World Parliament constituencies

Reader mode

VT45

Banned
New York:
Andrea Stuart-Cousins, Progressive Alliance: 3,472,992 (73.33%)
Edward F Cox, International Democrat Union: 1,137,453 (24.02%)
Julia Willebrand, Global Greens: 71,828 (1.52%)
Larry Sharpe, International Alliance of Libertarian Parties: 53,488 (1.13%)
Independent/Other: 232 (0.00%)

Hudson:
Matthew Ritter, Progressive Alliance: 3,546,559 (62.32%)
Bill Reilich, International Democrat Union: 1,983,272 (34.85%)
Jason West, Global Greens: 112,205 (1.97%)
Daniel Reale, International Alliance of Libertarian Parties: 46,176 (0.81%)
Independent/Other: 2,844 (0.05%)

9H7Og8Q.png
 

VT45

Banned
I posted that first two before midnight so I'm probably good. And I'm pretty knackered at this point anyway.
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

VT45 said:
I posted that first two before midnight so I'm probably good. And I'm pretty knackered at this point anyway.
Click to expand...
it's a good idea to put five or six (or more) constituency results in a post and then add a map, that's all. Or only post a map once every four or five updates.
 

michaelk156

Tried doing some election results for my home constituency using House of Representative results from the 2016 election. This is how it came out, hope I got the math right:

New Holland (Melbourne-Perth):
First-Past-The-Post
Josh Frydenburg, International Democrat Union: 2,369,135 (41.66%)
Bill Shorten, Progressive Alliance: 2,153,233 (34.44%)
Richard Di Natale, Global Greens: 720,897 (11.53%)
Nick Xenophon, Independent: 223,217 (3.26%)
Independent/Other: 550,245 (8.80%)

Instant-Runoff; Two-Party Preferred
Bill Shorten, Progressive Alliance: 3,182,276 (50.90%)
Josh Frydenburg, International Democrat Union, 3,070,434 (49.10%)

Whether voting is First-Past-The-Post, or Instant-Runoff as in Australia's actual elections, makes a huge difference as to who actually gets elected.

 

michaelk156

Another electorate outcome decided. This one contains New South Wales, New Zealand and the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra). It was originally listed under the name New South Wales but I think this would be rather controversial to the Kiwis. I propose we name it Tasman after the sea in between New Zealand and Australia as this is a more neutral title, either that or Sydney-Auckland. Without further ado, using info from the Australian 2016 election and NZ 2017 election;

Tasman (Sydney-Auckland):
Scott Morrison (or Malcolm Turnbull), International Democrat Union: 3,086,726 (42.82%)
Jacinda Ardern, Progressive Alliance: 2,679,620 (37.17%)
James Shaw, Global Greens: 591,309 (8.20%); endorsed Jacinda Ardern
Winston Peters, Independent: 186,706 (2.59%); endorsed Jacinda Ardern
Fred Nile, Christian Democrats: 169,966 (2.36%)
Independent/Other: 494,631 (6.86%)

Leading Party after Global Greens and Winston Peters endorse the Progressive Alliance candidate:
Jacinda Ardern, Progressive Alliance: 3,457,635 (47.96%)

Can't really do Instant-Runoff Voting for this electorate as New Zealand has a different system and so the data doesn't exist unless we fudge it. What did happen in New Zealand last election however is that both NZ First, lead by Winston Peters and the local Green party decided to back Ardern's Labour Government allowing her to receive a majority in NZ Parliament. I have accounted for this with a similar event happening in Tasman, where both the Global Greens and Winston Peters decided to endorse Jacinda Ardern, giving her a higher total than her main competitor Scott Morrison. I don't know how fair this is, but it reflects real-life politics and I understand endorsements like this do happen in America where a small party may back one of the majors to avoid vote spoilage (eg. CPUSA endorsing the Democrats) so it is not without precedent.

Given the setup of the electorate also and the demographics involved, I wouldn't be surprised to see a NZ regionalist and the Greens back Ardern over an Australian IDU member. Tasman in this timeline contains Tony Abbott's electorate which implies that Abbott may have been representative of NZ and the rest of Tasman in recent history which would surely put a bad taste in the mouths of many Kiwis. Another Australian/New South Welsh IDU representative might have been seen as something to avoid at all costs, hence the coalition in favour of Ardern by two NZ-based candidates. From what I can see also, New South Wales has a significantly higher population than New Zealand so NZ might feel a bit marginalised here.
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

michaelk156 said:
Another electorate outcome decided. This one contains New South Wales, New Zealand and the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra). It was originally listed under the name New South Wales but I think this would be rather controversial to the Kiwis. I propose we name it Tasman after the sea in between New Zealand and Australia as this is a more neutral title, either that or Sydney-Auckland. Without further ado, using info from the Australian 2016 election and NZ 2017 election;

Tasman (Sydney-Auckland):
Scott Morrison (or Malcolm Turnbull), International Democrat Union: 3,086,726 (42.82%)
Jacinda Ardern, Progressive Alliance: 2,679,620 (37.17%)
James Shaw, Global Greens: 591,309 (8.20%); endorsed Jacinda Ardern
Winston Peters, Independent: 186,706 (2.59%); endorsed Jacinda Ardern
Fred Nile, Christian Democrats: 169,966 (2.36%)
Independent/Other: 494,631 (6.86%)

Leading Party after Global Greens and Winston Peters endorse the Progressive Alliance candidate:
Jacinda Ardern, Progressive Alliance: 3,457,635 (47.96%)

Can't really do Instant-Runoff Voting for this electorate as New Zealand has a different system and so the data doesn't exist unless we fudge it. What did happen in New Zealand last election however is that both NZ First, lead by Winston Peters and the local Green party decided to back Ardern's Labour Government allowing her to receive a majority in NZ Parliament. I have accounted for this with a similar event happening in Tasman, where both the Global Greens and Winston Peters decided to endorse Jacinda Ardern, giving her a higher total than her main competitor Scott Morrison. I don't know how fair this is, but it reflects real-life politics and I understand endorsements like this do happen in America where a small party may back one of the majors to avoid vote spoilage (eg. CPUSA endorsing the Democrats) so it is not without precedent.

Given the setup of the electorate also and the demographics involved, I wouldn't be surprised to see a NZ regionalist and the Greens back Ardern over an Australian IDU member. Tasman in this timeline contains Tony Abbott's electorate which implies that Abbott may have been representative of NZ and the rest of Tasman in recent history which would surely put a bad taste in the mouths of many Kiwis. Another Australian/New South Welsh IDU representative might have been seen as something to avoid at all costs, hence the coalition in favour of Ardern by two NZ-based candidates. From what I can see also, New South Wales has a significantly higher population than New Zealand so NZ might feel a bit marginalised here.
Click to expand...
Sydney is hardly an unrepresentative name - its metropolitan area is 45% or so of the seat's population, and plenty of other seats are named for the biggest cities in the seat. I'm not following Canadian naming conventions here...
 

michaelk156

@TimTurner it's your call. I'm from Australia and I just found it weird to consider NZ as a part of an electorate named New South Wales. That being said though, I believe NZ was part of the colony of NSW in the very early days before it became independent, so I suppose the original name would be excusable if 'Tasman' is deemed inappropriate for whatever reason. New South Wales is probably a better name for the electorate than Sydney, as Sydney really does only refer to a large metropolitan area in the electorate. The reason why I suggested Sydney-Auckland as a name is because it pairs well with one of the name suggestions for New Holland, which was Melbourne-Perth, and because it emphasises that the electorate includes both NSW and NZ.

I'd say if Sydney-Auckland is out as a name, just stick with New South Wales or Tasman for the name.
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

michaelk156 said:
@TimTurner it's your call. I'm from Australia and I just found it weird to consider NZ as a part of an electorate named New South Wales. That being said though, I believe NZ was part of the colony of NSW in the very early days before it became independent, so I suppose the original name would be excusable if 'Tasman' is deemed inappropriate for whatever reason. New South Wales is probably a better name for the electorate than Sydney, as Sydney really does only refer to a large metropolitan area in the electorate. The reason why I suggested Sydney-Auckland as a name is because it pairs well with one of the name suggestions for New Holland, which was Melbourne-Perth, and because it emphasises that the electorate includes both NSW and NZ.

I'd say if Sydney-Auckland is out as a name, just stick with New South Wales or Tasman for the name.
Click to expand...
Sydney-Auckland is an acceptable name, as is Sydney. Tasman isn't terrible but it might be confused with Tasmania.
In many areas, I typically named seats for big cities within a seat, or the most populous subdivision of which I used to construct seats. A name doesn't have to reflect every interest or area within a seat, and it shouldn't either. Concise and succinct shortness was my goal. Sydney-Auckland, for example, might be okay, but not Sydney-Auckland-Canberra - that would be too long.
 

michaelk156

I'd have a go at more electoral results but I'm not sure what sort of methodology we are using. I was trying to use official data from latest elections and then using political situations to fill in a story that makes sense given the situation of OTL regions. This is going to get tricky though, the Sydney electorate was composed of a region that had two different systems and I felt like I had to fudge around it a bit to make it sensible. It's going to get trickier when we start combining dictatorial areas with democratic areas, as with the Mongolia electorate. Should we base this stuff off real statistics directly, or should we make up a story? I'm not sure where we're going with this...
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

michaelk156 said:
I'd have a go at more electoral results but I'm not sure what sort of methodology we are using. I was trying to use official data from latest elections and then using political situations to fill in a story that makes sense given the situation of OTL regions. This is going to get tricky though, the Sydney electorate was composed of a region that had two different systems and I felt like I had to fudge around it a bit to make it sensible. It's going to get trickier when we start combining dictatorial areas with democratic areas, as with the Mongolia electorate. Should we base this stuff off real statistics directly, or should we make up a story? I'm not sure where we're going with this...
Click to expand...
Mongolia is bordering 3 million, so in any event it is subsumed by Chinese voters in the constituency.
 

False Dmitri

TimTurner said:
Sydney-Auckland is an acceptable name, as is Sydney. Tasman isn't terrible but it might be confused with Tasmania.
In many areas, I typically named seats for big cities within a seat, or the most populous subdivision of which I used to construct seats. A name doesn't have to reflect every interest or area within a seat, and it shouldn't either. Concise and succinct shortness was my goal. Sydney-Auckland, for example, might be okay, but not Sydney-Auckland-Canberra - that would be too long.
Click to expand...

How about Neswanz. From the initials.
 
Miranda Brawner

Miranda Brawner

I like the idea of a hung parliament, but I think it would be cool to have more than 2 parties. For the left, there could be a split between Marxist-Leninists, syndicalists, and social democrats, and the right could be split along ethnic lines. Also, is there a backstory for this world parliament?
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top