe that a presidential election with five(!) major candidates could still result in a map absolutely dominated by both the Democrats and Republicans.

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed while I was doing it. I wanted a complete mess.

 

[lord caedus]

1996 in the "US with Canadian-style parties" series.

This one makes 1992 look exciting. Perot never really had a chance to win any states in this one and Clinton simply dominated Dole & Perot IOTL in most of the states he won, so even with Dole's vote in the north being un-split, very few states swing towards him that he didn't win IOTL.

I pulled Harkin's results from the 1992 primaries since Clinton's only primary challenger in 1996 was the infamous Lyndon LaRouche. The only states he had a chance of winning (Minnesota & Iowa) he just didn't get enough of Clinton's OTL vote and ended up throwing to Gore (Iowa he came super-close).

I re-ran Buchanan for State's Rights and he came up with like 4% of the total vote (and no states), so he missed out on the infobox. He didn't miss out on throwing all of the south (with the odd exception of Alabama) to Clinton, though.



No third party wins any electoral votes. That's got to be a first in a long time in-universe, as well as the first time it's happened since I started doing this series.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Try 1972.

 

[Callan]

Canadian Federal Election, 2004
After Valcourt's abrupt resignation, the resultant leadership election was closely fought, with "Blue" Finance Minister Jim Flaherty narrowly beating "Red" Health Minister Andre Bachand. With the polls apparently with him Flaherty goes the polls but immediately regrets it: Pettigrew campaigns strongly and Flaherty flounders in the debates. However, an incoherent Liberal message and a late NDP surge allow the PCs to narrowly get a plurality. Pettigrew attempts to form a coaltion but Flaherty reaches out to Deb Grey before that, giving his government a narrow majority. The moderate Reformer and the Blue Try make it clear that they intend to bring their two parties "closer than ever" in order to keep the Liberals out of power.

TL-74
UK General Election, February 1974
UK General Election, October 1974
UK General Election, 1978 & Canadian Federal Election 1979
US Presidential Elections, 1976 & 1980
Canadian Federal Election 1980 & UK General Election 1981
Labour Leadership Election, 1981 & Scottish Assembly Election 1982
Canadian Federal Election, 1984; US Presidential Election, 1984 & UK General Election 1985
The Troubles and Ted Kennedy
UK General Election, 1988 & Canadian Federal Election 1988
US Presidential Election 1988 & Canadian Federal Election 1989
US Presidential Election, 1992; UK General Election 1993 and John Smith
Canadian Federal Elections, 1994 & 1996 and Brian Mulroney
US Presidential Election, 1996
UK General Election, 1997
Scottish Assembly Election, 1998 & Canadian Federal Election 1999
US Presidential and House Elections, 2000
Labour Leadership election, 2001
UK General Election 2001 & Scottish Assembly Election, 2001
Canadian Federal Election, 2003

 

[naraht]

1992 in the "US with Canadian parties" series.
...
So it's a decidedly boring (relatively) electoral map. Clinton barely pulls out an EC victory despite winning only a third of the vote!

Curious as to what the percentages were in California. iOTL it was Clinton 46.0, Bush 32.6, Perot 20.6, Marrou (Libertarian) .4, Other .3.

Nationally Brown takes almost exactly 1/4 of Clinton's vote which would give Brown 11.5 and drop Clinton to 34.5 , How much additional bonus did you give him as homestate?

 

[lord caedus]

Curious as to what the percentages were in California. iOTL it was Clinton 46.0, Bush 32.6, Perot 20.6, Marrou (Libertarian) .4, Other .3.

Nationally Brown takes almost exactly 1/4 of Clinton's vote which would give Brown 11.5 and drop Clinton to 34.5 , How much additional bonus did you give him as homestate?

I used the percentage Brown got in the California primary (about 40%) and didn't give him a home-state bonus (I normally only do that if a candidate didn't compete in a primary/election in their home state IOTL). That means Clinton got 27.6% of the vote and Brown got 18.4%, with the end result being Bush walks away with the state.

 

[lord caedus]

I decided I might as well keep on doing these since people seem to like them or find them interesting. I'm starting in 1968 for a couple of reasons: 1) Wallace running means I don't have to do more work for State's Rights. 2) It's this is the last election where primaries aren't the sole way a nominee is chosen (at least for the Dems).

Wallace's southern states votes are left the same. His northern vote I split evenly between Nixon & Humphrey (Humphrey's votes that he got from Wallace were not included in the calculations to get McCarthy's totals).



Yes, that's right. Humphrey falls to third in the Electoral College to Nixon and a dude who got 1/4 of Humphrey's total votes. McCarthy won the Massachusetts primary IOTL and that's the only state he picked up (DC didn't have a primary IOTL so Humphrey ended up taking the lion's share of his OTL vote and thus the district). The states Humphrey did win IOTL he mostly won pretty narrowly so here Nixon picks up all but a few of them (McCarthy got approximately 0% in the West Virginia primary IOTL which is why Humphrey held on to the state *here*).

Also, you read that right. Wallace's running mate is Colonel Sanders. This was a real OTL plan and since the Colonel is the only of Wallace's choices (others included his nominee Curtis LeMay, Ezra Taft Benson and John Wayne) from the south, he gets the spot.

I kept the faithless elector since the result (Nixon won the state) in North Carolina wasn't changed from OTL.

US Canada-style Series
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012

 

[Utgard96]

If this US really has a Canadian party system, wouldn't there be a Social Credit/Populist party in the Great Plains at this time?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

If this US really has a Canadian party system, wouldn't there be a Social Credit/Populist party in the Great Plains at this time?

If its like Social Credit, than move it to some region in the South.

 

[lord caedus]

If this US really has a Canadian party system, wouldn't there be a Social Credit/Populist party in the Great Plains at this time?

It's not an exact mirror of Canada's party system through time.

It started out as what would a Canadian-style party system of four main parties (one of them being a regional one) look like in 2012 and since the parties I used were all together in 1948, I'm going under the premise that State's Rights and the Progressives didn't die after that election.

 

[Utgard96]

If its like Social Credit, than move it to some region in the South.

The South is Quebec here, so that would only half-work. Although come to think of it, assuming he never leaves his populist roots to take up the banner of segregation, Wallace might be a killer Réal Caouette analogue.

It's not an exact mirror of Canada's party system through time.

It started out as what would a Canadian-style party system of four main parties (one of them being a regional one) look like in 2012 and since the parties I used were all together in 1948, I'm going under the premise that State's Rights and the Progressives didn't die after that election.

Makes sense, actually.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

It's not an exact mirror of Canada's party system through time.

It started out as what would a Canadian-style party system of four main parties (one of them being a regional one) look like in 2012 and since the parties I used were all together in 1948, I'm going under the premise that State's Rights and the Progressives didn't die after that election.

BTW, its States', as in plural possessive. Just pointing that out.

 

[htgriffin]

A suggestion

Can anyone who knows what they are doing set this up?

 

[lord caedus]

1972 in the "US with Canadian-style parties" series, AKA "Dick Nixon curbstomps everyone"

I had Wallace as the SR candidate. To get his state-by-state and overall percentages, I matched his 1972 Florida primary performance up with George Smathers (another segregationist southerner)'s performance in the 1968 FL Dem primary and gave him the approximate percentage (about 89%) of his OTL total in each state & nationally.

Then, I lopped off Wallace's votes from everyone else's and came up with Nixon's and McGovern's new totals by calculating their percentage (their OTL vote percentage/both of their combined OTL total) by the remaining percent left over (around 92% after minor party voters and Wallace's are taken out).

Humphrey got whatever percent he got in the 1972 primaries or a flat rate of 49% of McGovern's OTL votes (he technically got more votes in the primaries, but I figured McGovern deserved a bit more since he actually won the 1972 primaries) otherwise.



It's a blood bath, with Wallace getting two states and McGovern grabbing DC. Humphrey gets completely shut out of the EC, probably the first time a Democrats' been shut out of the EC since 1872 (when the Liberal Republicans competed instead of the Dems). Nixon also gets a majority of the popular vote, the first time someone's got that in this series.

I kept John Hosper's faithless elector because, like in 1968, the result was the same as OTL.

(Also, I realized that since States' Rights doesn't compete in Maryland, Wallace probably wouldn't have been shot ITTL)

US Canada-style Series
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012

 

[Nofix]

I want to see a US 1992/94 House election along the same lines as the Canadian 1993 election, a complete bloodbath for the Republicans and the rise of several new parties to take their places. I have a vague idea of how (Gingrich gets all of his dirty news aired, and a Civil War brews between the Republicans as they fight over who gets the House minority Leadership), but I can't find a way to do it good. Anyone else want to try?

 

[True Grit]

A Minor Meighen Majority

Here's the first in my next (and best yet!) infobox series.



The basic premise is that Arthur Meighen manages to scoop up the few more seats he needed to form a majority government, preventing King from holding on to power.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Caedus, how do you plan to calculate the results once you get far enough back that the States' Righters start to mostly pull from the Democrats? With both the Progressives and States' Righters pulling from the Democrats, I don't see how they can win except in 1964.