Challenge: Single party dominance in your country

Douglas-Home came surprisingly close to winning the 1964 election, even though it was on the back of 13 years of Tory rule and he was considered out of touch and fairly ineffective.

What if Douglas-Home scrapes a majority in 1964, Wilson remains Labour leader, and the next election is held in 1968/9 during the heights of youth protest across the world...Wilson comes to power, but the military and establishment are scared that he's the vanguard for the angry youth (and doing the Soviet Union's work) and we get the famous Mountbatten coup?

Of course it wouldn't fulfil this challenge if our democracy was really compromised like that but it does make you wonder.
Hmm.
I've been trying to think of a plausible way for Britain to become a dictatorship post World War II for some time. I think you might have done it. Only thing is, Mountbatten himself apparently saw the plots as treason, so it woould have to be someone else, and I can't think of anyone!
 
These were close elections in our TL. It does not make sense to squeeze election results into another timeline where due to the butterfly effect the politics would be changed completely anyway.
For example, this would have massive effects on the politics on state level. Dominance of a party on federal level is usually balanced by the opposition party in the upper house,
the Laenderrat. German politics would become unrecognizable very fast.

Your are partially right. But the underlying thought is that such a scenario is possible. Germany's electorate structurally supports - from 1949 apparently until now, although the end might be in sight - the government of a moderately conservative party with a strong socialdemocratic streak.

I agree, and probably Freivolk, too, that you cannot prevent the SPD from winning a federal election now and then, especially when they allow someone who from their right-wing to campaign. But one cannot help but notice that every SPD-led coalition on the national level only clung to power very narrowly after their first years in office. The aforementioned structures within the electorate recover rather fast and led to the very narrow wins in 1976 and 2002. In both cases, a return to power of the CDU is anything but impossible.

1972 and 1980 are rather exceptional to the point that extraordinary circumstances allowed the SPD to thoroughly mobilize their voting base. In 1972, this was due to the CDU's reluctancy to accept the necessary - and also, 3 years was apparently not enough for a conservative backlash, in 1980 due to the mistake of putting Strauß into the field.

I would argue about the "unrecognizability" aspect. The German political mainstream is not that far apart from each other, esp. CDU and SPD to achieve that. And the problems remain the same, whether we change some bits of who is in charge. The balancing aspect of the Bundesrat is also a key element in that. But expect for Schröder in 2005, who IMHO simply lost his nerve, the majorities in the Bundestag never caused a federal government to break down. As in the US and France a sort of "cohabitation" is a normal element in German politics. Add to that the fact that most field of politics are either federal or on the state level. This also hinders "state politics to become massively changed".

Also note that while the duration of SPD-led governments gets shorter, the general swings remain the same. Actually, we get one more swing with the chancellorship of Hans Apel.

One could also argue that a FRG where actually Roland Koch is Bundeskanzler isalready an absolutely unrecognizable thing.:eek:

One more point: I could well imagine a 2010-election not leading to a 3rd CDU-victory in a row, especially if Stoiber might have sent the Bundeswehr into an Iraq equivalent or the economic crisis hits Germany differently.

@Freivolk: it would be interesting to see what coalitions you might envision. Red-Green in 1981 seems out of the question. Rau still tried to rule that out in '83 OTL. Also, the history of the FDP might be a very different one, as they are the weakest ones when it comes to fighting butterflies, IMHO.
 
No Watergate scandal

Nixon 69-77
Carter 77-81
Reagan 81-89
Bush 89-97
Gore 97-01
McCain 01-09
Romney 09-12

Hmmm, interesting, and certainly a better 2000s than in OTL. But how does replacing Ford with Nixon change the ensuing elections as much?
 
This is extremely hard for the Netherlands, a country were coalition governments rule since the 19th century. The only way I could see this happen is to avoid the decline of the Dutch Christian Democratic parties (ARP, CHU and KVP), but they still decide to merge into the CDA. These three parties always used to have a majority of the votes together, but they started losing it in the 60's. You need to stop the trent of secularisation in the Netherlands though.

The only other way I can see it happening is if the 'Breakthrough' (Doorbraak) after WWII is succesful and the SDAP and various liberal group merge in a single party as tried. The socialist need to compromise a bit (much?) more than they were willing in OTL to make this work.

With some more appeal to leftist Catholics a majority is possible. Alternatively, a different liberation of the Netherlands can prevent the Catholics from using the winter 0f 1944-45 to organize a strong party while the rest of the country is still occupied and the parties there living underground.

I can see a broad centre-left peoples party dominating Dutch politics to this day just like in Sweden.
 
The only other way I can see it happening is if the 'Breakthrough' (Doorbraak) after WWII is succesful and the SDAP and various liberal group merge in a single party as tried. The socialist need to compromise a bit (much?) more than they were willing in OTL to make this work.

With some more appeal to leftist Catholics a majority is possible. Alternatively, a different liberation of the Netherlands can prevent the Catholics from using the winter 0f 1944-45 to organize a strong party while the rest of the country is still occupied and the parties there living underground.

I can see a broad centre-left peoples party dominating Dutch politics to this day just like in Sweden.
Personaly I doubt it. The Netherlands is too right wing for such a thing to happen. Still it probably is too left wing for a right wing dominance. Which is why it never happened here and probably never will happen.
 
Your are partially right. But the underlying thought is that such a scenario is possible. Germany's electorate structurally supports - from 1949 apparently until now, although the end might be in sight - the government of a moderately conservative party with a strong socialdemocratic streak.

I agree, and probably Freivolk, too, that you cannot prevent the SPD from winning a federal election now and then, especially when they allow someone who from their right-wing to campaign. But one cannot help but notice that every SPD-led coalition on the national level only clung to power very narrowly after their first years in office. The aforementioned structures within the electorate recover rather fast and led to the very narrow wins in 1976 and 2002. In both cases, a return to power of the CDU is anything but impossible.

1972 and 1980 are rather exceptional to the point that extraordinary circumstances allowed the SPD to thoroughly mobilize their voting base. In 1972, this was due to the CDU's reluctancy to accept the necessary - and also, 3 years was apparently not enough for a conservative backlash, in 1980 due to the mistake of putting Strauß into the field.

I would argue about the "unrecognizability" aspect. The German political mainstream is not that far apart from each other, esp. CDU and SPD to achieve that. And the problems remain the same, whether we change some bits of who is in charge. The balancing aspect of the Bundesrat is also a key element in that. But expect for Schröder in 2005, who IMHO simply lost his nerve, the majorities in the Bundestag never caused a federal government to break down. As in the US and France a sort of "cohabitation" is a normal element in German politics. Add to that the fact that most field of politics are either federal or on the state level. This also hinders "state politics to become massively changed".

Also note that while the duration of SPD-led governments gets shorter, the general swings remain the same. Actually, we get one more swing with the chancellorship of Hans Apel.

One could also argue that a FRG where actually Roland Koch is Bundeskanzler isalready an absolutely unrecognizable thing.:eek:

One more point: I could well imagine a 2010-election not leading to a 3rd CDU-victory in a row, especially if Stoiber might have sent the Bundeswehr into an Iraq equivalent or the economic crisis hits Germany differently.

@Freivolk: it would be interesting to see what coalitions you might envision. Red-Green in 1981 seems out of the question. Rau still tried to rule that out in '83 OTL. Also, the history of the FDP might be a very different one, as they are the weakest ones when it comes to fighting butterflies, IMHO.

I think it would still be SPD/FDP. Its in any case just too early for the Greens and I ones even argued in a "Kohl wins in 1976"-thread, that a CDU-goverment in the late seventies may delay their rise. I assume, that the FDP will propably not survive the 1985 election. I think its possible, that the CDU/CSU can keep a absolut majority, even without FPTP from 85 till 98 (okay, for 1994 it may be a bit of a stretch). In a different party-system, where the CDU has to catch more liberal voters, one of the right-populist projects in the 80s and 90s may avoid nazi-poisoning and lead to success. In the 2002 and 2006 they may still be to controversial, so they just act together with PDS/LINKE as spoilery, which lead to a two-term great coalition under Stoiber. After 2010 the right-populist are stablished enough to be accepted as coalition partner.
 
Hmmm, interesting, and certainly a better 2000s than in OTL. But how does replacing Ford with Nixon change the ensuing elections as much?

Propably without Watergate, the GOP do better in the 1974 congress election. Which lead propably to them not just winning the Senate but also the House in 1980. With the conservatives being stronger in congress, Bush stay with his "no new taxes" promise and win a close election in 1992. With more of the conservative agenda passed in the 80s and a Republican in the White House there is no Gingrich-revolution. The GOP stay more moderate but is still conservative enough to win the South.
 
Last edited:
I somehow do not see Hans Apel (may he rest in peace) become a candidate without having been Ministerpräsident in a land.

He tried to win Berlin, but in 1985 OTL. Wouldn't Rau be a more probable candidate in 1981 instead of OTL '83?

Does Kiesinger have an absolute majority in your *1969? I agree that the election was very close and Kiesinger saw himself as the clear winner for most of the evening.

The Spiegel write that Apel was at his time seen as the crown-prince of Schmidt and just a heartbeat away from the chancellorship. And Schmidt after all was never Ministerpräsident too. Still, ITTL, if the SPD has to go to the opposition in 1977, he will propably try to become Bürgermeister in Hamburg or Berlin, with some more success.
I think ist would still be to early for Rau to run in 1981, even if his carrer isn´t delayed by butterflies (the CDU propably winning NRW in 1975).
Yes, Kiesinger wins in 1969 a absolut majority. Like you say, it was a close thing. I actually maide a thread for this.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=209407
 
My mistake! Thanks for pointing that out, like probably many people I lived with the wrong conclusion that Schmidt had been Mayor of Hamburg in '62...

Just reading the thread. Thanks for remarking.

He surly acted like the mayor during the flood. The real mayor wasn´t happy about it.:D
 
Top