Sabot Cat's Infobox Repository

Sabot Cat

Banned
This thread is a repository for all of the infoboxes I've made!

1iYKLwO.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ipedia-infoboxes.202133/page-397#post-9621897

mHwr4mL.png


DZVJL2v.png


quqJ2gL.png


P4SUZVj.png


sdbL0xo.png


fAAn03B.png


l7Q2Tpo.png


HT6A6nK.png


eec7KTA.png


4IM29Zg.png


aZtiXhQ.png


ooPgM6l.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-113#post-10766368

XEH8QKD.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-178#post-11060797

1h5ZD3O.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-182#post-11079602

txXXnwf.png


HgfvGrT.png

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-293#post-11470958

"Cameron has expressed that he won't run in 2020. Although he said he wants to serve a full second term, I think he made a similar kind of political miscalculation that Tony Blair did when he stated that he'd serve a full third term but not seek a fourth. If the heat really turns up on Cameron, especially considering his bare parliamentary majority that he could very well lose in by-elections, he'll probably be pressured into stepping aside for Osbourne."

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-293#post-11471136

"They coalesced as a party during the EU referendum, much like how the SNP did during the independence referendum. Backlash against the Tories - mostly for the economic downturn that takes place in this wikibox's future combined with unpopular spending cuts - helped them along the rest of the way.

The turnout was [also] depressed because there was a strong urge to kick out the Conservative Party, but no opposition party had a plausible chance of winning a parliamentary majority according to the polls and the papers. Many middle class, Middle England voters who voted Conservative in the last election didn't find Labour, UKIP, or the Liberal Democrats to be a credible alternative, and thus simply didn't show up."

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-294#post-11473688

6AJgR3v.png


Christian Democratic-Civil Rights Government (228)
Right Opposition (168)
Left Opposition (39)

iwzy3fG.png


New Liberal-Christian Democratic-Civil Rights Government (226)
Right Opposition (166)
Left Opposition (43)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-324#post-11612235
 
Last edited:

Sabot Cat

Banned
THE UNRESTRICTED, PUBLIC OPINION BASED
U.S. PARLIAMENT (1987-2011)


A proportional, multi-party, unicameral United States Parliament based on Pew Research Center's Political Typologies

(Read the full thing here, complete with all of the legislation passed, the vote tallies, party descriptions gently edited from the original Pew Research typology descriptions, and a day in the life of the United States that would be created under these circumstances.)

Introduction

Political science wonks and hobbyists often lament the structure of the United States federal government, decrying the entire project for being crippled by idiosyncrasies that were designed to make the entire legislative process inefficient. The Congress is burdened by a Senate deliberately out of sync with the mood of the nation due to its staggered elections. It's also deliberately disproportionate, with sparsely populated states like Wyoming received the same amount of seats as California, and conventions like the filibuster make it impossible to pass any hotly contested piece of a partisan agenda because three-fifths of the body are needed to invoke cloture. This isn't even mentioning that the problems that the House of Representatives suffers from, including a First Past the Post system that forces one to not 'waste votes' on third parties, or Gerrymandering that delivers majorities that have more to do with how the maps were drawn than how voters decided, or the extremely low voter turnout related to the world's shortest term of office for an elected official in a national government. And what of the President, who is elected separately from the Congress and not accountable to them, leading to divided governments with competing agendas? And what should one make of the influence of the Supreme Court, which can strike down popular legislation with no institutional checks on this power, for good or ill?

This is not to say it would be intrinsically desirable to eliminate all of these checks on popular legislative power, but it makes one wonder: what if they were? What if there was no Senate, no First Past the Post, no Gerrymandering, nor longer terms of office? What if there was a united, parliamentary government that is supreme in its authority in place in the United States? To make this less of a fantasy and more of a reasoned thought experiment, real world polling data will be used to fill in the details of this more complex American political system. However, this requires more than just looking at whatever policy gains majority approval in the polls, as legislatures are composed of parties and elected officials, and this thought experiment is intended to emulate an unrestricted legislature, not a United States ruled by referendum.

Since 1987, the Pew Research Center has created a thorough report on different political groupings of Americans that transcend party lines called Political Typologies. The Political Typologies vary from year to year, but they always offer a more comprehensive look at the range of the ideologies in the United States. For this thought experiment, they shall be used as the basis for political parties in elections that use a national proportional representation system like the Netherlands and Israel. Using multi-member districts that correspond to U.S. States would have been more realistic, but the data simply isn't available to do so. With the polling information we have however, a compelling portrait of a different America shaped by an unrestricted United States Parliament emerges.

Methodology

The voting age population was taken from relevant census data and extrapolated for off-years. Voter turnout for each election corresponds roughly to voter registration, with decreases and increases therein reflection of similar trends in U.S. presidential elections. However, they do not precisely reflect any real world data set, and are only there for verisimilitude. The total number of seats also holds no special significance, and was an aesthetic choice. The simulated elections occur on the years that the Pew Research Center conducted their Political Typology reports, and are under conditions that would only make sense if they occurred in the context of our reality. Furthermore, the shifting nature of the Political Typologies required authorial judgment in matching certain Typologies to each other through time, and they do not reflect any research on part of the Pew Research Center to link them together. In fact, at some points the Pew Research Center found certain political typologies to be linked when there ideological differences seemed to undermine that connection e.g. the socially tolerant, fiscally conservative Enterprisers of 1987 had much more in common with the socially tolerant, fiscally conservative Libertarians of 1994 than the group labeled 'Enterprisers' in 1994 and beyond, which exhibited a hitherto unseen fusion of fiscal and social conservatism.

Each year, the Pew Research Center also calculated a group they labeled 'Bystanders' that made up exactly 0% of likely voters in 1987 and registered voters from 1994 to 2011, which were characterized by their political apathy. They were thus excluded from the vote shares for each simulated party, which reflect percentages of likely or registered voters as opposed to percentages of the adult population. This can very rarely lead to legislation contrary to overall public opinion for adults that took into consideration the views of Bystanders. This is intentional however, as again, this is a project to simulate an unrestrained Parliament and not a nation-by-referendum.

The parties that make up the Government and the Opposition also have little to do with their traditional affiliation with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Instead, they're based on which parties have enough in common to pass a substantive legislative agenda without a single party having a majority of its members opposed to any part of the coalition agreement. Key pieces of legislation are often missing from the coalition agreements because they relied upon votes from parties outside of the government, which is intentional.

As noted before each legislative section, the order in which the parties are presented is by the percent of Aye votes given in favor of it. The party that introduces the legislation is the one with the highest percent of approval for that policy. For those opposing the legislation, the parties are presented in the order that they disapprove, or in the order of least approval. Responses that were neither approving or disapproving were counted as votes against because they were not equivalent to affirmation, or an Aye vote, and because Pew Research Center neglected to differentiate 'No' and 'Don't Know/Refused to Answer' responses in surveys such as the one conducted in 1987. Each legislation has a tally of Ayes except for the 1987 budget increasing domestic spending, as all parties in that simulated government correspond to political typologies that were broadly in favor of each item-by-item, but with no aggregate tally that could be used.

The specifics for certain legislation were minimally interpolated, with specifics – such as in the minimal sentencing policy in 1999 – provided through reference to the actual questions asked. Other interpolations, such as those for the national healthcare bill in 2005, were taken from the Pew Research Center's own description of these policies e.g. defining it with terms like 'universal healthcare'. The most heavily interpolated piece of legislation was the tax cuts in 2005, as advocacy for the wealthy to have their tax cuts expire while making the middle class tax cuts permanent, and support for all of the tax cuts across the board, was interpreted as support for a compromise legislation with permanent tax cuts for the middle class and temporary tax cuts for the wealthy. The provision to prevent schools from firing teachers because they're gay or lesbian was also interpolated as a reasonable extension of what those in favor of gay and lesbian people serving in the military would support. Similarly, interracial marriage was used as a stand-in for interracial dating in the 1987 parliament.

Finally, and most importantly, the descriptions for each party is a lightly edited version of those provided for their corresponding Political Typologies, which were written by researchers at the Pew Research Center. These works were released without copyright notice and not used for commercial purposes, but the author of this piece did not write the political descriptions in full, and the credit for that goes to the Pew Research Center, as does all of the polling data gathered. Their information was not only invaluable for the completion of this project, but the foundation of it.

Electoral System: Proportional Representation with seats allocated by modified D'Hondt method, shifting election threshold. Parties nationally polled below the threshold are not granted ballot access.

HuHAtE0.png


The Liberal-National Alliance is an electoral alliance between the Liberal Party and the National Party, in order to better favor their chances in attaining remainder seats and in light of their shared political goals. The number of candidates each of the respective parties within the Liberal-National Alliance receives is determined by which of their respective candidates are ranked high enough to attain seats by voters, with each party separately endorsing their own candidates.

1987 Coalition Agreement

The 1987 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the the the Liberal-National Alliance, the New Deal Coalition, the Protestant People's Party and the Movement for Peace, shall:

  1. Enact a Minimal Guarantees program to ensure that every citizen has enough to eat and a place to sleep;
  2. Increase spending on programs for the elderly, Social Security, the nation's health care, farmer's aid, AIDS research, and reducing drug addiction;
  3. Ensure that space shall not be weaponized, nor the Contras funded by the government.
  4. Condemn Communism, a totalitarian ideology incompatible with our principles and values as a people and a republic;
  5. Allow public school teachers to lead their class in prayer, to ensure that our children are given a moral education.

Left Opposition Statements

  1. The Civil Rights Congress and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress are opposed to the government because the coalition refuses to increase spending on unemployment programs and consent to the creation of a minority assistance program.
  2. The Radical Party is opposed to the government because school prayer is contrary to the separation of church and state that our republic has traditionally cherished.

Right Opposition Statements

  1. The Libertarian Party is opposed to all of the wasteful spending increases on big government programs.

8jt6LF6.png


The Movement for Peace and the Camelot Party failed to qualify for any seats due to decreased interest in their dovish causes with the end of the Cold War; their voters primarily went to the Liberal-National Alliance, the Radical Party, and the Civil Rights Congress. As before, the number of candidates each of the respective parties within the Liberal-National Alliance receives is determined by which of their respective candidates are ranked high enough to attain seats by voters.

1994 Coalition Agreement

The 1994 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Liberal-National Alliance, the Protestant People's Party, the Radical Party, the Civil Rights Congress, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:

  1. Create an employer mandate to require businesses to provide their workers health insurance
  2. Enact the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to strengthen our global competitiveness and open up opportunities for new prosperity;
  3. Establish a Workers Assistance Program for education and job training for any displaced workers;
  4. Reduce capital gains taxes to encourage investment in American businesses while refusing to increase income taxes to mitigate the deficit;
  5. Impose a two-year limit on participation in welfare, to ensure that no one is abusing our generosity;
  6. Exclude all illegal immigrants from benefiting from federal programs that are intended to benefit our citizens;
  7. Restrict the sale of handguns to improve public safety and ban smoking in public places to mitigate the deleterious health effects of secondhand smoke;
  8. Ensure that there are no perpetual incumbents by imposing a consecutive two-term limit on all Members of Parliament.

Left Opposition Statements

  1. The New Deal Coalition is opposed to NAFTA, which hurts American workers by encouraging outsourcing and driving down wages; the ban on smoking in public places is also unwelcome.

Right Opposition Statements

  1. The Conservative Party opposes the healthcare program and its employer mandate, which will hurt economic growth and increase unemployment by making it harder for job creators to hire, and the gun control bill.
  2. The Libertarian Party is opposed to the healthcare reform bill because it requires an increasingly large government with extraordinary powers.

x8lDd5W.png


The Radical Party, the Movement for Peace and the Camelot Party joined to form the Social Democratic Party, primarily in opposition to the Liberal-National Alliance's support for NAFTA, and the fiscally conservative agenda enacted after 1994 general election. The Independent National Party was founded by Nationals dissatisfied with sharing a party list with the Liberal Party despite being similar ideologically. The Libertarian Party failed to qualify for any seats due to the raised pre-election polling threshold, and they had previously received just 4.5% of the vote.

1999 Coalition Agreement

The 1999 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Liberal-National Alliance, the New Deal Coalition, the Independent National Party, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:

  1. Increase the minimum wage, to ensure that the paychecks of our workers keep up with rising price of living;
  2. Hold insurance companies accountable by allowing patients to sue them when necessary
  3. Make sure that minors are making an informed decision when they choose to have an abortion by requiring parental consent;
  4. Provide greater freedom for parents to give their children a quality education by providing federal funds for school vouchers
  5. End unlimited campaign contributions by prohibiting soft money contributions;
  6. Stabilize the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo by sending American peacekeepers.

Right Opposition Statements

  1. The Conservative Party is opposed to a minimum wage increase, which will kill jobs by making it more costly for employers to hire, and does not see involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as beneficial to American interests.
  2. The Protestant People's Party sees no grounds to send our soldiers to foreign soil without a pressing threat to national security.

Left Opposition Statements

  1. The Civil Rights Congress is opposed to restricting the freedom of speech of labor unions by limiting their ability to finance political candidates.
  2. The Social Democratic Party cannot fully support the school voucher program, which takes money out of public schools and gives it to the privileged like a reverse Robin Hood.


kjCdiBq.png


9/11 changed the political landscape considerably, firstly by encouraging the creation of the Freedom Party, a populist, self-described opponent of radical Islam. The right-wing parties clamored for war with Iraq, causing the Liberal-National Alliance to rupture, as the Liberal Party opposed it and the National Party supported it. The Independent National Party became the new home of all National Party Members of Parliament, and thus they dropped the distinguishing qualifier to reflect this. At the same time, the Liberal Party resolved to form a new electoral alliance with the Social Democratic Party, which shared many of their policies and overlapped considerably with their electorate. Unlike the Liberal-National Alliance, the Social Democrats insisted on unified endorsement of all candidates as a condition for sharing a list. The Libertarian Party still failed to clear the election threshold, and thus did not attain any seats. Finally, the Protestant People's Party renamed itself the Christian People's Party to appeal to Catholic minority voters as a means to grow the party.

2005 Coalition Agreement

The 2005 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Social Democratic-Liberal Alliance, the Civil Rights Congress, the New Deal Coalition, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:

  1. Ensure that every worker is paid better by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $6.45 per hour;
  2. Discourage outsourcing by penalizing businesses that want to ship our jobs overseas;
  3. Establish the Minority Assistance Program (MAP) to help racial minorities, women, and others similarly disadvantaged receive education and employment;
  4. Ensure that the government guarantees health insurance for all citizens;
  5. Permanently reduce the tax burden of the middle class and the needy while temporarily cutting them for the wealthy;
  6. Prevent the United States from being involved in a ruinous war with Iraq;
  7. Maintain access to all family planning resources for women, including contraception and abortion
  8. Oppose any attempt to spy on our citizens and infringe upon their liberties.

Right Opposition Statements

  1. The Freedom Party welcomes the mostly prudent fiscal policies of the government but condemns the reverse racism on display with the MAP, and opposes their weak response to the threat of radical Islam to the American people by refusing to enact the PATRIOT Act and go to war with Iraq.
  2. The National Party embraces nearly all aspects of the government platform, but urges the creation of private accounts for Social Security and war with Iraq along with all of the opposition parties.
  3. The Conservative Party opposes the socialist government, which leaves us vulnerable to terrorists and threatens to run this country into the ground with ill-conceived nanny state policies.
  4. The Christian People's Party urgently calls for war with Iraq before they develop nuclear weapons, and to reform Social Security by creating private accounts.

91vtIA8.png


This election was heavily influenced by the previous government's successful handling of the Great Recession, reversing unemployment and encouraging GDP growth. It was likewise affected by war weariness in Afghanistan, with the Freedom Party's zest for crusades against radical Islam falling so far out of favor that it didn't qualify for any seats. The same trend helped boost the Libertarian Party, with a decidedly more Dovish bent than in 1987, over the election threshold for the first time since 1994. The Christian People's Party also almost completely peeled off the fiscally leftist, socially conservative base from the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, preventing them from meeting the pre-election polling threshold. Finally, concerns about a ballooning budget deficit brought the austerity-focused, generally center-left Progressive Party into being on the backs of new, young voters.

2011 Coalition Agreement

The 2011 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Social Democratic-Liberal Alliance, the Civil Rights Congress, the Progressive Party, the National Party, the New Deal Coalition, and the Christian People's Party, shall:

  1. Ensure that our borders are secure through more rigorous enforcement of our laws against illegal immigration while allowing those who are already here to become citizens if they pay fines, have a job, and pass a background check;
  2. Bolster our energy independence through investing in alternative energy sources;
  3. Protect the successful universal healthcare program that millions of families rely upon.

Right Opposition Statements

  1. The Conservative Party cannot support amnesty, a plan for energy independence without investment in domestic oil production, and the continuation of the disastrous healthcare reform act.
  2. The Libertarian Party welcomes the immigration reform, but believes that development of alternative energies and healthcare are the domain of the free market.


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...h-typologies-as-parties.374401/#post-11650245
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Go3drlq.png


Victory for Chinese Democracy has about six articles that provide background.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-394#post-11789319

seZVE2d.png


The electoral system for the National Assembly delegates doesn't precisely match the description given in the background.

NA stands for Nationalist Alliance, which includes the Kuomintang and the Chinese Youth Party.

CDSP stands for China Democratic Social Party.

CDL stands for China Democratic League, and it includes the CDSP, the Taiwanese Self-Government League, Tibetan People's Party.

WPFF stands for Workers' and Peasants' Fatherland Front, and it includes the CCP, the Taiwanese Communist Party, and the Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party.

0f2u7Jc.png


LTSr5lg.png


KMT(L) is the Left Kuomintang.

aHhvTyT.png


PF stands for Popular Front, the coalition of the China Democratic League and the Workers' and Peasants' Fatherland Front which elected Zhang Junmai as President.

l1aYX4c.png


The Popular Front ran as a united ticket in 1974.

oc9nqKb.png


The Kuomintang completed the trend of historical revisionism in regards to Chiang Kai-shek, and ran his folksy, charismatic and conservative son as their candidate. Meanwhile, the former members of the Workers' and Peasants' Fatherland Front took over the Popular Front after the electoral collapse of the China Democratic League's parties in the last Legislative Yuan elections due to the ongoing recession. Consequently, the Popular Front renamed itself the New Democracy Front although they still ran a (nominally) CDSP candidate.

hOOYHrr.png


In attempt to increase their electoral viability, the Chinese Communist Party absorbed the CDSP to form the New Communist Party, which veered away from their traditional protectionist stance. Former members of the CDSP found the Socialist Party, the Labour Party and the New Civil Party, with the latter two only aligning with the New Democracy Front for the National Assembly elections. The NDF picked up some seats in places where they weren't competitive before, but failed to expand their base.

wEDsp1E.png


The lackluster electoral performance of the New Democracy Front encouraged new parties to emerge during the Legislative Yuan elections, including the People's Progressive Party and the Justice Party, who joined with the Labour Party and the New Civil Party to form the Unity Coalition.

ouHfgwv.png


The Socialist Party, the Taiwanese Self-Government League and the Tibetan People's Party join the Unity Coalition, as do various former independents.

jzWvldX.png


BXtIyap.png


The current political status quo coalesces around a two-way competition between the Nationalist Alliance (the Kuomintang, the Chinese Youth Party) and the Unity Coalition (the People's Progressive Party, the Justice Party, the Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the New Civil Party, the Taiwanese Self-Government League and the Tibetan People's Party).

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-394#post-11790595
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
What if you combined the Republican and Democratic primaries into one big, Louisiana-style primary? I attempted to answer that for the 2000 and 2008 election cycles, when there were no incumbents on either side. States are awarded to the candidate with the highest popular vote total, or who has the highest count of delegates nominally if neither party used a primary. Each candidate has a unique color in the map but not in the Infobox, in accordance to the standard style used for the Louisiana gubernatorial elections. The territories aren't included because they don't have Electoral College votes, and consequently the popular vote totals will differ from those found on Wikipedia. So, without further ado, here they are:

oTCVVNc.png


zXzvWtQ.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-ii.336197/page-427#post-11883437
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
audMOmb.png


moDAylE.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-61#post-12393733

"Thanks - and thanks to everyone who liked it, it means a lot! :) I based the data on national exit polls and did my best guesswork for state-by-state results. The amount Perot took away from Clinton and his Republican challenger in 1992 and 1996 were bizarrely even. Like, I idly wondered if there was some sort of conspiracy at work: in 1992, 38% of Perot supporters said they would have voted Bush, 38% said they would have voted Clinton, and the rest wouldn't have voted. In 1996, 30% of Perot supporters said they would voted Dole, 30% said they would have voted Clinton, and the rest wouldn't have voted. Both times they were exactly even according to the sources I used."

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-61#post-12394771
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
ZusaCa7.png


The United States presidential election of 2052 was the 67th quadrennial election presidential election. Senator Lily Vang of California, the Democratic Party nominee, and her running mate Senator Michael Burson of Texas, defeated Republican Party nominee and incumbent Vice President Ethan Webster and his running mate, Governor Isabella Gutierrez of New Mexico.

Then incumbent President Jacob McKay was ineligible to run for a third term due to the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Webster campaigned on continuing to "secure jobs" through protective tariffs and agricultural subsidies, while limiting job loss due to automation through rigorous enforcement of human prioritization laws. Vang attacked the McKay administration for sluggish GDP growth and income inequality, especially in the disparities between the plurality of non-Hispanic White Americans and all other ethnic groups, as well as between women and men. To address these, Vang called for increased free trade, up to a year of paternal leave days, and a financial assistance plan targeted specifically at racial minorities.

Vang was in the lead by double-digits for most of the year until the Fifth Taiwan Strait Crisis in August, wherein President McKay was commended for his leadership and received a rally 'round the flag bump which translated to gains for Webster, who took a small lead. In late October, a controversy re-surfaced for Webster's running mate Gutierrez, with proof emerging that she had drove a classmate to suicide through online bullying during high school. Webster's tone-deaf response to the controversy during the debates reinforced the Vang campaign's image of him as heartless and out of touch, which helped Vang eke out a victory by a relatively thin margin on Election Day.

Sources

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050
http://web2.uconn.edu/ctsdc/Reports/CtSDC_NonVotingApp_Final_20dec2007.pdf
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...pporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b183...illennials-more-open-idea-slavery-reparations

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-63#post-12402149
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
6IxAzeN.png


Electoral system: Closed-List Proportional Representation, modified D'Hondt with 5% threshold
Votes for parties that polled below the 5% threshold: 6.87%, 420,719,000 (2010); 9.65%, 170,027,000 (1910)
Note: Atheists and agnostics are represented in voter turnout. Consequently, popular vote percentages reflect percentage of religious population, not percent of total population.
Source for statistics: http://www.atlasofglobalchristianity.org/images/samplepages_3.pdf

The 2010 Kingdom of Heaven general election elected the members of the House of Lords. The incumbent Lord Speaker Jesus, leader of the Christian Party, formed a coalition government with the Islamic Party. The 2010 Abrahamic Coalition Agreement affirmed monotheism, the linear nature of time, their commons prophets, and finally, the nature of good and evil. This was accepted by God, thus continuing the Ministry of Jesus.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-83#post-12492057
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
What if you combined the Republican and Democratic primaries into one big, Louisiana-style primary? I attempted to answer that for the 2016 election cycle as I previously had for the 2000 and 2008 primaries, when there were no incumbents on either side. States are awarded to the candidate with the highest popular vote total. Each candidate has a unique color in the map but not in the Infobox, in accordance to the standard style used for the Louisiana gubernatorial elections. The territories aren't included because they don't have Electoral College votes, and consequently the popular vote totals will differ from those found on Wikipedia. So, without further ado, here it is:

nsG5XmQ.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-93#post-12540539
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
In honor of Australia's elections tomorrow, here is the 2013 Australian federal election if it were held under the binomial voting system! What is binomial voting, you ask? Well, in both Poland before the collapse of the regime and in Chile before 2013, each constituency received two MPs. An electoral alliance would receive one MP if it attained at least 33.4% of the vote, and if the majority of the winning electoral alliance was double that of the other one and had a minimum of 66.7% of the vote, they'd receive both MPs. In Chile, this enabled the former pro-dictatorial Alliance to continue to be relevant in their politics despite receiving far less of the vote than the democratic opposition parties' electoral alliance Concertación, and effectively prevented minor parties from emerging while essentially empowering party leaders over the voters. For these reasons, it was abolished. However, under the framework of the Two-Party Preferred vote in Australia's IRV system, both the 2013 and the 2010 Australian federal elections turned out fairly proportional!

VK7KvDy.png


The binomial voting system gave us 159/300 = 53%, 141/300 =47%. This is actually far more proportional than OTL's 2013 Australian federal election, wherein the Liberal/National Coalition received 60% of the seats and Labor received 37%. I was expecting it to spew out an amusingly weird result because this system does not work at all in theory, but it somehow works in practice.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-124#post-12648950
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
What if the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were elected via the binomial voting system? For those who are unfamiliar, the rules are as follows:

1. Each district elects two Representatives each.
2. If a party's share of the popular vote is double or more of the runner-up party (e.g. 66.7% vs 33.1%), it elects both Representatives for that district. Otherwise, both the first-place and runner-up parties elect a Representative each.

iNtjEeU.png


fsbYuLS.png


yhiFMbo.png


mbtzpWb.png


0l8w0xy.png


ucMwQn5.png


ghTEOYU.png



You can review my data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15VtmcYjbnnxj4U4QTwifVX8-1_FDKAGVDTTePUhkij4/edit?usp=sharing

An interesting tidbit I also discovered while working on this is that the number of districts wherein a party won both Representatives decreased as time went on.

Here is the number of Districts where a party won two seats (the winning party received double or more of the popular vote) divided by total Districts.

2000: 251/435, 58%
2002: 260/435, 60%
2004: 237/435, 63%
2006: 204/435, 47%
2008: 202/435, 46%
2010: 186/435, 43%
2012: 174/435, 40%
2014: 202/435, 46%

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-126#post-12655549
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
This took longer than I thought it would, but here it is, the 2015 Canadian federal election under the binomial voting system.

6g4jLhi.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-127#post-12656287

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.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-128#post-12657420
 

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!

Ah0ZEpM.png


o9RxkEA.png
b7dEXJs.png


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

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-128#post-12659435
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
What if the French Fifth Republic took some inspiration from the Israeli electoral system, and created a bicameral legislature with an upper house known as the National Assembly, wherein 120 members elected by proportional representation select the President? The following boxes takes the data from all of the first round results of the French presidential elections from 1965 to 2012, as they are national and personality-driven like the Israeli elections, and computed them with a 1% threshold (1965-1981), 1.5% threshold (1988-2002), and a 2% threshold (2007-2012) using the D'Hondt method. In the interest of completeness, if I could fit a party that received seats on the box, I put it on there. The results are as follows:


4v266eD.png

bzZWj6X.png

inT4GTY.png

nbIXo0A.png

dZdsf4r.png

rt3yaDr.png

v9bZNtk.png

ipsXClb.png

FHGF7Fu.png

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-130#post-12670100
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
ROMESIA
The Republic of Romesia is a sovereign state and regional power, with a population of 48,006,054 across its 26 provinces.

Political Parties of Romesia

Socialist Party

omVQejV.png


The Socialist Party is a social-democratic political party in Romesia. It is one of the largest parties in the nation, rivaled only by the National People’s Alliance. It began as a Marxist party which advocated working class control of the means of production, but today it defines itself as a centre-left voice for social democracy, with a robust welfare state and a well-regulated market. They are supportive of environmentalism, immigration and free trade, as well as higher taxes and regulations on the wealthy, big businesses, and the fiscal sector. The party is ferociously divided on the issue of austerity measures to reduce budget deficits, although a thin majority of its membership in government is in favor of them. They are consistently left-wing on social issues and favor greater minority rights. The Socialists are also credited with pioneering the largest and most depended upon social programs in Romesia.

National People's Alliance

0HwgmPn.png


The National People’s Alliance is a conservative and Christian democratic political party in Romesia. It was originally an electoral alliance between the People’s Democratic Party and the National Party that served as a catch-all for those who were right of centre. They favor privatization, reduced government intervention, lower tax burdens, an educational system with school vouchers, and equality of opportunity. In domestic policy they typically campaign on law and order issues, and have long been advocates against abortion as well as euthanasia. Although they have been socially conservative for most of their history, the Alliance has warmed to the legalization of civil unions for same-sex couples. The National People’s Alliance was historically in favor of free trade, but an ascendant, mildly protectionist and anti-immigration faction has gained control of the party recently.

Union for Democracy

XKLpsLQ.png


The Union for Democracy is a centrist political party in Romesia. It was founded as an electoral alliance between the Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party to act as a countervailing force against the other major parties. The Union for Democracy is a big tent coalition with a non-ideological electoral strategy, focusing on constitutional reform and protecting civil liberties. Their fiscal program favors economic liberalization and reducing the debt while maintaining progressive taxation and a social safety net for the vulnerable. There is a strong emphasis on individual rights and personal freedoms, and despite the social conservatives gradually waning in numbers as time has gone on, they remain divided on social issues. The party is also united by their strong pro-free trade and pro-immigration stances.

The Progressives

FmflGzu.png


The Progressives are a liberal political party in Romesia. They became known for their liberal positions on social issues and their fiscally conservative outlook. Specifically, they favored civil-unions for same-sex couples and improved access to contraceptives while advocating for greater privatization, fewer fiscal regulations, lower taxation (especially for businesses), and welfare reform. They also favor free trade, although they have advocated for expedited deportation of failed asylum seekers and are generally in favor of stronger borders. They are the preferred coalition partners for the National People’s Alliance.

Left Coalition

CjVVdZg.png


The Left Coalition is a left-wing political party in Romesia. It was founded as a coalition between the the Romesian Communist Party and The Greens, joined later by the Democratic Socialist Party, along with various Eurocommunist, Trotskyist and feminist groups. They are united by their anti-capitalist, protectionist, and anti-austerity left-wing fiscal policies. They also favor a secular state and educational system, a reduction in military spending and greater environmental regulations as well as increased investment in alternative energy sources. The Coalition is to the left on all social issues.

Nationalist Democratic Union

uwOuwRu.png


The National Democratic Union is a centre-right political party in Romesia. The party primarily appeals to disaffected National People’s Alliance voters and the upper class with its support for free trade as well as a guest worker program. They are to the right on most social issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage. They believe in introducing a school voucher system, and have traditionally maintained a secularist stance.

Romesian Nationalist Party

W5Y9Onm.png


The Romesian Nationalist Party is a right-wing political party in Romesia. The party is protectionist and fiscally conservative. They denounce the welfare state as socialist and seek to privatize its various social programs. The party advocates for greater military spending and reduced immigration. They also campaign for a more robust police force and harsher penalties for criminal behavior. Although they do not typically focus on social issues, they are to the right on all of them, ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage.

Alliance for Unity

K04TfTF.png


The Alliance for Unity is a far-right political party in Romesia. It is the most religiously conservative and nationalist party in the entire political system, and has been criticized for its ties to violent extremists and radical Christian sects. They wish to enshrine the Ten Commandments as basic law and oppose religious pluralism, believing that minorities and immigrants undermine the unity of the country. The Alliance explicitly advocates cultural nationalism based on the Christian faith.

Agrarian Centre Party

a4rZFar.png


The Agrarian Centre Party is a centrist political party in Romesia. It is founded on its advocacy for rural issues, and its voting base has traditionally been farmers. The party is in favor of agricultural subsidies, environmentalism, and decentralization. They are not opposed to immigration, but are generally skeptical of free trade. The party’s stances on social issues are not prominent, although they are opposed to same-sex marriage. It generally supports the separation of church and state.

Revolutionary Solidarity Party

wVBNgWA.png


The Revolutionary Solidarity Party is a far-left political party in Romesia. The party characterizes itself as socialist libertarian, but it remains ideologically heterogeneous. This has lent itself to divisions on the issue of free trade, although it is united in its calls to overthrow capitalism and abolish the class system. It also favors a vast reduction in military spending and eco-socialist answers to environmental problems.

Medina Action Union

1AGGzZZ.png


The Medina Action Union is a regionalist right-wing political party in the Medina Province of Romesia. The party advocates for the recognition of Medinans as possessing a unique culture and that consequently the province should be afforded greater autonomy over its own affairs.

Green Party of Romesia

XurxFXu.png


The Green Party of Romesia is a left-wing political party in Romesia. They support environmentalism, pacifism, and immigration, while standing to the left on social issues. They existed as an extraparliamentary environmentalist organization before contesting elections, and they struggle to compete as a non-socialist environmentalist party that remains centre-left on economic issues and in favor of free trade.

Autonomous Social Movement

jtHt3RM.png


The Autonomous Social Movement is a centre-left to left-wing political party in Romesia. They split from the Left Coalition at a party congress in which its planks were rejected. They are distinguished by their desire to add animal rights to the constitution, including the right to live, as well as promote veganism at a national level and end animal research, the production of furs, genetic engineering, hunting, circus animals, and animal husbandry. However, they are also democratic socialists with a full party platform calling for socialist solutions to economic and social problems.

Workers' Socialist Forum

YQuU20t.png


The Workers’ Socialist Forum is a Trotskyist political party in Romesia. It specifically belongs to the Morenist tendency, and is distinguished from other leftist parties through its calls to ignore foreign debt. They have opposed every recent war waged by Western powers as imperialist, and are most known for their newspaper and protest activities.

Hanguese National Party

1C9gBkq.png


The Hanguese National Party is a regionalist political party in the Hangu Province in Romesia. It is a coalition of centre-left and centre-right Hanguese parties that are united by the common cause of greater autonomy for the province. Their short-term aims are for Hangu to have greater control over taxation and fiscal matters. The party is also an adherent to Hanguese nationalism, which is the recognition of the Hanguese as a distinct people. Although some of its officials and members advocate for Hangu to become an independent nation, such an aim is not in the current program of the party.

Medinan Greens

f3yhBJI.png


The Medinan Greens are a regionalist political party in the Medina Province of Romesia. The Medina Greens are affiliated with the national Greens, but are distinguished through becoming the nucleus of a joint electoral list with various communist and socialist groups that advocate for the independence of Medina. Their fiscal policies range from advocacy for workers self-management to Marxism-Leninism depending on the faction in question.

Issues

POqihh1.png

President of Romesia

The President of Romesia is directly elected every five years via a two-round system, wherein a candidate must secure an absolute majority of the valid votes cast. The President selects the Prime Minister and their Cabinet, often giving the leader of the largest party the chance to form a government or governing coalition in the National Assembly. The President is not able to remove the Prime Minister or their Ministers once appointed unless they tender a resignation or such an action is recommended by a majority of their colleagues. The President is also responsible for calling the Parliament into session, and they can veto legislation or send it back for another reading. Finally, the President appoints the justices of the Supreme Court and other national courts whenever vacancies occur.

Results by Province

HB2G5lQ.png


BqzIGeA.png
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Parliament of Romesia

The Parliament of Romesia is divided into two chambers: the National Assembly and the Senate. There are 566 Members of Parliament, with 450 MPs in the National Assembly and 116 MPs in the Senate. The 450 MPs for the National Assembly are elected by party-list proportional representation from 94 multi-member constituencies to serve five year terms. 104 Senators are indirectly elected by the twenty-six provincial Legislative Assemblies via Single Transferable Vote to serve six year-terms. Each of the provinces elect four Senators regardless of population, while twelve Senators are appointed by the President.

Overall Results

lZg4OCv.png
npl1CtV.png

Os4AVjC.png
jsVLv8z.png

National Assembly

fZe5LBN.png

AVjTMKW.png


t9iQ5oP.png



Results by Constituency

NTAEmmC.png

Senate

PJUUb9p.png

5yd9RXf.png


ezIDuqs.png


Results by Province

bQklYr7.png


https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-195#post-12899187
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
The Retro-Future Election from the Year 2000

How would someone from c. 1960 predict the 2000 election?

Meet the Candidates


Charles E. Anderson has been the Governor of New York since 1995, and served in the Yugoslavian campaign of World War III. He is a serious workhorse who believes in honest and efficient government, spending within our means, enhancing our collective security via the United Nations, revitalizing cities and improving infrastructure, fighting for the enforcement of civil rights legislation, and opening more push button schools. He is a friend of the working man and the business man alike. He was nominated with the aid of candidate-preference primaries in the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. His running mate is Governor William Russell from California.

tr9cjgoatgczw3qh2pta.jpg

dwue80pzdmfww4w72gqk.jpg

John M. Rivers Jr. has been a Senator from Illinois since 1996, and he’s known for his good looks and ten-dollar words. He is a crooked politician at the beck and call of the machine bosses. He wants to enable Congress to stalemate progress and keep obsolete, wasteful programs in place. His idea of reform is to socialize space medical treatments despite the soundness of the current system, and to establish a highway from Alaska to Russia. He was nominated against potential reformers in the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. His running mate is Senator Harold Young from Texas.

mxgmu8sjx2iivd0v5je9.jpg

zjiqx9uv7mnctoy85ekq.jpg

The Campaign

John M. Rivers, Jr. of Illinois was a modern man who sounded as good as he looked, with a youthful exterior and an ability to produce nearly unmatched witty oratory. These only served to mask the canals of corruption that produced him in the first place. Charles E. Anderson of New York was the opposite, a candidate of the 20th Century, and not the 21st, with a low voice and a cloth coat befitting his modest demeanor. Despite this, the robotic psychohistorians all agreed that Mr. Anderson was the favorite to win. Others were still skeptical of this emerging science, not only because of the strengths of Rivers, but for the reason that the Democratic Party was not divided on race issues due to the presence of Mr. Young of Texas on the ticket.

The first debates were held in three-dimensional colored programming, and many believed that Rivers would be the main beneficiary. However, the audience of the 21st Century was a very literate and knowledgeable one, and they were impressed by Anderson’s criticism of President James A. Madden’s foreign policy. Specifically, Madden had refused to act when a downed Russian satellite was found in the Philippines after it had been long suspected that the Soviet Union was aiding Communist rebels in the country. Anderson argued that the United States had an obligation to upholding the principle of collective security under SEATO, in defending the sovereignty of nations under the UN, and in helping a long-time ally and friend. Anderson’s critical actions in securing Yugoslavia from Russian aggression as a United Nations military officer enhanced his credibility in this area. Finally, Anderson corrected smears from Rivers that he did not support labor unions, noting that there was a difference between a square union and a crooked union, and that all of the square labor unions had endorsed him while all of the crooked labor unions had endorsed his opponent.

The election was very close, with Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all being decided by a margin of victory under 5%. Rivers carried Alabama (10), Arkansas (7), Connecticut (9), D.C. (3), Florida (14), Georgia (10), Hawaii (4), Illinois (25), Kentucky (7), Louisiana (10), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (14), Minnesota (10), Mississippi (6), Missouri (8), Montana (4), Nevada (3), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (24), Puerto Rico (6), Rhode Island (3), South Carolina (7), Texas (28), and West Virginia (8). Anderson carried Alaska (3), Arizona (5), California (51), Colorado (6), Delaware (3), Guam (3), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Iowa (7), Kansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (25), Nebraska (4), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (18), New York (45), North Dakota (3), Ohio (26), Oklahoma (6), Oregon (7), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (10), Utah (4), Vermont (3), Virginia (12), Washington (11), Wisconsin (11), and Wyoming (3).

The Electoral College votes were calculated by taking the difference from the 1920 EC votes and the 1960 EC votes and applying that between 1960 and 2000.

Voting Age Population

VAP: 107,597,000 (1960) versus 61,495,000 (1920)

VAP (2000): 153,699,000

1920 + 1924 43.5, 43.9, 1928 + 1932 51.9, 52.5, 1936 + 1940 57.0, 59.2, 1944 + 1948 52.9, 51.3, 1952 + 1956 62.6, 60.1, 1960 64.0, 63.0

1920-1924: 43.7%

1928-1932: 52.2% (+8.5%)

1936-1940: 58.1% (+5.9%)

1944-1948: 52.1% (-6.0%)

1952-1956: 61.4% (+9.3%)

1960-1964: 63.5% (+2.1%)

Average: +3.96%

1968-1972: 67.5%

1976-1980: 71.5%

1984-1988: 75.4%

1992-1996: 79.4%

2000-2004: 83.3%

Anderson won with 63,503,508 popular votes and 298 electoral votes, a victory owed to the traditional Republican voters of college graduates and white-collar professionals, who were an increasingly large share of society as robotic laborers continued to supplant the kind of people who regularly voted Democratic in the 20th Century. The new President's status as a war hero of World War III is also believed to have been an important factor for swing voters. Upon his inauguration, President Anderson pledged to "achieve a more prosperous Union and a more peaceful world for all of God’s children."

gp2zlZ0.png

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-250#post-13028066
 
Top