Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Election What-ifs? => Topic started by: Antonio the Sixth on September 13, 2009, 01:27:05 PM



Title: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 13, 2009, 01:27:05 PM
Disclaimer: I have rebooted this project at the bottom of page 6, so if you're new to this thread and wanna binge the whole thing you can safely skip to there.

I wanted to try creating new US states in order to represent better demographic/geographical factors and to have less inequalities between State sizes. My choices can obviously be contestable sometimes, but I tried to do a map that makes sense geographically, also by doing some research about US intra-state regions. Here is the map I managed to make after several days of work.
Note that this will result in having 51 States, since I consider DC to be the 51st State IRL.

()

States which were split into two or three new States
States which were merged into one new State
States whose borders were modified, either by taking some territory from them, or by giving some to another State


Now, I would like to make a more detailed analysis of the political consequences of this redrawing, and particularly on Presidential Elections. First of all, here's a quick presentation of the new/modified States, with the EVs they would get after the 2000 census.

Split States

- Adirondack (AD) : Comprises all the counties which aren't generally considered to be in the NYC's sphere of influence. Corresponds more or less to the so-called "upstate New York". 12 EVs.
- New York (NY) : The southernmost part of the State, comprising only NYC and suburbs, would keep its original name. 22 EVs.
- Pennsylvania (PA) : Philadelphia Metro plus eastern part of the State. 13 EVs.
- Allegheny (AY) : Pittsburgh and the western part of the State. 10 EVs.
- Erie (ER) : Since it would make no sense to call it "Northern Ohio", the Cleveland Metro and the northernmost part of the RL Ohio will be given this name. 9 EVs.
- Ohio (OH) : The rest of the RL State. 12 EVs.
- Chicago (CH) : As the name indicates, this state comprises all the Chicago CSA. 16 EVs.
- Illinois (IL) : The RL State without Chicago. 8 EVs.
- North Florida (NF) : Northern part of the State, but also comprising central Florida to equilibrate the two states' population. 12 EVs.
- South Florida (SF) : Comprises Tampa Metro area. 17 EVs.
- Texas (TX) : The easternmost part of the OTL State. 13 EVs.
- Rio Grande (RG) : The southernmost part of OTL State. 12 EVs.
- North Texas (NT) : Comprises the northern plains but also Dallas metro. 14 EVs.
- California (CA) : The original California name would be given to the State comprising mainly the Central Valley. 11 EVs.
- West Coast (WC) : The name that could be given to the northern coastal part of OTL California, with San Francisco as biggest city. 15 EVs.
- California Del Sur (CS) : Because South California would have the same initials of South Carolina. Anyways, this would be the country's most populous State. 32 EVs.

Merged States

- New England (NE) : In fact, comprises only three of the six traditional New England States : VT, NH and ME. 7 EVs.
- Massachusetts (MA) : Would take RI. 13 EVs.
- Maryland (MD) : Would also comprise Delaware and DC. 12 EVs.
- Dakota (DK) : I've chosen to merge SD, ND and NE in only one State. I know it makes it a very big one, but in term of population it'd be at the same level than RL Iowa. 7 EVs.
- Big Sky (BS) : this comprises the whole States of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, as well as the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington. 8 EVs.

Modified States

- Michigan loses its territory at the West of lake Michigan, but that doesn't change anything. 17 EVs.
- Wisconsin, however, by a funny transfert, gains a Congress seat and thus an EV (it also loses Kenosha County to CH, but it's irrelevant). 11 EVs.
- Indiana loses its northwestern counties going to Chicago State and one EV. 10 EVs.
- Nevada takes California's easternmost counties without gaining anything. 5 EVs.
- Oregon loses its easternmost counties to Big Sky, but keeps all its EVs. 7 EVs.
- Instead, Washington loses 1 EV. 10 EVs.

Also, note that due to weird apportionment effects, North Carolina loses a Congress seat and thus will have only 14 EVs in this scenario.


A state-by-state analysis of the 2008 Presidential Election, with county maps etc., coming soon. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: pogo stick on September 13, 2009, 01:33:23 PM
Good map.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Hash on September 13, 2009, 01:54:57 PM
No State of Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Jefferson)?

I don't think Upstate New York would be called Ontario, since it might create confusion with the neighboring Canadian province. Adirondack might be a better name.

And Allegheny might be a better for Western PA... but as for Eastern PA it's harder since it includes a bunch of regions... the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania Piedmont, Dutch County, Lehigh Valley, Wyoming Valley, Endless Mountains, Pocono Mountains and Coal Country. Maybe Susquehanna would be a nice name, though the Susquehanna River area flows into West PA and doesn't cover all of East PA... Just an idea.

As for California, another name could be Sacramento or San Joaquin; the names of the two big areas in the Central Valley. West Coast is a cool name, as would be Pacific.

Southern California, could be just plain Southern California, SoCal.




Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MaskedPickle on September 13, 2009, 01:59:06 PM
Oah, that's impressive. According to all of you, when does such a reform of the electoral map could be put in place?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 14, 2009, 12:09:40 PM
No State of Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Jefferson)?

Not a good idea. I read something about it when I redrew California, but even if it could make sense demographically, it definitely doesn't in terms of EVs. With only 400 000 inhabitants, it would become the less populous state of the country, whereas one of my purposes is to limit too big inequalities. So better not.


Quote
I don't think Upstate New York would be called Ontario, since it might create confusion with the neighboring Canadian province. Adirondack might be a better name.

Yeah, I thought to this problem, but couldn't find a better name. Adirondack (AD) seems good, thanks. ;)


Quote
And Allegheny might be a better for Western PA... but as for Eastern PA it's harder since it includes a bunch of regions... the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania Piedmont, Dutch County, Lehigh Valley, Wyoming Valley, Endless Mountains, Pocono Mountains and Coal Country. Maybe Susquehanna would be a nice name, though the Susquehanna River area flows into West PA and doesn't cover all of East PA... Just an idea.

Well, let's rename WP in Allegheny (AY). As for eastern, we should just keep Pennsylvania, since I would like to eliminate the less historic names I can.


Quote
As for California, another name could be Sacramento or San Joaquin; the names of the two big areas in the Central Valley. West Coast is a cool name, as would be Pacific.

Don't like names based on the biggest city, except when the two entities are really confused.


Quote
Southern California, could be just plain Southern California, SoCal.

Well, we'd have a technical problem for the abreviation : how to differentiate it with South Carolina ? An option would be to call it California Del Sur (CS) in reference to the importance of hispanics here, as well as the Mexican origins of California.


Oah, that's impressive. According to all of you, when does such a reform of the electoral map could be put in place?

Probably never. States are too focused on their own "identity" and prerogative to even consider modifying borders.

Welcome in th forum, by the way. ;)



Also, before starting with the State-by-State analysis, here is a little map of what could be regions in the new USA :

()

Northeast
Rust Belt
Southern East Coast
Gulf South/Deep South
Outer South
Midwest
Great Plains
Southwest
West
West Coast
Pacific


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on September 14, 2009, 07:02:11 PM
Note that very few places are called southERN, or westERN. Note West Virginia, North Dakota, East Timor, South Africa, etc.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 16, 2009, 08:03:51 AM
Well, no other comments ? :(
Anyways, let's start with new states.



New England


Cosisting in real-life VT, NH and ME, New England would be a solid democratic state. In 2008, Obama's score here would be very close to his real score in Maine, so that we can consider that democrats' enormous margin in Vermont and their far closer one in New Hampshire would almost nullify each other.

NE town map :
()

NE county map :
()

Barack Obama : 1,026,011 (58.06%) => 7 EVs
John McCain : 710,781 (40.22%)
Others : 30,387 (1.72%)


Also, for this State-by State analysis, I'll regularly use what I will call "Local Net Political Index", that is a very simple unit permitting to measure how democratic/republican a State is in a tied election. The formula is simply : (Democratic percent in the State - Republican percent in the State) - (Democratic percent in the country - Republican percent in the country). Therefore, a positive LNPI means a state is more democratic that the country, and a negative one means a state is more republican. That will be very useful later to evaluate the consequences of this redrawing on the Electoral College structure.

New England's LNPI is therefore +10.57, what I would qualify of "solid democrat". As a consequence, this fusion would result in a loss for Democrats, since they would win only one state instead of 3, and therefore lose 4 EVs. However, this would secure the two Electoral votes NH brings to the state, whose LNPI was of about 2.3.



Massachusetts


Not a great change, since MA and RI are pretty similar politically. The maps are nice, though. ;)

MA town map :
()

MA county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,200,669 (61.94%) => 13 EVs
John McCain : 1,274,245 (35.87%)
Others : 77,921 (2.19%)


LNPI : +18.81 => solid dem.
This also results in a net loss of 3 EVs for democrats.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 16, 2009, 02:15:34 PM
This is really cool Antonio. I'm looking forward to further updates.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: aaaa2222 on September 16, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Keep it up, quite interesting.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Kevinstat on September 16, 2009, 08:27:19 PM
Cool thread.  Where would the capitals of the merged, splinter, enlarged and shrunken states be (where different from the existing capital for the states not colored in red or blue in your first map)?  Perhaps you could just do that for each state as part of your analysis of that state, while naming the capital for New England and Massachusetts first.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 16, 2009, 08:51:39 PM

Welcome for another French with a red avatar :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: big bad fab on September 17, 2009, 06:57:15 AM
Also, before starting with the State-by-State analysis, here is a little map of what could be regions in the new USA :

()

Northeast
Rust Belt
Southern East Coast
Gulf South/Deep South
Outer South
Midwest
Great Plains
Southwest
West
West Coast
Pacific

Very nice redrawing, Antonio.
Logical and sound.

I know adding Milwaukee with Chicago would have created too big a state and that many people from those 2 urban areas would kill me, but maybe there is "something" in here.

And, of course, as you've modified Oregon/Washington/Idaho, there would have been something to do with WV/Virginia/Maryland. And, well, in this case, DC would grow with its suburbs.

As for the regions, there is just one thing: one may wonder if Adirondack should not be in the Rust Belt and not in the NE, even if it's not so rusty: just based on electoral behaviour.
(if it's only on geographical criteria, Indiana should in MidWest and WV in Rust Belt; if it's on electoral behaviour, it's Adirondack in Rust Belt).

One final question: have you done your redrawings only on geographical lines or checking electoral maps and the weight of each new state ;) ?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 17, 2009, 03:06:40 PM
I would like to thank anyone who commented it, I'm glad to discover someone is following. :)


Cool thread.  Where would the capitals of the merged, splinter, enlarged and shrunken states be (where different from the existing capital for the states not colored in red or blue in your first map)?  Perhaps you could just do that for each state as part of your analysis of that state, while naming the capital for New England and Massachusetts first.

Good Idea, I'll do it now. The capital of MA remains Boston, Whereas NE capital is set in Augusta. ;)


And, of course, as you've modified Oregon/Washington/Idaho, there would have been something to do with WV/Virginia/Maryland. And, well, in this case, DC would grow with its suburbs.

Right, I should also have thought to Wahington. Frankly, I think I was just too tired after doing States like FL, PA, OH or TX, that were really awful to redraw... And the South in general seemed quite equilibrated in terms of EVs, so that I gave up here.


Quote
I know adding Milwaukee with Chicago would have created too big a state and that many people from those 2 urban areas would kill me, but maybe there is "something" in here.

The main reason is that the State also created would be really too big. For the same reason, I renounced to give NYC all its Metro Area, including parts of NJ and CT. I prefer to keep States as "median" as possible in terms of population.


Quote
As for the regions, there is just one thing: one may wonder if Adirondack should not be in the Rust Belt and not in the NE, even if it's not so rusty: just based on electoral behaviour.
(if it's only on geographical criteria, Indiana should in MidWest and WV in Rust Belt; if it's on electoral behaviour, it's Adirondack in Rust Belt).

Well, I'm probably still not expericenced enough on US regions... Sorry fo the mistake. ;)


Quote
One final question: have you done your redrawings only on geographical lines or checking electoral maps and the weight of each new state ;) ?

Well, I was really waiting for this one... :P Political questions have obviously been central in my redrawing, though I always tried to avoid senseless gerrymanderings. Particularly for the States I split, I tried to give a political representation to different political areas, so that most of them are split into a "democratic" and a "republican" state. However, I don't know the final consequences of my work in terms of Electoral vote structure. This is the reason why I'm doing this analysis, in order to have a precise idea of the new electoral map. We'll see if it advantaged Democrats or Republicans globally.


Also, let's go with another State. :)



New York


New York State would be totally dominated by his homonymous capital, which would make it probably the most democratic State of the country (unless it's Chicago... we'll see). Its 22 Electoral vote would therefore be a solid guarantee for Dems.

NY town map :
()

NY county map :
()

Barack Obama : 3,265,245 (68.20%) => 22 EVs
John McCain : 1,486,975 (31.06%)
Others : 35,712 (0.75%)


LNPI : +29.88 => dem stronghold.
Since this State is the result of a split, the net gain or loss it represents for democrats will be known only after analyzing Adirondack. This can result in a democratic gain of 3 Evs or a Republican gain of 12 and a democratic loss of 9.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: big bad fab on September 17, 2009, 05:38:46 PM
Fine to see that you'll discover the political result of all this with us ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President Mitt on September 18, 2009, 10:13:13 PM
More!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: doktorb on September 22, 2009, 02:49:40 AM
More!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 22, 2009, 06:20:33 AM

Sorry, I'm gonna be buisy for some time, and you should wait until next weekend. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 25, 2009, 01:49:28 PM
Bump.

Sorry for the waiting. Here we go with Adirondack. ;)



Adirondack


A bit surprisingly, the State would be relatively democratic. As you can see, results here are almost identical to NH's. That makes Adirondack a solid Obama state in 2008, even if he doesn't comprise any county related with NYC metro area. Also to note the good showing of "Others" (don't know if it's Nader of someone else), that makes me think to New England...

AD county map :
()

Barack Obama : 1,539,700 (53.97%) => 12 EVs
John McCain : 1,265,796 (44.37%)
Others : 47,520 (1.67%)


LNPI : +2.34 => lean dem.
As a consequence, we can now certify that the split of New York would benefit to the Democrats, gaining 3 EVs and partly compensating for the two previous fusions.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: DariusNJ on September 25, 2009, 04:27:00 PM
Bump.

Sorry for the waiting. Here we go with Adirondack. ;)



Adirondack


A bit surprisingly, the State would be relatively democratic. As you can see, results here are almost identical to NH's. That makes Adirondack a solid Obama state in 2008, even if he doesn't comprise any county related with NYC metro area. Also to note the good showing of "Others" (don't know if it's Nader of someone else), that makes me think to New England...

AD county map :
()

Barack Obama : 1,539,700 (53.97%)
John McCain : 1,265,796 (44.37%)
Others : 47,520 (1.67%)


LNPI : 2.34 => lean dem.
As a consequence, we can now certify that the split of New York would benefit to the Democrats, gaining 2 EVs and partly compensating for the two previous fusions.

This is great! This confirms my suspicions that Upstate New York votes similarly to Pennsylvania.

Keep em' coming!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Kevinstat on September 25, 2009, 10:41:32 PM
Would Albany, as an existing capital, be the capital of Adirondack?  Or would the capital be at a more central location within the new state like Syracuse?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 26, 2009, 12:41:31 AM
Would Albany, as an existing capital, be the capital of Adirondack?  Or would the capital be at a more central location within the new state like Syracuse?

Sorry, forgot this point.
Well, let's say that they choose to keep the State's buildings in Albany in order to make institutions work immediately. ;) Anyways, Syracuse could also be an option.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Lief 🗽 on October 01, 2009, 04:24:12 PM
Please continue! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: 12th Doctor on October 01, 2009, 11:46:21 PM
This is my dream map for several reasons.  The first reason is obvious.  The second is that I can see no reason why this wouldn't benefit my party.  You basically just split up every state, except Texas, that is reliably Democratic.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 02, 2009, 12:11:38 AM
Call it Southern California, not San Bernardino.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: !@#$%^&* on October 02, 2009, 12:57:34 AM
This is great! Keep it coming! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 02, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
I apologize again for the long time between two updates. Here is a new one :



Pennsylvania


This is the westernmost, and unsurprisingly the most liberal part of OTL Pennsylvania. Indeed, Philadelphia Metro Area would make it a solidly democratic state, comparable to Michigan or even Illinois. Obama would obviously have no difficulties to carry it in 2008, approaching 60% of the votes.
Harrisburgh would remain the capital.

PA county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,179,650 (59.04%) => 13 EVs
John McCain : 1,466,984 (39.74%)
Others : 45,100 (1.22%)


LNPI : +12.04 => solid dem.
Without any surprise, we can see that PA's 13 EVs would unequivocally go to the democrats, except in case of an Eisenhower-esque Republican win. It's also sure that Allegheny will have a negative LNPI, so that the Pennsylvania split will result in a gain of 10 EVs for republicans and a loss of 8 for Democrats. What will be more interesting is to know if AY will be republican enough to vote for McCain in 2008 or if Obama would carry it as he did for Ohio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 02, 2009, 01:49:57 PM
This is my dream map for several reasons.  The first reason is obvious.  The second is that I can see no reason why this wouldn't benefit my party.  You basically just split up every state, except Texas, that is reliably Democratic.

Well, don't be so sure of this. There's many things to take into account : Erie, Rio Grande, all the fusionned republican States... We'll see who will finally benefit : I personally don't know. :P


Call it Southern California, not San Bernardino.

California Del Sur is better. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 02, 2009, 06:28:05 PM
So I got bored today and I decided to do some experimenting with your new states.
Since I'm a noob I decided to see what the 1964 scenario would look like with these states:

()

Johnson/Humphrey (Democratic)
Goldwater/Miller (Republican)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 02, 2009, 11:59:04 PM
Now here's one of 1960:

()

Kennedy/Johnson (Democratic)
Nixon/Lodge (Republican)

This one gave me a f***ing headache.
I might be wrong on a few (I debated whether to make North Texas red or blue for twenty minutes, same with Western Pennsylvania as well as Wisconsin and Michigan), so please be forgiving.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 12:20:23 AM
This is formidable. Congratulations for your work. :)

1960 is really surprising. However, I think you're wrong on WI and MI : My transfert isn't sufficient to either make MI rep or WI dem. Nevada also surprises me, since the few counties I added aren't populous at all. Maybe eastern PA could also be democratic that time.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 12:28:53 AM
This is formidable. Congratulations for your work. :)

1960 is really surprising. However, I think you're wrong on WI and MI : My transfert isn't sufficient to either make MI rep or WI dem. Nevada also surprises me, since the few counties I added aren't populous at all. Maybe eastern PA could also be democratic that time.

Well Nevada did go Democrat in 1960.

Like I said 1960 was a f***ing crazy election year. It's like everyone woke up and wondered "who the hell should I vote for?"


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 12:38:47 AM
More to come..........


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 12:40:26 AM
Well Nevada did go Democrat in 1960.

Fixed. I don't know why, but I was sure to have seen it blue on your map. :P



Please just let 2008 to me !


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 12:41:44 AM
Your scenario.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 12:42:39 AM

;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 12:42:54 AM
Well Nevada did go Democrat in 1960.

Fixed. I don't know why, but I was sure to have seen it blue on your map. :P

THe first time I uploaded the map I accidently made Nevada blue. So it probably wasn't your imagination.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 12:43:48 AM
Well Nevada did go Democrat in 1960.

Fixed. I don't know why, but I was sure to have seen it blue on your map. :P

THe first time I uploaded the map I accidently made Nevada blue. So it probably wasn't your imagination.

Ok, better so... :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 01:44:44 AM
1968:

()

Humphrey/Muskie (Democratic)
Nixon/Agnew (Republican)
Wallace/Le May (American Independent)

Again, due to the competitive nature of this election, I might've screwed up on a few of the states. And once again it is North Texas that gave me the most headache and West Coast and California.
Holy hell, Wallace could've actually screwed Nixon big in this one.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 01:59:20 AM
1972:

()

McGovern/Shirver (Democratic)
Nixon/Agnew (Republican)

Great Gagsby! I heard that McGovern came across as too radical, but man.....even in this scenario he still only wins one state.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 06:42:47 AM
Damn... I never noticed he got destroyed even in Cook county ! :o


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 06:47:30 AM
Damn... I never noticed he got destroyed even in Cook county ! :o

Cook COunty suburbs used to be heavily Republican though so its not that big of a deal. Also, its McGovern...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 08:37:55 AM
Let's go with Allegheny. :)



Allegheny


Solidly Republican even with Pittsburgh, Allegheny would've been John McCain's closest state after Missouri (MT doesn't exist).
I accept propositions for the State capital, since the only city I know there is Pittsburgh.

AY county map :
()

John McCain : 1,188,901 (51.17%) => 10 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,096,713 (47.21%)
Others : 37,599 (1.62%)


LNPI : -11.23 => solid rep.
If the State was expected to be more republican that the average, this huge LNPI makes it almost as republican as PA is democratic. As I said before, the final result of Pennsylvania split is a gain of 10 EVs for republicans and a loss of 8 for Democrats. Anyways, interesting to see how democrats have lost ground around here, whereas AY would probably have been more democratic than PA in the past.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Hash on October 03, 2009, 08:58:05 AM
2004 results in Allegheny would be more interesting.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 01:31:07 PM
2004 results in Allegheny would be more interesting.

I don't think Kerry would've carried it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 03:49:10 PM
1976:

()

Carter/Mondale (Democratic)
Ford/Dole (Republican)

Once again due to the competitiveness in some areas, this might be a little off.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 03:54:49 PM
Just for curiosity, how do you proceed for these maps ? Do you do some math or just look at the county maps ?

Anyways, that seems right everywere. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 04:03:31 PM
Just for curiosity, how do you proceed for these maps ? Do you do some math or just look at the county maps ?

Anyways, that seems right everywere. :)

A combination of both really.
I look at the county maps and usually I determine how each state votes just by looking at what number the majority of counties voted. However, if the percent who voted for a candidate is high enough yet they only won like 5 or so counties in a state, I look for the counties big cities are in. New York is the biggest example of this latter scenario since the counties of New York City are so much smaller yet have quite a bit more of the population than the counties near it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
1980:

()

This one was a bit easier, but East Texas (or is it just Texas) and North Florida gave me a headache.

Carter/Mondale (Democratic)
Reagan/Bush (Republican)
Anderson/Lucey (Independent)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 03, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
1984:
()

Mondale/Ferraro (Democratic)
Reagan/Bush (Republican)

Mondale actually wins more than one state!
South Texas would actually be one of Mondale's strongest states.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 04, 2009, 05:08:47 AM
I would've expected Carter and Mondale to win East Coast and Rio Grande... :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 04, 2009, 02:58:03 PM
I would've expected Carter and Mondale to win East Coast and Rio Grande... :(

What state is East Coast?

Rio Grande would've gone Democrat if it didn't go so much to the north and east (into OTL central Texas).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 05, 2009, 12:40:05 AM

Isn't it evident ??

The western part of OTL California ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on October 05, 2009, 01:07:59 AM

Going off the map of California for 1980 and 1984, it looks like Reagan won all but San Francisco and a few other counties. Going off his margin of victory in the state as a whole I concluded that he was popular enough to have won all three states that constitute California IOTL. Maybe I'm grossly underestimating the size of San Fran and those few other counties, but Reagan's margins of victory suggests he won a decisive victory on the West Coast. With the exception of some minority groups, very few people could match the sellability of Reagan (I would argue he was even more so than Nixon and LBJ who won landslides against extremists), who won the biggest electoral landslide since FDR 1936 IOTL against a candidate who may not have been moderate, but who was I believe didn't even approach the region of extremism. Although Reagan won less than 60% of the popular vote, his effectiveness in winning every state besides Minnesota (and in this case New York) suggests that he had a definite wide appeal to a majority of the electorate. In fact, IRL the biggest shock (from what I have seen from youtube) was that Mondale won Minnesota. There were newstations predicting that Reagan had a real possibility to win ALL 50 STATES, not just win the election. There was even footage of Reagan joking "I'm really concerned about my chances at re-election!" (crowd laughs).
Sorry if this seems like a long winded rant, just making my case as to why Carter and Mondale probably wouldn't win West Coast or Rio Grande (it would be very close though).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2009, 10:17:07 AM

Going off the map of California for 1980 and 1984, it looks like Reagan won all but San Francisco and a few other counties. Going off his margin of victory in the state as a whole I concluded that he was popular enough to have won all three states that constitute California IOTL. Maybe I'm grossly underestimating the size of San Fran and those few other counties, but Reagan's margins of victory suggests he won a decisive victory on the West Coast. With the exception of some minority groups, very few people could match the sellability of Reagan (I would argue he was even more so than Nixon and LBJ who won landslides against extremists), who won the biggest electoral landslide since FDR 1936 IOTL against a candidate who may not have been moderate, but who was I believe didn't even approach the region of extremism. Although Reagan won less than 60% of the popular vote, his effectiveness in winning every state besides Minnesota (and in this case New York) suggests that he had a definite wide appeal to a majority of the electorate. In fact, IRL the biggest shock (from what I have seen from youtube) was that Mondale won Minnesota. There were newstations predicting that Reagan had a real possibility to win ALL 50 STATES, not just win the election. There was even footage of Reagan joking "I'm really concerned about my chances at re-election!" (crowd laughs).
Sorry if this seems like a long winded rant, just making my case as to why Carter and Mondale probably wouldn't win West Coast or Rio Grande (it would be very close though).

Sad but entirely true. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 05, 2009, 09:09:24 PM
Bump!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 06, 2009, 03:08:27 PM

Sorry, I'm really too busy with school and Atlasia.. :(

I can post Maryland, but I can't go farther before a few months...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: DariusNJ on November 06, 2009, 05:22:30 PM
Allegheny would have been extremely close in 2004.

Gore probably won it in 2000.


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 12, 2010, 06:51:06 AM
Hi there ! I've left this thread for much time, while it seemed to be pretty popular at the time. Well, I think it's high time to restart it ! I'm very curious to know how this will end up in terms of electoral map, thus I've already started working on the next States.

But before all, I wanted to study more deeply a topic I had neglected before : population an electoral votes. After some big works with excel spreadsheets, I now publish a detailed list of what would be each State's population at the 2000 Census, at the number of congressional seats it would result in. Note that I used State population, and didn't include overseas population as does the Census, for the simple reason I have no clue how it would be dealt between States. Also to note that the total is 436, due to inclusion of DC in Maryland.

StatePopulationCDs
California del Sur19,329,83930
New York12,689,66520
Michigan9,620,82815
South Florida9,568,58315
Chicago9,312,25514
West Coast8,496,30813
New Jersey8,414,35013
Georgia8,186,45313
North Carolina8,049,31312
North Texas7,419,32712
Massachusetts7,397,41611
Pennsylvania7,317,94711
Texas7,183,33311
Virginia7,078,51511
Maryland6,652,14510
Ohio6,558,35910
North Florida6,413,79510
Adirondack6,286,79210
Rio Grande6,249,16010
California5,853,8069
Tennessee5,689,2839
Missouri5,595,2119
Wisconsin5,531,7149
Indiana5,294,4088
Arizona5,130,6328
Washington5,075,7588
Allegheny4,963,1078
Minnesota4,919,4798
Erie4,794,7817
Louisiana4,468,9767
Alabama4,447,1007
Colorado4,301,2617
Illinois4,042,6926
Kentucky4,041,7696
South Carolina4,012,0126
Big Sky3,685,4926
Oklahoma3,450,6545
Connecticut3,405,5655
Oregon3,244,2005
New England3,119,5365
Dakota3,108,3075
Iowa2,926,3245
Mississipi2,844,6584
Kansas2,688,4184
Arkansas2,673,4004
Utah2,233,1693
Nevada2,189,9523
New Mexico1,819,0463
West Virginia1,808,3443
Hawaii1,211,5372
Alaska626,9321

I've used the same red-blue-green color key as usual in this thread.
I have also deeply modified the opening post, in order to correct State names I've modified, new (and precise) EV totals coming from this work, as well as some English mistakes I made because I was quite new at the time (;)).


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 13, 2010, 03:09:06 AM
Well, it was popular once... :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: izixs on May 13, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I actually really like this project. So don't feel discouraged! Tis many a lurker about who likes good stuff.


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: Eleden on May 13, 2010, 03:52:28 AM
Yes please continue.


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 13, 2010, 05:01:32 AM
Thanks guys for your encouragements. :)

Anyways, here is the EV map of the new US States :

()


And some interesting effects of the new apportionmebnt, in terms of gains of representatives.

Gains :
- New York and Adirondack have together 30 Representatives, while RL New York State had only 29.
- Texas, Rio Grande and North Texas have together 33 Representatives, while RL Texas had only 32.
- With the territory take to Michigan, Wisonsin gains a seat even though Michigan desn't lose any.
- With the territory the lost to BS, WA loses only one and OR doesn't lose any. However, BS's 6 Representatives are two more than the total Idaho+Montana+Wyoming.

Losses :
- Massachussets has only 11 Representatives, while the sum of RL MA and RI would have given 12.
- The sum of Erie's and Ohio's Representatives is 17, even though RL Ohio had 18.
- Weirdly, North Carolina loses a Representatives even though its territory remains unchanged, getting 12 instead of 13.
- The sum of CA, WC and CS gives only 52 Representatives, even though RL California had 53.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 07:23:42 AM
And now we get back to States with Maryland.



Maryland


With the inclusion of Delaware, and above all DC, Maryland becomes even more solidly democratic than it used to be. With this new State, democrats would have 12 Electoral Votes totally ensured. However, the fusion of three solid democratics States would effectively make them lose 4 EVs.
Annapolis should probably remain the capital of the new State.

MD county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,130,726 (64.37%) => 12 EVs
John McCain : 1,129,603 (34.13%)
Others : 49,736 (1.50%)


LNPI : +22.98 => dem stronghold.
With a similar LNPI, McCain couldn't hope to with the state without breaking the 60% threshold nationwide. DC alone brings 5 more points to the State's LNPI, so that it becomes one of the few democratic strongholds (IRL, only 4 States could be qualified as "dem strongholds" : DC, HI, VT and RI). Still, none of the 3 former States was really close enough to be in danger for democrats, so that merging them would rather favor Republicans. As a result, 4 EVs will be taken to the democrats.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on May 14, 2010, 10:25:57 AM
Yeah this project is awesome (which is why I raped this thread with my own electoral maps for previous elections in this hypothetical).

As a fan of making excel sheets with electoral data on it (I spent hours complying my presidential results spreadsheet), I demand you proceed.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
Yeah this project is awesome (which is why I raped this thread with my own electoral maps for previous elections in this hypothetical).

BTW, you could also continue your maps of past elections meanwhile. ;) 1990's and early 2000's maps could be quite interesting.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 15, 2010, 01:45:35 PM
Erie


Ohio is, with Florida and Texas, the only RL Republican-leaning State to be split. Erie is supposed to be the "liberal" part of the State, and thus is naturally the smallest of the two. Mostly a coastal State (hence its name, from the homonymous lake), Erie concentrates Ohio's most democratic counties. As a result, it reveals to be very solidly democratic, comparable to Pennsylvania in terms of Presidential results. Even though it weighs only 9 EVs, it represents a significative bonus for Obama.
The State's natural capital would be Cleveland, though it's possible to immagine that they could pick a smaller city.

ER county map :
()

Barack Obama : 1,408,902 (58.98%) => 9 EVs
John McCain : 936,307 (39.20%)
Others : 43,409 (1.82%)


LNPI : +12.52 => solid dem.
This huge score makes Erie even more democratic than Pennsylvania (the new one), even though Obama polls slightly less because of a good performance of others. To give an idea, the RL state more similar to both ER and PA is Connecticut. As a results, it's 9 new EVs which are taken to a lean rep state and become solidly deomcratic. Of course, this only partly compensates for the loss of Allegheny's EVs, but it's a further proof that my redrawing won't benefit too massively to one party. Of course, the remaining 12 EVs of Ohio will be a solid guarantee for Republicans either, so that Ohio's status of "swing State" is totally destroyed. We can now predict that democrats will gain 9 EVs, and Republicans will lose 8.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vosem on May 15, 2010, 01:47:44 PM
Interesting -- keep going.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 17, 2010, 10:40:58 AM
Ohio


Unsurprisingly, the remaining part of Ohio, with its 12 Electoral votes, is staunchly Republican. John McCain wouldn't have any problem to win it, like almost every republican candidate before him. There is not much to add, except repeating that we have "polarized" a State which was considered as a bellwhether.
Columbus would remain the State's capital.

OH county map :
()

John McCain : 1,741,513 (52.25%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,531,142 (45.94%)
Others : 60,542 (1.82%)


LNPI : -13.58 => solid rep.
Funny to find with Erie/Ohio almost exactly the same dichotomy we found with Pennsylvania/Allegheny. Two solid democratic States and two solid republican States replace a dem-leaning and a rep-leaning State. Each time the LNPI is comprised between +/-11 and +/-14. Anyways, Ohio is nonetheless the most republican of the four, and with a similar LNPI is almost an impossible target for Dems. Not a bad thing however, considering for example that in 2004 Kerry wouldn't have to worry about OH (having already secured ER) and could focus on closer States such as Nevada and Wisconsin. However, the split of Ohio won't entirely compensate for Pennsylvania's. If we make the net gain/loss for those two splits, it results in a gain of 1 EV for Democrats and a gain of 2 for Republicans. Thus, it looks fairly balanced for the moment. BTW, interestingly, the percentage of "others" in 2008 was exactly the same in ER and OH.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: big bad fab on May 17, 2010, 05:13:55 PM
Still time to cut California del Sur in 2 or 3, so that you've got real similar EVs.
San Diego and the Mexican frontier; LA; maybe the inner south.

BTW, glad to see it restarted.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 18, 2010, 10:34:22 AM
Still time to cut California del Sur in 2 or 3, so that you've got real similar EVs.
San Diego and the Mexican frontier; LA; maybe the inner south.

Well, it's true that CS is significantly bigger than most of other States, but I think it makes more sense geographically to keep it united.
On the same subject, I once considered to merge Alaska and Hawaii (as they are the two smallest States), but it would have been a geographical aberration and would have made any local government impossible.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Psychic Octopus on May 18, 2010, 12:23:57 PM
This is excellent!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on May 18, 2010, 12:35:12 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 18, 2010, 07:05:23 PM
California del Sur and Big Sky could really use better names.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: old timey villain on May 18, 2010, 07:36:56 PM
Can I request that metro atlanta be it's own state? It would be interesting to see who won it in 2008? A growing minority population coupled with conservative white suburbs would make it close for sure.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Bo on May 19, 2010, 06:06:13 PM
Addition: Saudi-Israelia


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 20, 2010, 05:24:02 AM
California del Sur and Big Sky could really use better names.

I still accept suggestions. :P


Can I request that metro atlanta be it's own state? It would be interesting to see who won it in 2008? A growing minority population coupled with conservative white suburbs would make it close for sure.

Well, don't know if it's a good idea. After all, GA had only 13 EVs, which is a bit low for a split. Plus, I'd be unable to precisely define Atlanta metro area, at least not before some research. But if you want, once I have finished my state-byState overview I can do that just for fun.



Indiana


Only five counties are taken away to Indiana : all those which are included in the Chicago Combined Statistical Area, and thus will be included to the Chicago State. However, those five c**nties would reveal to have a big impact on Indiana's politics. They would deprive Obama of his narrow win in this State (even though McCain would only win barely too). In 2000 and 2004, Bush could easily have won by more than 60%. They would also cause Indiana to lose one seat, and thus one EV.
Indianapolis would remain the State's capital.

IN county map :
()

John McCain : 1,215,161 (50.50%) => 10 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,159,633 (48.19%)
Others : 31,535 (1.31%)


LNPI : -9.57 => likely rep.
Indiana would have difficulties to go democrat, even if very favorable circumstances like 2008. It seems that LaPorte and Porter county played an important role in the 2008 results, so that their loss is a disadvantage for democrats. However, there are a few elements that should lead us to relativize this comment. The RL Indiana's LNPI was 6.23, which means it still was a "likely rep" State. This 3-points trend towards the GOP can thus be considered as quite marginal, and while Obama was lucky to win the State in 2008 and would have been unlucky to loose it in this scenario, it wouldn't changed the Electoral College structure. In a situation of tie Indiana would go republican anywyas, and by comparable margins. Thus, while we have made Indiana even more difficult to carry for democrats, it couldn't help republicans when it's useful, ie in close elections. Plus, let's not forget that with its Nothwestern counties, IN also loses an electoral vote, which means the final result of this modification is a loss of one EV for republicans. Still, with the loss of AY, OH and now IN, Obama's victory in the Electoral College is clearly narrowing...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 21, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Hash on May 21, 2010, 11:53:33 AM
Gary (aka Lake County, aka Chicago-in-Indiana) played a very large part in turning Indiana red in 2008 (as did Indianapolis).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: izixs on May 21, 2010, 04:17:51 PM
I'm kind of curious how these splits would change the long term dynamics of these areas. For instance, if new Ohio ends up constantly electing republican governors for a few years and Erie keeps electing democratic one's, and then the economy collapses or one or both end up becoming corrupt one party states, how quickly might the voting preferences of the people change to counter this? And would such drifts reflect in the presidential results? If at all of course. You could end up with a Kentucky situation with 600,000 more registered Democrats whom lean republican on a national level but are more friendly to local dems.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bgwah on May 21, 2010, 04:31:21 PM
This is a pretty cool idea, but I feel obligated to nitpick your borders in the PNW. It seems you arbitrarily cut through the middle of Washington.

The Cascade mountains are universally accepted as the "border" between Western and Eastern Washington. I know that for a lot of states the borders between regions may be ambiguous, but this isn't the case in Washington. Everybody agrees the Cascades are the borders.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Westernwashington.PNG

All of the counties in white should be in Big Sky, while the red should remain as Washington.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 21, 2010, 06:21:03 PM
Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 24, 2010, 01:39:55 PM
Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.

Gerrymandered ? ::)
Every State change is based on intra-state regions, at least taking into account the State's size. If what you meant is that the new states created are more politically characterized, fair enough, but how to avoid it ? If you had to split NY in two States, wouldn't you do one State with NYC metro and the other with the upstate ? If you choose to split a state in a way which will make two new similar states, then you'd have to gerrymander.
And BTW, I perfectly know it's possible to give a kind of prediction of how the State will go. however, you can only make an aproximative prediction. You can imagine if a stae will be safe dem/rep or if he'll be close, but not precisely how much it will be dem/rep, if it will be more or less democratic than the national margin, etc. For example, I expected Allegheny to be far closer, and Indiana to remain democrat. And even now, would you be able to say precisely if Obama will win California above the national margin ? If Rio Grande will be a democratic stronghold, or just a dem-leaning State ? If you do, then you are far better than me.

To bgwah : you are right indeed, and I will try to correct this as soon as possible, as I realized that it was quite unfair. However, as I saw there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centralwashington.PNG), there is also a "central Washington" located between my separation line and yours. The reason why I chose to let central Washington to WA is because I didn't want to make it too small, and to make BS too big in terms of population. Anyways, I now think it is possible to find an arangement about this line. I'll start to work on it later.

And now, let's come back to another State.



Chicago


Corresponding to the biggest extension of Chicago Metropolitan area, CH would obviously be dominated by its homonymous city (and of course capital). This domination would play a determinating role in the State's politics, as the votes coming from Cook County represented half of its total votes in 2008. As a result, CH is an overwhelmingly democratic State, and would have been safe since decades. The 2008 results are pretty similar to those of NY (which isn't surprising considering their demographical similarity), though slightly closer.

CH county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,720,995 (66.93%) => 16 EVs
John McCain : 1,296,268 (31.88%)
Others : 48,186 (1.19%)


LNPI : +27.78 => dem stronghold.
Obviously, and all the more that "home State effect" would play even better there, Obama would carry Chicago by an overwhelming margin, getting more than two thirds of the total vote. And obviously again, Cook county would make it impossible for any Republican to carry this State. Just immagine : in a situation of tie in the State, McCain would've carried every single county except Cook, and would be below 60% only in Cook, Will, DeKalb, Lake (IL), LaPorte, Lake (IN) and Kenosha counties. Despite that, Obama would still carry Cook county with 58.69% of the votes. The big question now is how the remaining part of Illinois will vote (perhaps you know that, Vazdul ;)), in order to determine which party will actually benefit to the split. Indeed, the inclusion of Chicago in Illinois IRL had secured it for democrats, and the separation with the rest of Illinois, while creating this democratic stronghold, may at last give "true" Illinois to the republicans.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mechaman on May 24, 2010, 02:08:15 PM
Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Sometimes people are too lazy to make comments.
Don't worry, people have been reading this.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 24, 2010, 10:41:30 PM
Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.

Gerrymandered ? ::)
Every State change is based on intra-state regions, at least taking into account the State's size. If what you meant is that the new states created are more politically characterized, fair enough, but how to avoid it ? If you had to split NY in two States, wouldn't you do one State with NYC metro and the other with the upstate ? If you choose to split a state in a way which will make two new similar states, then you'd have to gerrymander.
And BTW, I perfectly know it's possible to give a kind of prediction of how the State will go. however, you can only make an aproximative prediction. You can imagine if a stae will be safe dem/rep or if he'll be close, but not precisely how much it will be dem/rep, if it will be more or less democratic than the national margin, etc. For example, I expected Allegheny to be far closer, and Indiana to remain democrat. And even now, would you be able to say precisely if Obama will win California above the national margin ? If Rio Grande will be a democratic stronghold, or just a dem-leaning State ? If you do, then you are far better than me.

To bgwah : you are right indeed, and I will try to correct this as soon as possible, as I realized that it was quite unfair. However, as I saw there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centralwashington.PNG), there is also a "central Washington" located between my separation line and yours. The reason why I chose to let central Washington to WA is because I didn't want to make it too small, and to make BS too big in terms of population. Anyways, I now think it is possible to find an arangement about this line. I'll start to work on it later.

And now, let's come back to another State.



Chicago


Corresponding to the biggest extension of Chicago Metropolitan area, CH would obviously be dominated by its homonymous city (and of course capital). This domination would play a determinating role in the State's politics, as the votes coming from Cook County represented half of its total votes in 2008. As a result, CH is an overwhelmingly democratic State, and would have been safe since decades. The 2008 results are pretty similar to those of NY (which isn't surprising considering their demographical similarity), though slightly closer.

CH county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,720,995 (66.93%) => 16 EVs
John McCain : 1,296,268 (31.88%)
Others : 48,186 (1.19%)


LNPI : +27.78 => dem stronghold.
Obviously, and all the more that "home State effect" would play even better there, Obama would carry Chicago by an overwhelming margin, getting more than two thirds of the total vote. And obviously again, Cook county would make it impossible for any Republican to carry this State. Just immagine : in a situation of tie in the State, McCain would've carried every single county except Cook, and would be below 60% only in Cook, Will, DeKalb, Lake (IL), LaPorte, Lake (IN) and Kenosha counties. Despite that, Obama would still carry Cook county with 58.69% of the votes. The big question now is how the remaining part of Illinois will vote (perhaps you know that, Vazdul ;)), in order to determine which party will actually benefit to the split. Indeed, the inclusion of Chicago in Illinois IRL had secured it for democrats, and the separation with the rest of Illinois, while creating this democratic stronghold, may at last give "true" Illinois to the republicans.

Perhaps the use of the word "gerrymandered" was a bit harsh, but:

1. You yourself have admitted to taking politics into consideration when determining where to draw the state boundaries, and
2. Like it or not, the new states that have resulted from your divisions are much more polarized than their RL counterparts.

Allegheny was not a very big surprise for me- it is a traditionally Democratic state that recently has seen rapid shifts toward the GOP, similarly to West Virginia.

Likewise, Indiana was no shocker either. RL Indiana voted for Obama only narrowly, and only because of his huge margins in the Chicago Metro area. Take that area out, and you're left with a very Republican state indeed.

I will admit that the most interesting states are yet to come, particularly Rio Grande, Nevada, and California. It looks as though Rio Grande might have enough of Republican central Texas to make things interesting. You've given Nevada some of California's most Republican areas, which could mean a competetive state becomes a Republican-leaning state. California looks fairly Republican to me, but I still think the results will be pretty interesting.

As for my prediction for the remainder of Illinois (since you called me out on it ;) ), I predict that Obama carried it, but that this result is an anomaly caused by a combination of the Favorite Son Factor and a favorable year for Democrats. In most elections, Illinois would be classed as Likely Republican.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 25, 2010, 01:16:33 AM
Indeed, the States I created are more politically polarized, but how to avoid it ? This political polarization is a direct consequence of demograhic/geographic factors (contrast between NYC and the Upstate, contrast between Philadelphia and Pittsburg's Pennsilvania...). And anyways, how is creating States which are politically coherent "gerrymandering" ? To me, it seems exactly the contrary : trying to avoid mixing areas which have nothing to do which one another, and make States the most homogeneous possible.

But obviously you are right that States have become quite easier to predict than IRL. And to be honest ;) :

You are right about Illinois.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 25, 2010, 12:23:01 PM
As I said above, "gerrymandering" was probably not the best choice of words. I was merely trying to get the point across that the states are more polarized, and for that reason there haven't been any real surprises thus far. I also agree with you that political polarization is rather unavoidable when using your other criteria for dividing the states.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 29, 2010, 06:18:42 AM
Illinois


An Illinois without Chicago will be a totally different Illinois. Indeed, the loss of its biggest city will let the State with less than one third of its original Representative seats, 6 out of 19. A far less populouss Illinois thus, despite keeping most of its territory : as a result, it becomes smaller than Indiana in terms of population, though remaining bigger in terms of area. Politically, the new Illinois would reveal to be a swing State in 2008, even though as Vazdul pointed out, Obama's win here is only due to a combination of his nationwide margin and the home State effect.
Springfield could remain its capital.

IL county map :
()

Barack Obama : 958,595 (50.69%) => 8 EVs
John McCain : 897,007 (47.44%)
Others : 35,354 (1.87%)


LNPI : -4.01 => lean rep.
So far, Illinois is the first new State which would go to Obama but by a margin inferior to the national one. As a result, this State is deemed as republican even though Obama won it by an absolute majority. In terms of margin, the RL States more similar to it are Ohio and Florida. Plus, there is a thing which further complicates the analysis of this State : if we assume that home State effect benefits uniformly to the candidate in the entire State, then it means that Obama will doo far more poorly in Illinois (considering that his home State would be Chicago). However, how to estimate home State effect ? It may play more or less well depending to candidates (In 1972 for example, we can consider that it benefitted much more to McGovern than to Nixon). thus, Illinois remains a kind of enigma. Anyways, the result of the split will be a loss of 6 EVs for dems and a gain of 8 for reps.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 29, 2010, 11:14:36 AM
These new states would also completely change the dynamics of Presidential campaigning. For example, with Illinois being a Republican-leaning state where Obama has a regional advantage, both parties would undoubtedly campaign harder to try to win the state. The true effect of TTL's Illinois' status as a swing state in 2008 and the resulting change of campaign strategy is difficult to determine, but it is entirely feasible for this version of Illinois to be a McCain state.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 02, 2010, 12:53:49 PM
These new states would also completely change the dynamics of Presidential campaigning. For example, with Illinois being a Republican-leaning state where Obama has a regional advantage, both parties would undoubtedly campaign harder to try to win the state. The true effect of TTL's Illinois' status as a swing state in 2008 and the resulting change of campaign strategy is difficult to determine, but it is entirely feasible for this version of Illinois to be a McCain state.

Well, of course it could have been a McCain State in 2008, but when you look at Obama's campaign strategy in 2008, you precisely notice that it was a quite offensive one, focused on swing or even lean-McCain States (CO, FL, NC, IN...) instead of securing his own dem-leaning States (PA, MN, MI...). So if we assume that he keeps this behaviour (and all the more that the polarization will make the few Swing States left even more important), I'd guess he would have won there.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 04, 2010, 01:21:30 AM
Sorry for the delay, I'm gonna do Wisconsin today.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 04, 2010, 05:52:54 AM
Wisconsin


The addition of the Western part of Michigan and the removal of Kenosha county from Wisconsin would cause no major change in the State's politics, becoming only slightly more republican. The only important consequence of this modification being to add an Electoral vote to Wisconsin (despite Michigan wouldn't lose any), which could be seen as a good thing for democrats.
Madison would without any doubt remain its capital.

WI county map :
()

Barack Obama : 1,709,632 (55.95%) => 11 EVs
John McCain : 1,300,431 (42.56%)
Others : 45,555 (1.49%)


LNPI : +6.13 => likely dem.
The change in the State's LNPI, of only 1/2 point toward the GOP, is totally irrelevant. Despite a significative geographic change, the new Wisconsin is pretty much the same of the old Wisconsin. As I said above, the result is that democrats gain one EV. Just for fun's sake, here are the results in the former Michigan peninsula : Obama 51.83%, McCain 46.13%, Others 2.04%.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 04, 2010, 11:57:07 AM
2004 results for Wisconsin:

John Kerry (D): 1,521,285
George W. Bush (R): 1,520,809
Others: 30,430

2000 results for Wisconsin:
George W. Bush (R): 1,278,644
Al Gore (D): 1,274,349
Others: 120,720


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 08, 2010, 02:33:25 PM
Michigan


Reciprocally to Wisconsin, the loss of Western Michigan would make what remains just slightly more democrat. The only interesting thing with all this is that, despite losing one third of its territory, the State keeps almost the same population, and the same number of EVs. As a result, the new Michigan is significantly more densely populated.
Lansing would remain its capital.

MI county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,794,322 (57.51%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 1,978,992 (40.73%)
Others : 85,890 (1.77%)


LNPI : +9.52 => likely dem.
The change here is even more irrelevant than for Wisconsin (0.34 points toward democrats to be precise), so nothing interesting there. Eventually, the whole Michigan/Wisconsin thing proved to be a mere geographical adjustment without any consequence, except Wisconsin's gain of 1 EV.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 08, 2010, 09:23:06 PM
I disagree with you about the lack of consequences for the alteration of Michigan and Wisconsin. Wisconsin, already a battleground state in close elections, becomes an even greater battlefield with the addition of the Upper Peninsula, with one more electoral vote at stake to boot. In case you didn't notice, that's a 476 vote margin for Kerry in 2004, and a swing to Bush in 2000.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a Democratic-leaning battleground state that becomes slightly more Democratic with the removal of the Upper Peninsula.

There are also consequences for Congressional races. With these boundaries, Bart Stupak likely represents the new district in Wisconsin, but Michigan still has the same number of districts as in RL. It's likely that Stupak's district would be replaced with a significantly more Republican district in Northern Michigan.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 09, 2010, 05:14:43 AM
I disagree with you about the lack of consequences for the alteration of Michigan and Wisconsin. Wisconsin, already a battleground state in close elections, becomes an even greater battlefield with the addition of the Upper Peninsula, with one more electoral vote at stake to boot. In case you didn't notice, that's a 476 vote margin for Kerry in 2004, and a swing to Bush in 2000.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a Democratic-leaning battleground state that becomes slightly more Democratic with the removal of the Upper Peninsula.

There are also consequences for Congressional races. With these boundaries, Bart Stupak likely represents the new district in Wisconsin, but Michigan still has the same number of districts as in RL. It's likely that Stupak's district would be replaced with a significantly more Republican district in Northern Michigan.

Yes, of course you are right about congressional districts. My comment was mainly aimed to the 2008 Presidential election, for which the change  was pretty irrelevant. As for previous Presidential elections, it would inteed have made WI extremely close in 2000 and 2004 (BTW, I'd be glad if you could add the number of "others" votes in 2000 and 2004, so that we could get the voting percentages and thus the LNPI). However, consider that, in 2000, Wisconsin was already a Bush-leaning State (Gore barely carried it), and to the contrary in 2004 it was already 3 points more democratic than the country. So in terms of EV structure the new Wisconsin is alway in the same category as the old one.

BTW, I guess than when my State-by-State tour will be finished, I will try to draw what the 2002-2012 Congressional districts for the new states could be. Might be interesting. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 10, 2010, 07:50:48 AM
I edited the above post to include "others" votes for Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 10, 2010, 11:07:42 AM
So for 2004, we have :

Kerry : 49.51%
Bush : 49.50%
Others : 0.99%

LNPI : +2.48 => lean dem
RL Wisconsin's LNPI was +2.84, so it's a 0.36 pts swing toward the GOP


As for 2000 :

Gore : 47.82%
Bush : 47.66%
Others : 4.52%

LNPI : -0.36 => lean rep
RL Wisconsin's LNPI was -0.3, so it's a 0.06 pts swing toward the GOP


Well, as you can see, the change in Wisconsin was even more irrelevant in previous presidential elections. ;) Of course, its relevance was reinforced by Wisonsin's "swing state" status in 2000 and 2004, but in both elections WI eventually kept the same status (repectively lean rep and lean dem.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on June 10, 2010, 02:28:08 PM
Those states are, by far, better than the real ones.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 10, 2010, 03:53:11 PM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 11, 2010, 04:01:50 AM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ? ???


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Ameriplan on June 11, 2010, 04:11:51 AM
Let's go with Allegheny. :)



Allegheny


Solidly Republican even with Pittsburgh, Allegheny would've been John McCain's closest state after Missouri (MT doesn't exist).
I accept propositions for the State capital, since the only city I know there is Pittsburgh.

AY county map :
()

John McCain : 1,188,901 (51.17%) => 10 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,096,713 (47.21%)
Others : 37,599 (1.62%)


LNPI : -11.23 => solid rep.
If the State was expected to be more republican that the average, this huge LNPI makes it almost as republican as PA is democratic. As I said before, the final result of Pennsylvania split is a gain of 10 EVs for republicans and a loss of 8 for Democrats. Anyways, interesting to see how democrats have lost ground around here, whereas AY would probably have been more democratic than PA in the past.

What the hell, let's go with Butler as the capital.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 11, 2010, 01:37:29 PM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ? ???

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 11, 2010, 03:34:32 PM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ? ???

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

But the weird thing is that Illinois was quite close at the time (it went to Bush by only 2 points), so if Dukakis is so poor in Chicago, it means he'd poll quite well in the new Illinois. He probably would have lost by a margin inferior to Bush's national margin, which means Alternate Illinois was more democratic in 1988 than in 2008... Very weird.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 11, 2010, 03:58:30 PM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ? ???

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

But the weird thing is that Illinois was quite close at the time (it went to Bush by only 2 points), so if Dukakis is so poor in Chicago, it means he'd poll quite well in the new Illinois. He probably would have lost by a margin inferior to Bush's national margin, which means Alternate Illinois was more democratic in 1988 than in 2008... Very weird.

I'll look into that later tonight, when I have more time.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 11, 2010, 07:49:26 PM
1988 Results for Illinois:

George H. W. Bush (R): 857,894 (51.92%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 785,424 (47.54%)
Others: 8,939 (0.54%)

Interestingly, much of Dukakis's strength in Illinois comes from rural counties in southern and western Illinois where Obama fared rather poorly, while Obama outperformed Dukakis in more urban counties (such as Sangamon and Peoria) and in northwestern Illinois.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 12, 2010, 04:50:12 AM
Well, Illinois LNPI in 1988 was +3.35, and in 2008 -4.01.

So it means that, contrary to RL Illinois (which trended dem in every single election since 1980), Illinois without Chicago actually had a strong republican trend since 1988. Indeed, probably the general losses of democrats in rural areas can explain this trend.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Hash on June 12, 2010, 08:46:47 AM
1988 = farm crisis (and Democrats used to be strong in southern Illinois, which was sometimes considered the northern reaches of Dixie, but that had evaporated by 1988)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 13, 2010, 12:38:49 PM
1976 Results for Chicago:
Jimmy Carter (D): 1,640,808 (49.08%)
Gerald Ford (R): 1,639,294 (49.03%)
Others: 63,234 (1.89%)

As with Dukakis in 1988, the only counties won by Carter were Cook, Kenosha, and the Lake in Indiana. Ford's margins in the Chicago suburbs were weaker than Bush's in '88, so Carter still managed to carry the state.

1976 Results for Illinois:
Gerald Ford (R): 893,523 (51.44%)
Jimmy Carter (D): 818,979 (47.14%)
Others: 24,666 (1.42%)

As with Dukakis in 1988, Carter was strongest in rural counties in the south and was weakest in the northwest.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 15, 2010, 02:26:30 PM
North Florida


Made of the most conservative parts of Florida (especially in the North-East), NF would be a strongly republican State. McCain wouldn't have problems to retain the State's 12 EVs in 2008, once again diminishing Obama's edge in the Electoral College. However, the inclusion of a large central part of Florida, less overwhelmingly republican, avoids it to become a republican stronghold.
Tallahassee would remain its capital.

NF county map :
()

John McCain : 1,949,292 (53.00%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,689,042 (45.92%)
Others : 39,684 (1.08%)


LNPI : -14.34 => solid rep.
In terms of LNPI, North florida is right between GA (2 pts more dem) and SC (2 pts more rep). Thus, it's a State which fits quite well with his geographical location, ie what we could call the "coastal deep South", contrary to RL Florida which was a quite unique State in the South. Solidly republican like its neighbours, it would therefore had deprived Obama of its 12 Electoral Votes. However, as Florida was in 2008 (and actually in every election since 1980) more republican than the national margin, it's now almost certain that the split would favor the democrats. With as similar margin, NF has probably taken enough McCain votes to give South Florida and its 17 votes to democrats.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 21, 2010, 05:43:46 AM
Bump. I'll do SF on either wednesday or thursday, then I think I'll stop this for a while (I haven't enough courage to start with the Texas split...). I however encourage you if you are willing to work on annex subjects, as did Vazdul or once Mechman.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 21, 2010, 11:42:36 PM
1964 Results for North Florida:
Barry Goldwater (R) 417,826 (53.30%)
Lyndon Johnson (D) 366,155 (46.70%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)

1964 Results for South Florida:
Lyndon Johnson (D) 582,385 (54.40%)
Barry Goldwater (R) 488,115 (45.60%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on June 22, 2010, 12:35:51 PM
1968 Results for North Florida:
George Wallace (Amer. Ind.): 371,558 (40.77%)
Richard Nixon (R): 305,560 (33.53%)
Hubert Humphrey (D): 234,204 (25.70%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: California8429 on June 22, 2010, 12:51:18 PM
Honestly Colorado would split. The western slope would move to Utah. Denver would become its own city state and the eastern plains would join with Kansas or become their own state. Leaving the eastern mountain region and I-25 corridor as Colorado         


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Nichlemn on September 25, 2010, 08:37:26 AM
Updates? This is honestly my favourite thread on Atlas :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on September 25, 2010, 09:05:27 AM
Updates? This is honestly my favourite thread on Atlas :)

Yeah, update please. This weird TL is very, very interesting


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 27, 2010, 11:20:18 AM
Updates? This is honestly my favourite thread on Atlas :)

Yeah, update please. This weird TL is very, very interesting


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 27, 2010, 01:14:48 PM
All right, so I'll go with the last State I have done. After this one, I won't be able to give you anything new for a while.


South Florida


South Florida would be centered on the big metropolitan areas of Miami (in the South) and Tampa (in the State's northwest), which are heavily democratic. Thus, it's not surprising to see it leaning Dem. Maybe the biggest surprise is the relative weakness of this lean : barely more than IRL Pennsylvania (or MN if you want to take the example of a State that remains the same in this scenario). Perhaps that helps to see that Florida overall remains a strongly Republican State, and that big coastal cities aren't that strong compared to the inland. Still, the fact Obama would win it by 10 points in 2008 is certainly positive for democrats, who would have 17 EVs easily secured.

SF county map :
()

Barack Obama : 2,593,325 (54.78%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 2,096,927 (44.30%)
Others : 43,591 (0.92%)


LNPI : +3.22 => lean dem.
As said before, SF is only slightly democrat, and Republicans could stand a fair chance there in neutral political conditions. We could see Bush winning it in 2004 (though my personal guess is that he lost it). But when we go one election earlier, the Florida split becomes a very good deal for Democrats : with his strong standing in Florida, there is no doubt that Gore would win SF handily. That would certainly be enough to almost entirely correct the democrats' structural deficit that cost them the 2000 election. To get back on 2008, we can see a weird thing there : we had a State with 27 Electoral Votes with leaned rep, and once we split it we find a dem leaning 17-EV State and a strongly republican 12-EV State. To put it clearly, the majority of Floridans are republicans but under this split a majority of the State's EVs would go to democrats... Vazdul once said that I was "gerrymandering" States : well, the Florida split is probably what comes closer to a gerrymandering among what I've done. Of course, I still persist in thinking that this split is the best that could be done under demographic criteria. The main problem is that Florida is made of a very conservative and sparsely populated region (NF) and a heavily populated liberal leaning region (SF) which gives a conservative leaning State overall. Separing the two regions makes sense, even though it's far from being a neutral move politically. Thus, we consider the Florida split to bring 17 EVs to the democrat and take 15 to the Republicans.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on September 27, 2010, 08:23:38 PM
Give Rhode Island to Connecticut. We don't want it :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: feeblepizza on September 27, 2010, 08:24:35 PM
Updates? This is honestly my favourite thread on Atlas :)

Yeah, update please. This weird TL is very, very interesting


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 27, 2010, 10:09:26 PM
2004 Results for South Florida:

John Kerry: 2,233,425 (51.20%)
 George W. Bush: 2,090,817 (47.93%)
Others: 38,302 (0.87%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 27, 2010, 11:45:26 PM
1960 Results for North Florida:

Richard Nixon: 306,997 (50.07%)
John F. Kennedy: 306,197(49.93%)

1960 Results for South Florida:
Richard Nixon: 488,479 (52.47%)
John F. Kennedy: 442,503 (47.53%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on January 08, 2011, 07:58:49 AM
Bump.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2011, 08:36:44 AM
Yeah, I ought to continue this some day. :)

Texas will be long to do, though.

Also, as soon as possible I'll try to give you the 2010 apportionment numbers, since the current list is for 2000.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on January 08, 2011, 08:50:30 AM
=) I'm glad this will be updated


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2011, 12:57:07 PM
Sweet!  :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2011, 05:41:38 PM
Oh damn, I think you guys are being a bit too optimistic there... :( I'll do my best but I really can't tell you how soon you will have it updated... You know, I've so many things to do (Senate business could take a lot of time for example :P)...

I really don't want to disappoint you, and I will do my best not to. But please don't expect too much too soon. :'(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: exopolitician on January 11, 2011, 07:35:55 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2011, 07:58:45 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: exopolitician on January 11, 2011, 08:24:40 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2011, 08:43:02 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it. :P

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: exopolitician on January 11, 2011, 09:06:49 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it. :P

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.


The makes sense, but I feel like they should all be reunited as their own entity. I don't think it should all go to Maryland.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2011, 09:43:03 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it. :P

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.


The makes sense, but I feel like they should all be reunited as their own entity. I don't think it should all go to Maryland.

The only difference is the name of the State. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: exopolitician on January 11, 2011, 09:46:01 AM
I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it. :P

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.


The makes sense, but I feel like they should all be reunited as their own entity. I don't think it should all go to Maryland.

The only difference is the name of the State. ;)


Fair enough. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: freepcrusher on March 19, 2011, 06:46:02 PM
does anyone here know how to make maps. I want to make a map of a state called Wabash (couldn't think of a better name). It includes the following CDs: OH 4, OH 8, IN 3-9, IL 15, IL 19, IL 12, MO 4, MO 7, MO 8, KS 1, KS 2, KS 4, and NE 3.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 20, 2011, 04:55:22 AM
does anyone here know how to make maps. I want to make a map of a state called Wabash (couldn't think of a better name). It includes the following CDs: OH 4, OH 8, IN 3-9, IL 15, IL 19, IL 12, MO 4, MO 7, MO 8, KS 1, KS 2, KS 4, and NE 3.

You have to use paint.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 20, 2011, 07:17:30 PM
I can give you Washington, if you want.  ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 21, 2011, 03:45:47 PM
I can give you Washington, if you want.  ;)

Nah, I swear I will finish this project, some day. :)

I really enjoy it, but it's just too time-consuming for me to restart it now.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on April 21, 2011, 01:56:59 PM
I couldn't find the topic where we posted a map which favors democrats or republicans, so I'll post it here. tell me what you think about it ;) :

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on April 21, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
can you see it?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Peeperkorn on October 12, 2011, 07:51:49 AM
Great thread.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: ottermax on March 10, 2012, 04:55:41 AM
I just found this and it's incredible! I'd love to see it continued. Great work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 10, 2012, 05:14:02 AM
I know I should continue this some day... Unfortunately there are many other projects I'm working on right now, and I don't have much free time. I doubt anything will come before this summer, at best. :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Jerseyrules on March 10, 2012, 02:33:10 PM

That map is frightening ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on March 19, 2012, 01:02:17 AM
I remember this project, and I really want to see it completed.

In the meantime, however:

1912 Presidential Election Results, Chicago:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 220,255 (39.42%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 168,009 (30.07%)
William Taft (R): 106,342 (19.03%)
Others: 64,162 (11.48%)

1912 Presidential Election Results, Allegheny:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 191,110 (37.70%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 157,638 (31.09%)
William Taft (R): 91,904 (18.13%)
Others: 66,329 (13.08%)

1912 Presidential Election Results, Pennsylvania:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 251,246 (35.56%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 237,999 (33.69%)
William Taft (R): 180,031 (25.48%)
Others: 37,261 (5.27%)



Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on November 14, 2012, 03:38:36 PM
I've decided to calculate the (unofficial) 2012 results for all of the states featured so far. Hopefully this will inspire Antonio to complete this project...

New England
Barack Obama (D): 966,510 (56.16%)
Mitt Romney (R): 713,047 (41.43%)
Others: 41,426 (2.41%)
LNPI: +12.00 (from +10.57 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.43)

Massachusetts:
Barack Obama (D): 2,179,819 (61.00%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,334,458 (37.34%)
Others: 59,340 (1.66%)
LNPI: +20.93 (from +18.81 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.12)

New York:
Barack Obama (D): 2,573,302 (68.45%) (that's a swing to Obama)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,146,460 (30.49%)
Others: 39,845 (1.06%)
LNPI: +35.23 (from +29.88 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 5.35)

Adirondack:
Barack Obama (D): 1,302,524 (53.62%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,080,177 (44.46%)
Others: 46,674 (1.92%)
LNPI: +6.43 (from +2.34 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 4.09)

Pennsylvania:
Barack Obama (D): 1,951,932 (56.96%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,434,427 (41.86%)
Others: 40,309 (1.18%)
LNPI: +12.37 (from +12.04 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 0.33)

Allegheny:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,160,747 (54.63%)
Barack Obama (D): 935,289 (44.02%)
Others: 28,606 (1.35%)
LNPI: -13.34 (from -11.23 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.11)

Maryland:
Barack Obama (D): 2,012,238 (63.23%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,106,497 (34.77%)
Others: 63,799 (2.00%)
LNPI: +25.73 (from +22.98 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.75)

Erie:
Barack Obama (D): 1,287,331 (58.07%)
Mitt Romney (R): 899,420 (40.57%)
Others: 30,086 (1.36%)
LNPI: +14.77 (from +12.52 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.25)

Ohio:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,684,162 (53.75%)
Barack Obama (D): 1,403,510 (44.79%)
Others: 45,631 (1.46%)
LNPI: -11.69 (from -13.58 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.89)

Indiana:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,280,249 (56.55%)
Barack Obama (D): 938,560 (41.46%)
Others: 45,004 (1.99%)
LNPI: -17.82 (from -9.57 in 2008, a Republican trend of 9.57)

Chicago:
Barack Obama (D): 2,413,084 (63.47%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,333,766 (35.08%)
Others: 55,068 (1.45%)
LNPI: +25.66 (from +27.78 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.12)

Illinois:
Mitt Romney (R): 937,729 (53.02%)
Barack Obama (D): 795,124 (44.95%)
Others: 35,869 (2.03%)
LNPI: -10.80 (from -4.01 in 2008, a Republican trend of 6.79)

Wisconsin:
Barack Obama (D): 1,637,600 (52.49%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,447,178 (46.39%)
Others: 34,944 (1.12%)
LNPI: +3.37 (from +6.13 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.76)

Michigan:
Barack Obama (D): 2,491,528 (54.51%)
Mitt Romney (R): 2,037,766 (44.58%)
Others: 41,364 (0.90%)
LNPI: +7.20 (from +9.52 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.32)

North Florida:
Mitt Romney (R): 2,005,166 (54.45%)
Barack Obama (D): 1,640,531 (44.55%)
Others: 36,767 (1.00%)
LNPI: -12.63 (from -14.34 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.71)

South Florida:
Barack Obama (D): 2,595,501 (54.20%)
Mitt Romney (R): 2,157,008 (45.04%)
Others: 36,115 (0.75%)
LNPI: +6.43 (from +3.22 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 3.21)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on November 15, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
*sigh*  I'd be rushing to get out of downstate even faster if this was the case.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 25, 2012, 06:01:41 PM
Oh God I really must finish this! I hate myself for abandoning this project. :(

I promise I'll do my best to restart this, but University starts again on Jan 19 and I fear the time is too short for me to work out all I want to do.

Among other things, I'm dissatisfied with my Oregon/Washington divide, and I also would like to review a few States like Florida and Texas. And I don't like how the Dakotas and Nebraska are all merged together. There should be a better way to work all this out. Any advise on this domain is very welcome. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on December 27, 2012, 04:26:53 PM
Hi, if its the counties is your trouble, maybe you should just mush and mash the county lines a bit to make huge counties. Like OTL Southeast California, and western Texas! Also DO COUNTINUE :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on September 19, 2013, 06:55:45 PM
any chance in a revival effort?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 23, 2014, 02:02:26 PM
Well, geez guys, it's been over 4 years since I last updated this! Well, if there is someone who hasn't lost patience yet, I'm glad to announce that this is back! :D I'm determined to cover all the new States that I've created, and I don't know how much time that's gonna take, but we'll get there.

And what's more, I've now found a system that will allow me to cover results for past elections far more easily than I ever could have hoped. So, we're gonna see how these States voted from 1960 to 2012 in each Presidential election, and I'll also try to guess other stuff like congressional or local politics.

So, to cover all this, the best way to go is to start over. Let's begin with...

New England

As I've already said, NE is a merger of the 3 States in the country's northwestern corner (VT, NH and ME). Nowadays, with Vermont being an overwhelmingly democratic State and New Hampshire a tilt-D swing State, the end result ends up very similar to Maine. New England, thus, is a State where Democrats win by a margin roughly 10 percentage points above the national one.

NE Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

NE's political evolution doesn't deserve much commentary, since it reflects the already well-known story of the region. Traditionally a solid Republican State, it experienced a democratic realignment that began with LBJ's 1964 landslide, came to fruition with Clinton's 1992 victory and still showed signs of consolidation in the first decade of the 21st century. Interestingly, Humphrey actually prevailed there in 1968 despite losing both VT and NH, thanks to his excellent performance in Maine (which can be attributed to Ed Muskie's favorite son status). Reagan held extremely solid margins there, and Dubya came surprisingly close in 2000, but since then the gap between the two parties has widened so significantly that the State probably wouldn't be competitive anytime soon. Also to note, third parties generally tend to do well (although not nearly as well as in RL Maine), with Perot garnering over a quarter of the vote in 1992.

Comparison between the net PVI of the old and new States:
()

Until the 1980s, Maine was actually the most Democratic of the 3 States, and thus NE's margin generally being drawn down by NH and VT. Starting in the 1980s however, the current hierarchy began to consolidate, with NH the most Republican State, VT the most Democratic one, and ME in between. Republican candidates did extremely well in NH in the 1980s, allowing the new State to remain solidly into the Republican column until 1992. Since then however, with NH becoming a swing State and Vermont giving Dems increasingly lopsided victories, the State's margin has moved up, to the point that it is now basically identical to Maine's.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on July 23, 2014, 02:28:06 PM
YES!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 23, 2014, 04:29:52 PM
Now, some more details on New England! :)

- Capital: I think Concord (NH's capital IOTL) would be the most sensible choice, being located more centrally in the State.

- Governor: I could see Maggie Hassan with that job. I could easily see a Republican or an Independent occupy the governorship at some earlier point, as has happened in all three States.

- Senators: Partick Leahy (class 1) and Susan Collins (class 2) seem like a fair mix for such a State. Kelly Ayotte and Bernie Sanders are both too radical for that State.

- Representatives: I can't see much of a difference in the seat composition than in OTL. There probably would be a slightly larger western seat covering the bulk of VT, and 2 seats respectively where NH and Maine used to be. Since he wouldn't become Senator, Bernie Sanders would probably still represent his old seat in the House. Thus, the partisan makeup would probably be 4D-1I or 3D-1R-1I, depending on how districts around NH are drawn.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 23, 2014, 05:47:12 PM
Massachusetts


Not much to see there. MA and RI have always been basically twin States, so merging them doesn't produce any notable outcome. RI is generally (though not always) a tad more Democratic than MA, but not significantly so.

MA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Since 1856, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have voted for different Presidential candidates only twice: 1972, when MA was McGovern's only State, and 1980, when RI was one of the few States that stayed loyal to Carter while Reagan narrowly prevailed in MA. In both cases, the merger benefits Democrats. This means the only time the new Massachusetts has ever voted Republican was in 1984, when Reagan beat Mondale by about 3 points. Since 1996, the State's results are extremely constant, giving the Democratic candidate slightly over 60% each time.

BTW, apologies for the truncated 1964 results. For the record, LBJ won a whopping 76.9% that year.

In PVI terms, Massachusetts has been above or slightly under D+20 in every election since 1996. It used to be higher, around D+30, in the sixties, but then dropped to D+10/15 from 1976 to 1992.

Capital: Still Boston

Governor: Still Deval Patrick

Senators: Still Elizabeth Warren (class 1) and Ed Markey (class 2) - let's not kid ourselves, Rhode Island would have very little influence.

Representatives: Again, no difference. It would still be an all-Dem delegation.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: RR1997 on July 23, 2014, 05:51:12 PM
This is great. Please continue.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on July 23, 2014, 06:58:33 PM
It's time for a ticker-tape parade for this thread I think!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2014, 09:39:35 AM
New York

Making up about 2/3 of its original population, this diminished New York State retains within its border the city that makes it famous, as well as Long Island and the five counties of its close northern suburbs. To no one's surprise, it is a one-party Democratic State, giving Democratic presidential candidates extremely lopsided margins. In fact, this is probably the most overwhelmingly Democratic State in modern elections (Obama's home State of Hawaii gave him only slightly higher margins).

NY Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

However, it must be noted that New York has not always been quite so democratic. While Democrats have always performed better there than nationwide, for a long time the State remained vulnerable to Republican waves. Traditionally,New York used to be an extremely polarized State: the four man boroughs were Democratic countries, while Long Island, Staten Island, and the Northern suburbs leaned strongly toward the Republican Party. Most of the time, the densely populated inner NYC (it makes up about 60% of the State's population, but only a slim majority of the votes cast, due to poor turnout) easily outweighed the Republican periphery. However, in the 1980s, Reagan's overwhelming popularity in suburban New York allowed him to win the State twice. I was actually pretty amazed when I realized that: I even double-checked my excel formula to make sure I hadn't made any mistake, but no, he really did carry a State that now gives 70% of its vote to Obama. :P

Here's the 1984 county map, to give you an idea.

()

That year, Reagan defeated Mondale by a razor-thin 0.2 points, 49.9% to 49.7%. In this map you can see what happened. Mondale carried the four borough. Mondale carried Manhattan by 45 points, the Bronx by 34, Brooklyn by 23, and the Queens by a paltry 7. Meanwhile, Reagan distanced Mondale by 30 points in Staten Island, 28 points in Long Island, by 20 points in the two inner suburban counties of Westchester and Rockland, and by 36 points in the two northernmost counties of Dutchess and Orange. In short, New York State in the 1980s was split in two: an uber-Democratic urban core, and a just as strongly Republican suburban ring.

What has changed since, accounting for the State's massive Democratic trend, are mostly the suburbs, which are now solidly in the Democratic column. In 2012 for example, Obama did better than nationwide in every county except Putnam (Romney's only victory), Staten Island, and Long Island's Suffolk County. The four borough have also fallen even further into Democratic hands, to the point that Romney couldn't break 20% in any of them. In short, chopping of Upstate NY doesn't change much in presidential politics. From a State that has maybe 0.1% of voting Republican anytime soon, we get a State where this chance is maybe 0.001%. :P The remaining now is: what about Upstate, or, as it's called in this scenario, the State of Adirondack? Are there enough Democrats there to keep it in line, or did this split Result in a Republican gain of about 10-15 Electoral Votes?

Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

Governor: Andrew Cuomo could still easily take the spot, but he'd probably face a sizable opposition on his left and a solidly Democratic State Legislature would thwart the most right-wing aspects of his agenda.

Senators: Charlie Rangel (class 1) and Chuck Schumer (class 3) - if this State can't have at least one African-American in its statewide elected offices, I don't know which one can. :P

Representatives: With Democrats in total control of the State Legislature, they could probably easily pull a gerrymander and take all the State's seats for themselves. That said, I'm not sure they would do it. Regardless, even under the current bipartisan map they already control all but two seats in that area, so things wouldn't change much. According to Traininthedistance, it's possible for Democrat to limits Republicans to a single seats, so let's go for 17D-1R!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on July 24, 2014, 10:00:22 AM
THIS IS FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just read all the seven pages in one go, this is just freaking amazing.... PLEASE FEED US MORE OF YOUR DIVINE BRILLIANCE, ANTONIO! This is just the ultimate Nerd-gasm...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on July 24, 2014, 10:13:43 AM
Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

I don't know where were they'd have enough room to build statehouse on the island, unless they took over City Hall.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2014, 11:13:06 AM
THIS IS FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just read all the seven pages in one go, this is just freaking amazing.... PLEASE FEED US MORE OF YOUR DIVINE BRILLIANCE, ANTONIO! This is just the ultimate Nerd-gasm...

Well, wow! It's nice to see that my work elicits such... passion. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

I don't know where were they'd have enough room to build statehouse on the island, unless they took over City Hall.

Let's say that in this scenario, the new State map would have been enacted somewhere in the late 1950s (so that it first comes into effect with the 1960 election). Would there have been room left in Manhattan at that time? Otherwise, I guess it could be in the Bronx.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on July 24, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

I don't know where were they'd have enough room to build statehouse on the island, unless they took over City Hall.

Let's say that in this scenario, the new State map would have been enacted somewhere in the late 1950s (so that it first comes into effect with the 1960 election). Would there have been room left in Manhattan at that time? Otherwise, I guess it could be in the Bronx.

I don't think there was a lot of space even then. You might be able to put one in Central Park or  put it where they wanted to have their 2012 Olympic Stadium (Jets would have taken over after the Olympics) which was going to be built over the rail lines coming into the city.

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
Sure, that would work fine. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Peeperkorn on July 24, 2014, 08:14:12 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 25, 2014, 05:37:43 PM
Adirondack

What remains of the old New York State when you take out NYC and the areas most directly connected to it forms the State of Adirondack. This State would take up most of the OTL State's area, yet only about a third of its population. Unsurprisingly, its political evolution bears very little resemblance to that of its counterpart. Adirondack is a small-town State where old-style Republicanism fared decently. IRL, its Republican preferences throughout the 20th century were frustrated by a very Democratic NYC area. With this new division, Adirondack's peculiarity is finally free to make itself heard.

AD Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

As this chart shows, AD was once a somewhat Republican-leaning State. In fact, from 1960 to 1988, it only voted Democratic once (in LBJ's 1964 landslide). Kennedy, and even more glaringly Carter in 1976, both failed to carry it. However, this past Republican lean is stronger than it seems, and most of the time AD's results matched the national pattern pretty closely. Similarly to our New England State, it was the home of rural moderates who appreciated the Old Republican Party (which a candidate like Gerald Ford, who massively overperformed in AD, perfectly embodied) but were repelled by the party's conservative turn. In 1980, the State actually saw a swing toward Carter - and a rather strong one at that, mirroring that of OTL Vermont - with Reagan running 8 points below Ford's score. And 12 years later, following Clinton's victory, AD has realigned itself into a Democratic-leaning State. The lean isn't solid (Bush came one point short of defeating Kerry in 2004, and Obama's 2008 performance was fairly mediocre), but it is consistent. It has widened even more in 2012, with Obama doing almost as well against Romney as he did against McCain (he lost 0.02 points, to be precise). In short, while it can't be counted safely in the Democratic column, Adirondack pretty clearly leans left. Mid-sized cities like Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester and Albany, as well as a rural Northeast that increasingly resembles Vermont, outweigh the rural regions that have remained loyal to the national GOP. On the other hand, in State politics, Republicans may very well have retained some strength, or even hold a slight advantage over the Democrats.

Capital: The easiest solution is obviously to keep Albany. However, in the State's new geography, Albany would be seriously off-center, being so far to the east. This could anger Western Adirondack, who would hold a significantly bigger clout than they to in the OTL New York State. As a result, maybe Syracuse could be a compromise choice. Utica would fit even better, but it might be a bit small. What do you guys think?

Governor: If it held its gubernatorial election in 2010, it's quite likely that a Republican would have won the position. But who? The Republican bench is so weak that I can't think of anyone with a serious Gubernatorial profile. Carl Paladino? He's a Tea Party nut, so probably not the right fit. Maybe Harry J. Wilson, the guy who nearly won the Comptroller General race? It's really hard to say, but there must be someone.

Senators: Kirsten Gillibrand (class 2) is an easy choice, and for a republican let's say Tom Reed (class 3) since he is the most senior upstate Republican congressman. But really, it's anyone's guess.

Representatives: Now the key question becomes who holds the State legislature. Considering that the OTL NY Senate is still somehow in GOP hands, it's probably a safe bet to say the Adirondack Senate is a Republican lock. But what about the State Assembly? My guess it that it would have been swept by the 2010 wave as well, thus ensuring a Republican trifecta and allowing for a gerrymander. I'm too lazy to experiment with DRA, but my guess would be that they could be able to make up a 6R-3D map, though I might be exaggerating things a bit.

I'd greatly appreciate any correction/contribution, if someone has better knowledge of local politics. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 26, 2014, 07:53:51 AM
PVI comparison of the two new States (and the old one)

()

Unsurprisingly, New York was significantly more Democratic than Adirondack in all but one election (the highly atypical 1964). It's pretty clear that the NYC area has been the dominating political force in the old New York State, allowing it to remain in safe Democratic territory. While new New York was a solidly Democratic State in every year except 1980, and became an absolute stronghold from 1996 onward, Adirondack was solidly Republican until 1980, zig-zagged a lot between the two parties, and finally found a lasting alignment on the Democratic side after 1996.

It's also funny to not that, from 1972 to 1992, NY and AD have always trended in the opposite direction and alternated their trends each year: Carter marginally improved over McGovern in New York 1976 (an interesting phenomenon, since all the OTL States that trended D in 1976 were Southern or Border States) while getting destroyed in Adirondack. The AD saw the aforementioned swing against Reagan while NY flirted with the GOP in 1980, then Mondale improved in NY while doing poorly in AD, then Dukakis did the opposide, and under Clinton the trend reversed itself again. Yet, in the long run, both States have moved significantly toward the Democrats.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 26, 2014, 08:27:49 AM
Again, if anyone has some insight in local Adirondack politics, I'd be grateful. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 27, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Pennsylvania

The split in Pennsylvania follows the most natural and historically significant fault line of the State's geography: that is, East vs. West, or in other words, Philly vs. Pittsburgh. The Philadelphia-centered State, covering the most populous and earliest-settled area, should logically get to keep its original name. Over the covered period, this new Pennsylvania would be a reliably Democratic State, continuously giving large victories to the party's Presidential candidates ever since 1992. This democratic lean can easily be explained by the demographic weight of the solidly progressive Philadelphia metropolitan area.

PA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Since 1960, Pennsylvania has always remained closer to the Democratic Party than the nation as a whole, at least at the Presidential level. It went for the Republican Party only 4 times: once in Nixon's 1972 landslide, and in the three elections of the Reagan-Bush era. In close elections, Democrats like Kennedy, Humphrey and Carter carried it with narrow but decisive margins. And in the years that followed Clinton's success, the State seems to have decisively aligned itself with the Democratic party. Even George W. Bush, in his 2004 victory, lost the State to John Kerry by a whopping 9 points. Four years later, Obama distanced McCain by nearly 20 points there. These healthy democratic margins (although still not quite in landslide territory) clearly indicate that the Philadelphia area has been moving left over the past few decades. Back in the late 1980s, a candidate like George Bush Sr. (who in general did very well in urban areas thanks to his law-and-order stance) could surpass his Democratic opponent by over 7 points, meaning that the State was a pretty good national bellwether.

The key shift that propelled this trend seems to have occurred in the Philly suburbs (similarly to how the shift in NYC suburbs turned a solid-D state into a one-party-D State). If you compare the 1960 election to the 2004 one for example, the bulk of Democratic improvement seems to have come from Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks and Lehigh counties (though Philadelphia itself also went from 68-32 Kennedy to 80-19 Kerry). This allowed Kerry to double Kennedy's margin of victory, from 4.5 to 9 points:

()

Regardless of its causes, this Democratic trend is rather interesting, because it tells a rather different story than the one you get when you look at OTL Pennsylvania, which was always only a slightly D-leaning Swing State. This implies that the trend in the Pittsburgh-centered Allegheny has gone in the opposite direction, as we shall soon see.

Capital: The OTL capital of Harrisburg is located in this State, but it would probably be a poor choice considering its location on the western edge. Philadelphia is probably too big and putting the capital there would piss off too many people. So let's go with Allentown: it's big enough but not too big, and probably located very close to the State's center of gravity, close to Philly but not too much. It should work fine.

Governor: Corbett won the election by a mere 859 votes (0.04 points) in 2010. Considering that the OTL race was never close, it's likely that under more favorable circumstances the DNC would have allocated more money, concentrated more GOTV efforts and attempted to field a stronger candidate. With that in mind, I'd guess that Bob Casey Jr. could be occupying the Governor's Mansion right now (he's always wanted to be the governor).

Senators: Allyson Schwartz (class 1) and Joe Sestak (class 3)

Representatives: PA would almost certainly have 11 seats under the 2010 apportionment. Considering the natural gerrymander created by Democratic strength in big cities, it's very likely that Republicans would control at least one of the two houses of the State Legislature, and quite possibly both. That said, they probably couldn't pull a gerrymander quite as nasty as IRL with a Democrat in the Governor's Mansion. I would guess that the tally after 2012 would be something like 6D-5R.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 27, 2014, 05:29:01 PM
Or maybe Casey should be the Governor and Schwartz the Senator? Seeing that it's the job he always wanted, and that Schwartz is already a representative, it might make more sense. Also, voters might be more tolerant of ideological divergence with their Governors than with Senators. What do you guys think?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on July 27, 2014, 08:04:47 PM
I've talked to someone from Upstate NY about this, and they are likewise just as clueless about who would step up for the new state's leaders, from either party really.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 28, 2014, 03:33:50 AM
I've talked to someone from Upstate NY about this, and they are likewise just as clueless about who would step up for the new state's leaders, from either party really.

Oh wow, I guess that says a lot about the degree of political alienation that the Upstate suffers from the NYC metro. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on July 29, 2014, 04:58:55 AM
I've talked to someone from Upstate NY about this, and they are likewise just as clueless about who would step up for the new state's leaders, from either party really.

Oh wow, I guess that says a lot about the degree of political alienation that the Upstate suffers from the NYC metro. :P

It's coming from someone who's a fellow political scientist too :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 29, 2014, 11:35:31 AM
Allegheny

James Carville once described OTL Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between". Well, this new Allegheny State takes up the Pittsburgh part, but also most of Alabama. It covers about two thirds of the area of OTL Pennsylvania, but makes up less than 40% of its population. Allegheny thus combines together the typically "Rust Belt" (once "Manufacturing Belt") area of western PA, along with the rural, conservative and sparsely populated heartland. The end result is a State that nowadays votes solidly for Republican candidate, but whose electoral history over the past 50 years has been rather rocky and interesting.

AY Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Allegheny's vote has many times defied easy interpretation, providing a good deal of very close contests. Up until the 1990s, the State often seemed to be torn between the industrial Pittsburgh area in the southwest (home to the typical working-class component of the New Deal coalition) and the rural counties in the eastern half of the State, which have always been overwhelmingly Republican. Which of the two prevailed often depended on the ability of each candidate to mobilize support among their respective constituencies. For example, Nixon narrowly won AY against Kennedy in 1960 (potentially a game-changer in that razor-thin race), but lost it to the laborite-populist Humphrey eight years later. Surprisingly enough, Carter only won the State by a hair in 1976 (with a margin lower than nationwide).

However, throughout the 1980s, Allegheny valiantly resisted the Republican wave that swept the country. Yes, Reagan carried it both times, but always by close margins. In 1984, it actually was one of Mondale's strongest States, which he came within 2 points of winning (closer than any OTL Reagan State). Four years later, Dukakis distanced Bush by almost 5 points, becoming the only Democrat besides LBJ who ever won an absolute majority of AY's vote. Clearly, the workers of Pittsburgh and around were up in arms against Reaganomics - and if the term "Reagan Democrat" means anything, it certainly shouldn't be used to describe these voters.

The tide really began to turn in the mid-1990s. Clinton had won Allegheny by over 10 points in 1992, but came close to losing the State to Dole four years later. Since 2000, the State has consistently voted for Republicans at the Presidential level, trending right at every election. Even Obama, after a slight improvement in 2008, got utterly trounced in 2012, doing worse than Kerry. Overall, Allegheny's PVI went from D+16 to R+14 between 1984 and the most recent election. This massive Republican trend is almost comparable to that of West Virginia, another State where Democrats have experienced a sustained and inexorable collapse. This goes to show that there really is an "Appalachia" region with cultural and political similarities, having experienced a common Republican trend.

()

Comparing 1984 and 2008 (respectively a 2-point and 4-point Republican win, thus fairly comparable) allows us to see that the shift has come entirely from the once-industrial southwestern corner of the State. Counties like Beaver, Fayette, Greene and Washington, which gave Mondale more than 59% of their vote, all voted for McCain. Westmoreland county went from giving 52% of its vote to Mondale to voting for McCain by 58%. Pittsburgh's Allegheny county, meanwhile, saw a meager 2-point swing toward Obama. In absolute terms, Obama managed to partially make up with that loss by doing better in the "Alabama" part of the State, where he managed to keep the Republican margins to 25-30 points instead of 35-40. But overall, even these improvements remain subpar compared to the national swing (from R+18 to D+7). One of the few counties where Democrats saw genuine gains over that period was Centre county, home to Penn State.

Capital: After Pittsburgh (too big, too western) and Erie (definitely too northwestern), Altoona would be the State's third most populous city, so it could be a fair choice. It's probably located somewhat to the east of the State's center of gravity, but it wouldn't be the first time a capital's choice is skewed in favor of sparsely populated areas. There is Johnstown a few miles west if you prefer, but it's really small (20K inhabitants).

Governor: Tom Corbett was born in Philly, but he's done most of his career in western PA. Considering that he won Allegheny by a 23-points landslide in 2010, it's easy to see him in the Governor's Mansion in this scenario. He might even stand a fair chance to be reelected. :P

Senators: Rick Santorum (class 1) and Ron Klink (class 2). Without a strong challenger like Casey, Santorum could probably have survived 2006. On the other hand, the 2008 wave would likely be strong enough to sweep that year's Senatorial election.

Representatives: There's no doubt the GOP would control the State legislature after 2010. Holding the trifecta, they could act as they did IRL and gerrymander the CD map into a 6R-1D breakdown. As IRL they'd just leave one Democratic vote sink in and around Pittsburgh, as I don't think there is any way to avoid it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Del Tachi on July 29, 2014, 12:36:42 PM
So glad to see this back, and I'm digging the new layout :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 02, 2014, 09:00:12 AM
PVI comparison (old PA / new PA / AY)

()

Another way to look at what I've said about the two States and their political evolution. As you can see, Pennsylvania's divide is real: PA and AY in this scenario have moved very differently through time, and the overall evolution in PA's political leaning (or lack thereof) is only the result of a weighted average between these two diverging tendencies.

Early on, from 1960 to 1976, the two States moved in a relatively similar way, with PA generally a couple points more democratic than AY. From 1980 to 1992, Allegheny became solid Democratic territory, giving the party better results than Pennsylvania. Its Democratic alignment peaked in 1984 and (to a lesser extent) 1988, when the State was 16 and 12 points above the national margin. Instead, PA was basically a bellwether in 1980 and 1988.

However, this trend completely reversed over the next decade. PA started trending Democrat after 1988, a trend that accentuated throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Meanwhile, Democrats saw a sharp drop in AY over the 1992 and 1996 election cycles. In 1996, PA was again the most democratic of the two States, with AY becoming more Republican than the country as a whole (which caused OTL PA itself to become a national bellwether).

Since 2004, Pennsylvania seems to have stabilized itself as a D+11/12 State, and in 2012 it (marginally) trended Republican for the first time in 20 years. Allegheny, on the other hand, has drifter father and farther away from the Democrats. After remaining a Republican-leaning, but competitive State for three successive electoral cycles, it has moved into solid-R territory during the Obama elections (again, showing similarity with WV and other Appalachian States).


Maryland coming next!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on August 04, 2014, 01:45:52 AM
Wow, AY is one crazy state!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2014, 10:02:26 AM
Maryland

There, I simply merged the neighboring Delaware and DC into Maryland, adding about 1.5 million to the State's population. This, as you can imagine, doesn't change much to the State's political outlook. However, the overwhelmingly democratic DC would push the State somewhat to the left of OTL Maryland, with significant consequences.

MD Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Indeed, this new Maryland becomes one of the most consistently Democratic States of the past half-century, voting Republican only once (Nixon's 1972 landslide) since 1960. Both times, the narrow Republican victories of 1984 and 1988 are canceled by DC's heavy Democratic margins (even as Delaware alone would have brought the State further toward the GOP). The most striking result is that, under this scenario, Mondale actually won more than one State. :P He carried MD by 0.4 points, more than the 0.2 point margin he had in Minnesota! Clearly, even a numerically small constituency like DC can make a major difference if it's sufficiently overwhelming in its support for one party.

Comparing the new and old States' relative PVI brings further perspective (DC is omitted because its PVI fluctuates between 50 and 80, and thus would skew the graph too much):

()

As you can see, the "new" Maryland remains always about 5 points more democratic than its RL counterpart. Delaware's political leanings, generally a bit more Republican than MD's, have almost no influence. On the other hand, DC's impact is significant, turning an already solid-D State into stronghold territory. Since DC residents began to vote in 1964, this new Maryland has always been at least 7 points more Democratic than the nation. The only time when OTL Maryland displayed a slight Republican lean IRL, namely 1972, saw McGovern lose by only 16 points in this scenario. Starting in the 2000s, Maryland's PVI has been at or above 20 points, making it rock-solid Democratic country.

Capital: I'd say Annapolis still works fine.

Governor: Still Martin O'Malley

Senators: Tom Carper (class 1) and Barbara Mikulski (class 3) - I'll be nice and give poor little Delaware a Senator :P

Representatives: With the State Legislature solidly in Democratic hands, the party would have no trouble creating a gerrymander like the OTL one, and getting a 9D-1R delegation. They might even take all 10 seats for them in if they play their cards right with New Castle County, but I can't know that for sure. Regardless, giving congressional representation to DC would net the Democrats one more seat.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2014, 03:09:08 PM

Indeed! This Pennsylvania split was my favorite part of the scenario so far (though California seems very promising as well). I think that's at least one case where I was able to draw States that represent entirely different constituencies.

Anyway, North and South Florida are coming next! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 04, 2014, 09:11:12 PM
Anyway, North and South Florida are coming next! :)

Yay!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 05, 2014, 08:08:33 AM
I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally. 


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 05, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally.

Really? I had no idea. You're right that it may be a fairer solution for Delaware citizens, but there's the problem of population (new PA is still pretty big) and geography. I've always hated the shape of the DE/MD border. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 06, 2014, 02:07:46 PM
I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally.

Really? I had no idea. You're right that it may be a fairer solution for Delaware citizens, but there's the problem of population (new PA is still pretty big) and geography. I've always hated the shape of the DE/MD border. :P

Yeah the entire area is a mess and there are bunch of wiki articles on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Mile_Circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Mile_Circle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_(border) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_(border))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpeninsular_Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpeninsular_Line)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line)

Also kinda surprised you didn't give the entire Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 03:08:38 PM
North Florida

Dividing Florida was a tricky job, and I can't say I'm fully satisfied with the result. The soundest solution would have been to make NF start at the level of Marion and Putnam counties, leaving the big metropolitan areas of Orlando and Tampa out of it. However, such a State would have less than a quarter of FL's original population - leaving the Southern one way too big. As a result, I included the Orlando metropolitan area to NF, thus obscuring a bit the characteristic nature of "real" Northern Florida. Nonetheless, the main picture remains: NF is the smaller of the two States, and, since 1984, always the most Republican of the two.

NF Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

More so that OTL FL, North Florida's political evolution displays some decisively Southern traits. In 1960, it was an ultimate swing State, with Nixon prevailing by a mere 800 votes thanks to his huge margins in the Orlando region. To show just how much things have changed since, Kennedy actually swept the Florida panhandle. In 1964 and 1968, it joined its neighboring Deep Southern States in supporting first Goldwater, then Wallace. I was forced to cut Nixon's 1972 results on the chart, but he won a whopping 76% of the vote. In 1976, Carter managed to resurrect Democratic strength in the Panhandle and to keep Ford's margin down in the Orlando region, winning the State by 7 points. He remains, to this day, the only Democrat to win this State in the past half-century. Over the next 3 elections, the State experienced a massive Republican trend, to the point that it gave over 65% of its votes to Bush Sr. Since then, it has somewhat moved back to the Democrats, but it remains solidly in the Republican column (its PVI from 1992 to 2012 has fluctuated between R+11 and R+15).

However, as I said before, this general overview of the State mixes together two very different political movements. The story of the Florida panhandle (even when understood in a broad sense, to include the Jacksonville area and the northern edge of the peninsula) is that of many other Deep South States, ie one of realignment from a solidly democratic land to an overwhelmingly republican territory, going through all the well-known mood swings from 1964 through 1980. The Orlando area, meanwhile, has experienced a prolonged Democratic trend. Once the most republican region of OTL Florida (Orlando's Orange County gave Nixon 71% of the vote in 1960!), it is now roughly as Democratic as the Tampa Bay area. The superposition of these two opposite trends was particularly striking in 2000:

()

In relative terms, Gore significantly improved over Clinton's 1996 performance throughout the Orlando area (especially in Orange County) and more marginally in Tallahassee. Meanwhile, most of the panhandle moved in the opposite direction. It is still unclear which of the two regions is prevailing over the other, and the State hasn't moved much either way since 1992. However, were the Orlando area to continue moving leftward and increasingly resemble other overwhelmingly democratic urban areas, NF could eventually become more competitive. In the past few elections, the State has been just a couple points more Republican than Georgia. Still, it's hard to see it voting Democratic anytime soon.

Capital: Although it's located north and west of the State's main population centers, Tallahassee should work fine, considering that it's the capital of OTL Florida.

Governor: Bill McCollum would have won easily in 2010 and would probably be headed to a comfortable reelection (Rick Scott lives in South Florida).

Senators: Bill Nelson (class 1) and Jeff Miller (class 3) - I initially wanted two Republicans, but the GOP bench in this State is so incredibly (and surprisingly) weak that I really don't see how a candidate as strong as Bill Nelson could possibly lose when running for an open seat in a year like 2006 or 2012.

Representatives: In 2010, Republicans would hold supermajorities in both houses and would have no trouble pushing through a shameless gerrymander. Still, I guess they can't do much worse than IRL, so we'd still end up with a 9R-2D map. Or is there a way to crack Grayson's seat in the Orlando area as well? If so, feel free to correct me.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally.

Really? I had no idea. You're right that it may be a fairer solution for Delaware citizens, but there's the problem of population (new PA is still pretty big) and geography. I've always hated the shape of the DE/MD border. :P

Yeah the entire area is a mess and there are bunch of wiki articles on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Mile_Circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Mile_Circle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_(border) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_(border))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpeninsular_Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpeninsular_Line)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line)

Also kinda surprised you didn't give the entire Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland.

Haha yeah, Delaware is one complicated little prick of a State. :P

And yeah, I could have added the two VA counties in the peninsula to Maryland, but my intent when redrawing State borders was more with correcting glaring population disparities and trying to form more homogeneous communities of interest than anything else, so I tried to keep the changes as minimal as possible.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 07, 2014, 03:51:59 PM
Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 04:29:28 PM
Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 07, 2014, 04:35:08 PM
Anthony, if you want, starting next month I could draw congressional districts for each of these states for you.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 07, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 04:54:17 PM
Anthony, if you want, starting next month I could draw congressional districts for each of these states for you.

That would be fantastic! :D I was actually thinking of asking people in the Political Geography board about that! I'd really like to see some Congressional maps based on the political realities I've created, to see how much could actually change.


Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare

Very interesting insight, thanks. :) So we can say there's about to be a very tough primary challenge for McCollum...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: GAworth on August 07, 2014, 04:58:04 PM
Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare

He would live in South Florida. So he could very well be a influential legislator down there but not North Florida.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 07, 2014, 05:02:38 PM
Anthony, if you want, starting next month I could draw congressional districts for each of these states for you.

That would be fantastic! :D I was actually thinking of asking people in the Political Geography board about that! I'd really like to see some Congressional maps based on the political realities I've created, to see how much could actually change.


Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare

Very interesting insight, thanks. :) So we can say there's about to be a very tough primary challenge for McCollum...
Ok, can you get me some updated district data.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 07, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
Anthony, if you want, starting next month I could draw congressional districts for each of these states for you.

That would be fantastic! :D I was actually thinking of asking people in the Political Geography board about that! I'd really like to see some Congressional maps based on the political realities I've created, to see how much could actually change.


Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare

Very interesting insight, thanks. :) So we can say there's about to be a very tough primary challenge for McCollum...

Well, McCollum would probably just not run for another term. I doubt he would Buchanan the Bush ('92 GOP Primary)

Eh McCollum is like 70 years old, I'd say someone else, like Will Weatherford (went to Jacksonville University, Represented Pasco County (directly north of Hillsboro and Pinellas Counties)

Didn't he almost win the GOP primary against Scott in 2010?

Well he did, but in 2014, I'd say Weatherford is the frontrunner and McCollum won't run again. IMO McCollum would be popular, but he'd need an heir, think of it this way: Old yet popular governor versus charismatic (and very, very tanned) guy who looks like he could be President? (looks, not can be, looks) IMO a 34 year old Speaker of the Florida who was elected to the State House when he was 28 would have a great chance. But here's the thing with Willy, the issue he drastically failed at is the exact thing that makes Tampa and Sarasota (south of his district) famous, retiree healthcare

He would live in South Florida. So he could very well be a influential legislator down there but not North Florida.

.....oh.... I guess Webster would be the frontrunner then


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 05:13:22 PM
Ok, can you get me some updated district data.

What do you mean?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 07, 2014, 05:15:57 PM
how many districts each state gets under 2010 data.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2014, 06:36:49 PM

Oh, sure! I don't yet have the 100%-accurate numbers (because I can only calculate apportionment only once I have every State), but in most cases it's pretty clear how many districts each State would have. So, let's see:

New England: 5
Massachusetts: 11
New York: 18 or 19, can't say for sure
Adirondack: 9
Pennsylvania: 11
Allegheny: 7
Maryland: 10
North Florida: 11
South Florida: 16 (outside chance of 15)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 07, 2014, 06:40:36 PM

Oh, sure! I don't yet have the 100%-accurate numbers (because I can only calculate apportionment only once I have every State), but in most cases it's pretty clear how many districts each State would have. So, let's see:

New England: 5
Massachusetts: 11
New York: 18 or 19, can't say for sure
Adirondack: 9
Pennsylvania: 11
Allegheny: 7
Maryland: 10
North Florida: 11
South Florida: 16 (outside chance of 15)
and that is districts, not electoral votes right.  If so I can get a few done right now by whole county in Adirondack and the florida's  Nevermind, it is districts.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on August 07, 2014, 07:10:54 PM
Ah, that's an excellent write up too.  I actually didn't suspect the Floridas would be that interesting.  Granted, maybe that's because one of the other people in my Poli Sci grad program is from Florida and I've just attuned myself to what he's said about it already.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Illini on August 07, 2014, 08:53:33 PM
I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ? ???

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

But the weird thing is that Illinois was quite close at the time (it went to Bush by only 2 points), so if Dukakis is so poor in Chicago, it means he'd poll quite well in the new Illinois. He probably would have lost by a margin inferior to Bush's national margin, which means Alternate Illinois was more democratic in 1988 than in 2008... Very weird.

I know I'm a few years off, but I'd like to address this revelation from the new maps. Indeed, it makes sense that new Illinois would have trended Republican since 88. Central Illinois, farm country, has been hardcore Republican the whole time, and the northwestern part of the state, union country, mostly Democrat. Southern Illinois, or Little Egypt, however, is hilly and acts more like Kentucky than it does any other part of Illinois. We know that Kentucky has seen a Republican trend since 88, which is easy to explain with the shifts of the party brands and candidates, and so we can explain why that has happened in Illinois as well.

Anyway, awesome job to everyone who has contributed here. What a fascinating scenario!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2014, 03:57:45 AM
Ah, that's an excellent write up too.  I actually didn't suspect the Floridas would be that interesting.  Granted, maybe that's because one of the other people in my Poli Sci grad program is from Florida and I've just attuned myself to what he's said about it already.

Well, large States with several distinctive areas are always at least somewhat interesting. I guess Texas, California and Illinois will be even more interesting though. ;)


I know I'm a few years off, but I'd like to address this revelation from the new maps. Indeed, it makes sense that new Illinois would have trended Republican since 88. Central Illinois, farm country, has been hardcore Republican the whole time, and the northwestern part of the state, union country, mostly Democrat. Southern Illinois, or Little Egypt, however, is hilly and acts more like Kentucky than it does any other part of Illinois. We know that Kentucky has seen a Republican trend since 88, which is easy to explain with the shifts of the party brands and candidates, and so we can explain why that has happened in Illinois as well.

Anyway, awesome job to everyone who has contributed here. What a fascinating scenario!

Thank you very much! :) And yeah, I suspected that with regard to Illinois. At the time my understanding of US political geography was pretty limited, but since I've noticed the Democratic collapse in rural areas, so that makes plenty of sense in retrospect that Southern Illinois would be a lot more Democratic in the 1980s.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: RR1997 on August 08, 2014, 09:56:27 AM
This is the best thing ever.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2014, 11:13:34 AM
Maybe I should make a spin-off thread in the Political Geography - Demographics board for redistricting stuff, what do you think?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 08, 2014, 11:28:25 AM
Maybe I should make a spin-off thread in the Political Geography - Demographics board for redistricting stuff, what do you think?
For some states yeah, also I have some districts for ya.

()
The pink District would be a republican giveaway.

()

The red is a democratic sink.
The blue and green would both elect republican.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2014, 12:38:04 PM
Nice job! :) I guess DRA will be badly needed though, especially in States where a sophisticated gerrymander will be attempted, like AD. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 08, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
Nice job! :) I guess DRA will be badly needed though, especially in States where a sophisticated gerrymander will be attempted, like AD. ;)
Yes it will.  Those took way to long using the old fashioned way.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 08, 2014, 02:35:04 PM
What are the populations of these new states (especially the ones you split)?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on August 08, 2014, 04:45:03 PM
YES!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2014, 06:51:37 PM
What are the populations of these new states (especially the ones you split)?

Here for you! :)


   1960   1970   1980   1990   2000   2010

NE   1966067   2174059   2556726   2899938   3119536   3270572

MA   6008066   6635895   6684191   7019889   7397416   7600196

NY   11086097   12072547   11385432   11723167   12689665   13038826

AD   5696207   6164420   6172640   6267288   6286792   6339276

PA   6293552   6709711   6729612   6951093   7317947   7773451

AY   5025814   5084198   5134283   4930550   4963107   4928928

MD   4310937   5227013   5449646   6054536   6652145   7273209

NF   2212729   2807236   3806408   5132107   6413795   7762275

SF   2738831   3982207   5939916   7805819   9568583   11039035


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2014, 06:53:14 PM
Anyway, I got the redistricting thread started in the other board, if anyone is interested.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: GAworth on August 08, 2014, 08:50:28 PM
Anyway, I got the redistricting thread started in the other board, if anyone is interested.

Link? I am fascinated by this thread.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 09, 2014, 02:53:50 AM
Anyway, I got the redistricting thread started in the other board, if anyone is interested.

Link? I am fascinated by this thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868.0


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 10, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
South Florida

This southern half (slightly more than half population-wise, slightly less area-wise) of Florida is mainly composed of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach megalopolis, the sparsely populated Everglades counties in Southwestern FL, and the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. With the former being overwhelmingly (and increasingly) Democratic, the second solidly Republican, and the latter a swing area, the end result is a Democrat-leaning, but still competitive State. In modern US politics, that means a neutral election would result in the Democrats carrying a majority of OTL Florida's electoral votes, even though OTL Florida as a whole is Republican-leaning.

SF Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Before the Great Southern Realignment, SF used to be the most Republican-friendly of the two States. Nixon carried it comfortably in 1960, where NF was a virtual tie. In 1968, Wallace's performance was less than half that of NF and he came a distant third. And in 1976, Ford was only 4 points behind Carter (which means he could have won the State had he prevailed nationally by a 2 or 3 points margin). On the other hand, in elections where the South went overwhelmingly for the GOP, South Florida resisted much better than its Northern counterpart. LBJ carried it easily in 1964, and McGovern managed to crack 30% there. By all these measures, in these chaotic elections of the 60s and 70s, SF could be said to be the less "Southern" of the two States.

This tendency further accentuated over the next decades. South Florida was solid-Republican country in the 1980s, but Reagan and Bush's margins of victory there remained reasonable, and from 1980 to 1988 the trend was essentially flat. Finally, under Clinton, the State realigned itself to the Democrats. In 1992, George Bush Sr. dropped 19 points to 39%, allowing Clinton to narrowly prevail. In 1996, Clinton's narrow lead expanded into a commanding one, which went beyond his national result. SF's PVI peaked in 2000, when Al Gore carried the State by 7.6 points in the extremely close national context. Considering that Florida's marginal Republican tilt is what delivered the White House to George W. Bush, this split could prove a huge game changer for that election. Since then, the State seems to have stabilized somewhere between D+3 and D+6. Nonetheless, significant trends have been ongoing within the State, as the 2000-2012 swing map highlights.

()

Over the past decade, it appears that the Democrats' power base in South Florida has gradually shifted, from Broward and Palm Beach counties to Miami-Dade county, whose trend alone has kept Democrats afloat in the State. In essence, it appears that the Eastern shore above Miami, as well as the sparsely populated western counties, have moved right, while Miami itself and the Tampa Bay area have moved left. Just like for NF, it's not easy to tell which of these trends will carry more weight in the long term. However, one can imagine that Hispanics' increasingly strong numbers, turnout, and Democratic voting patterns will be a key asset for the party in this State.

Capital: If we avoid Miami and Tampa, which seem too big and too far from each other, then Cape Coral seems like the best choice, being located right in between those two.

Governor: Alex Sink defeated Rick Scott by nearly 6 points IRL in this part of the State, so it's easy to see her in the Governor's mansion under this scenario.

Senators: Charlie Crist (class 1) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (class 2) - Crist's path would be a bit chaotic, since he'd probably still face a conservative primary challenge in 2012, as well as dangerous Democratic opponents in 2006 and 2012, but I'd still think that the voters would be somewhat lenient toward him. Besides, I needed to compensate for giving the Democrats one seat in NF where they probably shouldn't have one. :P

Representatives: Republicans probably managed to sweep the State Legislature in 2010 (IRL, they hold a majority of seats in the area corresponding to this State), thus the redistricting would have to be at least somewhat bipartisan. It could either be a decent map, or an incumbent-protection gerrymander. If the latter, there's no way to know how the elections would turn out, since we can't know who the incumbents are. If the former, my guess would be that the delegation turns out 10D-6R, or maybe 9D-7R.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 12, 2014, 02:29:26 PM
PVI comparison (FL / NF / SF)

()

This sums up what I've said so far about the Floridas. Before 1980, there was no clear partisan hierarchy between the two States. South Florida was the most Republican State in "normal" years, but in the elections when the South was swept in Republican landslides, SF resisted much better than NF. The gap between the two States only established itself from 1980 to 1988, when NF became a solid Republican State. Under Clinton, SF finally moved to the Democatic column, when it has remained since (though in 2008 Obama's advantage there was very narrow). Interestingly, the two States have always trended in the same direction (showing that there still is some commonality between the two Floridas). Still, that doesn't mean their movements have been similar: for example, in 1984 and 1988 SF basically stayed the same, whereas NF experienced a massive Republican trend.


Brace yourselves, because Texas is coming! :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 20, 2014, 10:40:42 AM
Texas

All right, let's finally split Texas! :D We begin with the easternmost of the three States I've carved out of it, roughly based on Wikipedia's definition of East Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Texas). Since it was the State's earliest-settled region, it seems fair to let it keep its original name (even though it takes up the smallest portion of its area). This State would be dominated by the Houston metropolitan area, where over half of the State's inhabitants live. However, it's also clearly the most "Southern" of the three States, with clearer ties to neighboring States like Louisiana and Arkansas. Thus, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the State nowadays is solidly Republican.

TX Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

In fact, the electoral history of this new Texas very closely matches that of OTL Texas, with the same candidate winning in every election. Since the two other States carved out of the western portion of Texas are either significantly more Democratic or Republican than the whole State, what's let when you take them out actually makes for a pretty good bellwether. Indeed, this Texas' political evolution follows the well-known pattern. Kennedy, Johnson and Humphrey all prevailed there with results slightly better than their RL ones (though Wallace won a very strong result in 1968). Following Nixon's 1972 sweep of the South (and despite Carter's narrow 1976 win) the State has realigned itself into a Republican stronghold. In 1992 Clinton actually came close to winning the State (he lost to Bush by 3.4 points, against 3.5 points in OTL Texas). Since 2000 however, Republican percentages there have remained substantially stable around 60%. In fact, whereas the OTL State's Republican alignment seems to have peaked in the Bush years, this Texas actually seems to have moved further to the right in the most recent election (Obama's 2012 percentage was equal to Al Gore's).

The State's rightward trend has mainly been fueled by the rural counties in the Northern and Central parts of the State, as this 1984-2012 comparison shows:

()

Both years saw Republican wins by 22 or 23 points, but while in 1984 Mondale made a decent showing in some counties in the north and center, Obama got absolutely destroyed there, generally winning less than 30%. On the other hand, the Houston area has experienced a slight democratic trend: Obama narrowly won Harris county in 2012, whereas Reagan had taken over 61% of the vote. Still, this success in the urban core isn't worth much in a State that remains overwhelmingly Republican.

Capital: If we want to avoid the Houston megalopolis, then Tyler seems like the only viable choice (even though it's a bit too northern).

Governor: Kay Bailey Hutchison could probably have won an open gubernatorial contest in 2006, before the Tea Party wave began raging. Dan Patrick or Steve Stockman could have mounted a challenge in 2010, but the benefit of incumbency might still save Hutchinson.

Senators: Ted Cruz (class 1) and David Dewhurst (class 2) - there would easily be room for both of them in this scenario :P

Representatives: Republicans would obviously control the State legislature, meaning that the seat distribution would be roughly the same as IRL. Thus, the most likely outcome is 9R-3D, with three Democratic vote sinks in Houston.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on August 20, 2014, 11:10:25 AM
Damn, I'm glad this great thread is still going on :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 20, 2014, 11:24:46 AM
Damn, I'm glad this great thread is still going on :)

"Going on" might not be the best way to put it, considering it's been at sleep for over 4 years. Say rather "back from the dead". :P

Anyway, it's great to see you guys are still interested in it! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 23, 2014, 01:32:46 PM
Rio Grande

Aside from being the least populous (though the fastest growing since the 80s), this is probably the most interesting of the three States formed out of old Texas. It is probably the most diverse and complex, as it combines several disparate areas: the Hispanic-dominated lands along the river that gives its name to the State, but also the major cities of Austin and San Antonio and their metropolitan areas, and many suburban and rural counties around these cities and on the Gulf Coast. The importance of these (obviously conservative) areas should not be understated, as they make Rio Grande much less Democratic than one would assume. In fact, since 1996, the State has always been more Republican than the nation as a whole (at least in Presidential politics).

RG Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Of course, even a quick look at this chart makes it clear that RG is consistently the most Democratic-leaning of the three States. In fact, only three Republicans carried it over the observed period, all of whom prevailed in the Electoral College (Nixon, Reagan twice, and W. Bush twice). In the 1960s, this lean was particularly evident: Kennedy trounced Nixon, LBJ won over two thirds of the vote, and even HHH managed to win an absolute majority (and Wallace's very low percentage makes it very clear that there's nothing Southern about this State). Carter still distanced Ford by a double-digit margin and performed somewhat decently against Reagan, but his former VP got more or less crushed by the latter in 1984. Rio Grande's last Democratic bravado was narrowly voting for Dukakis, certainly thanks to his running mate Lloyd Bentsen, a favorite son of the area. However, since the 1990s, the State has actually experienced a pronounced Republican trend. Clinton carried it both times, but his margins of victory were far from exceptional, and in the early 2000s Rio Grande backed Bush decisively. It is only under Obama that the trend has apparently begun reversing itself, but even today the State can best be characterized as a swing State.

In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.2 points in the State, slightly less than his 3.9 national margin of victory. The election map provides a pretty good illustration of the geographic contrast that structures Rio Grande's politics:

()

Unsurprisingly, Obama's narrow victory rests heavily on the Hispanic border counties, a growing and increasingly crucial constituency which now regularly gives more than 70% of its votes to the Democrats. However, despite appearances, this border region is too sparsely populated to alone sway the State's politics. Instead, the tip of the balance is generally provided by the urban areas of San Antonio and Austin. While RG isn't utterly dominated by a huge megalopolis like Texas and (spoiler alert!) Jefferson are, these two areas together nonetheless contain about 40% of the State's population. Massive Democratic trends in both these areas (especially Austin's) is what allowed Democrats to come back into the game in the Obama years. In 2000, Bush won 47% in Austin's Travis County (Nader took over 10% there, allowing Bush to prevail) and 52% in San Antonio's Bexar County. Twelve years later, Obama beat Romney 60-36 in the former and 51-47 in the latter. The two cities have clearly realigned themselves toward the Democrats, making up for the lost ground among white rural or suburban voters. Still, these trends have so far produced only narrow Democratic leads, which could easily be reversed in a more Republican-leaning environment (or in State-level politics, when turnout may be lower and Democratic candidates less appealing).

Capital: For once the most populous city, San Antonio, works perfectly, being located fairly close to the population center.

Governor: Lamar Smith isn't a perfect choice, but he's the most fitting pick I can think of. In a year like 2010, the GOP would only need to field a half-decent candidate to win. However, he's probably looking up to a tough challenge in 2014.

Senators: Julian Castro (class 1) and John Cornyn (class 3)

Representatives: Unsurprisingly for a State of such tradition, local Democratic strength in Rio Grande far surpasses their national results. In fact, extrapolating from Texas HoR districts, it appears that Democrats would hold something like a 2/3 majority in the RG State Legislature. With a Republican governor, this means a fair redistricting would be possible (though again, incumbent protection or other sorts of awful deals have an equal chance of happening). However, it's hard to see in which direction things would change. Under the current (presumably R-gerrymandered) map, Democrats hold 7 seats in a State that would have 11. One could again credit the strength of local Democrats, but in fact, Obama won 6 districts as well (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/5422_06_04_13_12_13_58.png). Does that mean that Dems would hold even more seats under a fair map? Or did the TXGOP draw a dummymander? Only some toying with DRA could give us the answer (and it's up to you guys!). Still, I will conservatively settle for the status quo, namely a 7D-4R split.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2014, 05:23:10 AM
Are people still following this? Just checking. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Senator Cris on August 24, 2014, 05:42:19 AM
Are people still following this? Just checking. ;)
Yes! Great work! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Niemeyerite on August 24, 2014, 06:18:45 AM

Of coursse we are.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 24, 2014, 09:44:15 AM

Yes we're eagerly awaiting North Texas! :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2014, 01:04:24 PM

Great to know! :) Sorry about the insecurity. :P

BTW, I've decided to rename North Texas Jefferson (as there was an actual attempt to create such a State from western TX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Southern_state))) instead, as North Texas was pretty lame. The update on it is coming soon! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2014, 10:56:08 AM
Jefferson

To complete the Texas trio, here is the State of Jefferson, which gets its name from a secession movement that sparked through Texas' western counties in late 19th and early 20th century (yes, I know this is also the proposed name for a more famous statehood movement in Northern California, but since I didn't find room for such a State in this scenario, it's not an issue). To describe it simply, this State combines the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area with the great ocean of nothingness that is Northwestern Texas. So yeah, this is the State that contains the famous Loving County and its 60some residents.

It's a bit unfortunate that, due to Texas' geography, I was forced to put one of America's largest metropolises in the same State as one of the most rural and sparsely populated regions. I've got to admit, in this case I mostly failed to create a reasonably homogeneous community of interest, and instead what I came with is best described as one big leftover. Big indeed, since this State is actually the most populous of the three (8.8 million people in 2010). Obviously these people don't live in Loving, King, Foard, Briscoe, Irion, or Glasscock (yeah...) counties. In fact, the Dallas-Fort Worth complex would utterly dominate Jefferson. Alone, the two core counties of Dallas and Tarrant contain almost half of the State's population.

JF Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Democrats can consider themselves lucky that this is the case, considering that they seldom break 25% outside of the Dallas area, even this big population skew is far from enough to make them competitive statewide. As the chart above shows, Jefferson is, has been, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, a Republican stronghold. LBJ aside, no Democrat has ever won it in over 50 years (my guess is that you'd have to go back to Truman to find a victorious Democratic nominee in this State). The only one who came remotely close was Jimmy Carter in 1976. In the modern era, the best a Democrat has ever managed to reach was a 10-point loss in 1992. This was likely made possible by Ross Perot's very strong performance that year (Jefferson would be his 6th best State in this scenario). In many way, this State resembles neighboring Oklahoma (which Carter also nearly won in 1976). Republicans can safely count on it regardless of the circumstances (and not only at the Presidential level), although their victories are a tad less lopsided in Jefferson than in Oklahoma.

Although the basic picture has remained the same throughout decade, this doesn't mean the State's internal politics haven't experienced a shift. In fact, it is impressive how massive the trends have been when examined at the county level. If you go back to election years of the 1960s and 70s, you'll see that the Dallas area was the heart of Republican strength at that time. As a good poster once hilariously pointed out (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170505.0), Dallas county gave Nixon 62% of its vote in 1960. In 1976, it was still voting for Ford by a 14-points margin. Meanwhile, the rural plains counties looked nothing like the sea of navy-blue that we see today. In fact, if you take away Dallas and Tarrant counties, Carter actually wins Jefferson, and Kennedy comes very close. Some counties in the area (especially those just south of the Panhandle) were actually overwhelmingly Democratic, voting for Kennedy, LBJ or Carter by a more than 2 to 1 margin.

As with many other political realignments, the shift of Republican strength from the city to the country began in the 1980s. 1984 was the year when Dallas county became more Democratic than the State as a whole, and since then, the trend only intensified. In both 2008 and 2012, breaking a 40-year-long Republican streak, it became the only county in the State to support Obama. Meanwhile, we all know what happened to these rural Democratic areas in the State's northwest. The 2004-2008 trend, below, expresses this movement quite powerfully:

()

Overall, the State trended to the Democrats by about 2 points, but what really happened is that the Dallas-Fort Worth metro (along with a largely irrelevant chunk of counties in JF's far west) moved left, while the State's rural heartland saw a massive Republican shift. A similar general picture can be found in all other trend maps of the past two decades, and there are good reasons to believe that the Dallas area will grow more Democratic as time goes on. This obviously won't be much of a threat for Republicans, considering how much they dominate the rest of the State.

Capital: No ideal choice, but Abilene can do the deal. Although geography aside, its frankly ridiculous to have the capital be anywhere outside of the Dallas metro. Fort Worth then.

Governor: Rick Perry would be the State's uncontested overlord.

Senators: There I'm completely lost. Unfortunately, most prominent Texas figures (especially GOP nutters like Steve Stockman, who would fit in perfectly) have no connection to this part of the State. I'll randomly go with Kay Granger (class 1) and Greg Abbott (class 3), but I appreciate if someone with better insights in this region's politics could correct me.

Representatives: Obviously the GOP would control the entire redistricting process. Assuming they already have done their worst in OTL Texas, that means we end up with a 10R-2D split.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 26, 2014, 12:02:39 PM
Awesome work as usual! I'd personally go with Lubbock or Fort Worth as the state capitol. Fort Worth would be cool as it would make the Metroplex like the Twin Cities. Otherwise Lubbock is larger than Abilene and has a major University (Texas Tech), while still being in a somewhat centralized position.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2014, 12:56:10 PM
Awesome work as usual! I'd personally go with Lubbock or Fort Worth as the state capitol. Fort Worth would be cool as it would make the Metroplex for like the Twin Cities. Otherwise Lubbock is larger than Abilene and has a major University (Texas Tech), while still being in a somewhat centralized position.

Yeah you're right, I'll go with Fort Worth. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 27, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
PVI comparison

()

The partisan hierarchy among these three State is clear and constant throughout this time period. Rio Grande is the most Democratic, Jefferson the most Republican, and our Texas is the closest you get as a bellwether for the OTL State. There are of course significant variations in the degree to which the three States differ: from relatively limited variation in years like 1964, to a wide gap in years like 2000. Still, the general picture never really shifts. In terms of evolution, OTL Texas' prolonged shift toward the Republicans has been experienced by all three States. Over the 1976-2000 time span, RG went from being D+11 to R+10, TX from D+2 to R+21, and JF from R+6 to R+31. Slight variations in the strength of this trends reveal something about the changing electoral geography of OTL Texas. For example, it is interesting to note that this scenario's Texas used to be a couple points more Democratic than the OTL State, as late as in 1988. From 1992 to 2004, this eastern section matched the larger area almost perfectly. However, since 2008, the Texas of this scenario has become markedly more Republican than the RL one, entering boldly in "R stronghold" territory and almost matching Jefferson's levels of lopsidedness. Meanwhile, RG (which under Bush had become reliably Republican) actually experienced a major trend back toward the Democrats, making it a pure tossup again. Thus, over the last couple decades, what we see is a typically southern State which moves deeper and deeper to the right (Texas), a longtime Republican stronghold which remains so (Jefferson), and what looks like a poster child for the emerging Southwestern Democratic strength. Clearly, a State like OTL Texas is far too big to be examined at the macro level.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on August 27, 2014, 07:43:51 PM
Firstly, I haven't seen any of the California's here, what would the graphs look like?

And secondly what would all these divided/integrated states look like in 1988?

I imagine West Coast would go to Dukakis, but the other two would go to Bush.



Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 28, 2014, 03:34:04 AM
Firstly, I haven't seen any of the California's here, what would the graphs look like?

And secondly what would all these divided/integrated states look like in 1988?

I imagine West Coast would go to Dukakis, but the other two would go to Bush.

Patience! I'm slowly moving from east to west to cover all the new States, so California will be among the last. It's going to take a while, but I've got to keep something good for the ending. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 28, 2014, 05:35:47 AM
I've got to keep something good for the ending. ;)

EVS of both of them and county results of only the changed states?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on August 28, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
@Robb: Ah but you could still get the entire 1988 map up, the big maps were going strong from 1960 and then just cut off at 1984 inexplicably.

But in that case with the other part,looking forward to it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 28, 2014, 03:55:06 PM
@Robb: Ah but you could still get the entire 1988 map up, the big maps were going strong from 1960 and then just cut off at 1984 inexplicably.

The "big maps" are (for lack of a better term) non-canonical. They were Mechaman's work, not mine, and were based on guesswork rather than actual calculations. Actually, if you take a close look at some of the States I've covered so far, you'll notice a few mistakes. For example, Mondale actually lost New York in 1984, but won Maryland, the opposite of what Mechaman showed.

I will make the "official" maps soon enough, don't worry. Complete with popular vote shades and EVs. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 30, 2014, 05:25:41 PM
Before we go any further, I've made a few final tweaks to the overall States map. Here's what it looks like now:

()

There are a couple things I'm not very happy with (notably the big MT+WY+ND+SD megastate, which I named Lincoln) but overall I think I've come up with the least problematic solution everywhere. Also FTR, Oregon is the name of the State made up of Idaho and eastern WA/OR, while Washington is the State that comprises coastal WA and OR. Sorry for the slight confusion, but I thought it would be a shame to toss the name "Oregon" away considering it was the region's name before it even became American land. :P

Now here's what the 2010 reapportionment would look like under this map (this time the numbers are 100% official ;)).

StatePopulationCDs
California del Sur21,146,84730
New York13,038,82618
South Florida11,039,03516
Georgia9,687,65314
Chicago9,686,02114
Michigan9,572,27914
North Carolina9,535,48313
Pacific8,906,50413
Jefferson8,796,33912
New Jersey8,791,89412
Texas8,599,82712
Washington8,573,43212
Virginia8,001,02411
Pennsylvania7,773,45111
North Florida7,762,27511
Rio Grande7,749,39511
Massachusetts7,600,19611
Maryland7,273,20910
California7,166,68210
Ohio6,852,20110
Arizona6,392,0179
Tennessee6,346,1059
Adirondack6,339,2769
Missouri5,988,9278
Wisconsin5,831,9218
Indiana5,664,2658
Minnesota5,303,9257
Colorado5,029,1967
Allegheny4,928,9287
Alabama4,779,7367
Erie4,684,3037
South Carolina4,625,3647
Louisiana4,533,3726
Kentucky4,339,3676
Illinois4,130,5746
Oklahoma3,751,3515
Connecticut3,574,0975
Oregon3,549,7645
New England3,270,5725
Iowa3,046,3554
Lincoln3,039,8124
Mississipi2,967,2974
Arkansas2,915,9184
Kansas2,853,1184
Utah2,763,8854
Nevada2,734,4744
New Mexico2,059,1793
West Virginia1,852,9943
Nebraska1,826,3413
Hawaii1,360,3012
Alaska710,2311


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 30, 2014, 05:28:42 PM
Rob, could I propose one other state?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 30, 2014, 05:45:31 PM

You obviously can propose, but I absolutely want to keep their number to 51, so that we can still have 538 presidential electors. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on August 30, 2014, 09:19:33 PM
That map will certainly come in very handy.

I'm not so sure about merging the two Carolinas.  They do have some significant differences, both now and historically after all.  If we're making requests, though, did you consider naming the state of Chicago "Cook" instead?  Sometimes when discussing a breakup of IL that's the name I like to go for.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 31, 2014, 03:48:35 AM
Sorry Jerry, but I really don't like your idea. First of all, why in the world would I want to merge the Carolinas? NC is already one of the biggest States, and SC is only slightly underpopulated (and growing fast) and the two States are increasingly different politically. Your California map doesn't work either: the red and blue States would have no more than 5 districts each, while your coastal State stretching from the Bay Area to LA (something I find inherently wrong) would be wayyy too large. I don't understand what's your point in making these changes. ???


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 31, 2014, 04:29:18 AM
With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on August 31, 2014, 06:27:03 AM
Just had a read through of this thread, great work, especially the analysis of each state. :) Also, Michigan really does look like a thumb without the Upper Peninsula!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 31, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.

I guess you're right, that would actually have made more sense. For aesthetic reasons I'd have to split it between Alabama and Georgia, and that would still leave us with enough population for two States. Though probably not so in the 1960s, when Florida as a whole was only an average sized State.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 31, 2014, 03:37:41 PM
Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on August 31, 2014, 06:39:40 PM
Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?

Surely Jesus will provide.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 31, 2014, 06:53:45 PM
With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.

I guess you're right, that would actually have made more sense. For aesthetic reasons I'd have to split it between Alabama and Georgia, and that would still leave us with enough population for two States. Though probably not so in the 1960s, when Florida as a whole was only an average sized State.

I was only thinking of the part west of the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers.  (The Chattahoochee forms the southern half of the current Alabama-Georgia border.)  If you move the Tallahassee area into another state, Georgia would make more sense than Alabama, but I see no pressing reason to make Georgia a bicoastal state.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 01, 2014, 01:23:31 PM
With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.

I guess you're right, that would actually have made more sense. For aesthetic reasons I'd have to split it between Alabama and Georgia, and that would still leave us with enough population for two States. Though probably not so in the 1960s, when Florida as a whole was only an average sized State.

I was only thinking of the part west of the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers.  (The Chattahoochee forms the southern half of the current Alabama-Georgia border.)  If you move the Tallahassee area into another state, Georgia would make more sense than Alabama, but I see no pressing reason to make Georgia a bicoastal state.

Isn't the area East of those rivers, but still North of the peninsula, still pretty similar culturally and politically to the western tip? I would be a tad annoyed to leave the former in Florida while I give the latter to Alabama. Though you're right that Georgia is already too populous a State to deserve additional land.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 03, 2014, 04:57:29 PM
So is Ohio the Northern half, or the Southern half?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on September 03, 2014, 05:03:02 PM
So is Ohio the Northern half, or the Southern half?

Northern half

((yay Fuzzy is back!))


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 04, 2014, 01:46:02 AM
So is Ohio the Northern half, or the Southern half?

Erie is the northern State (obviously :P) so Ohio is the southern one.

I'll try to post Erie's profile by tomorrow, anyway. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on September 04, 2014, 06:45:40 AM
So is Ohio the Northern half, or the Southern half?

Erie is the northern State (obviously :P) so Ohio is the southern one.

I'll try to post Erie's profile by tomorrow, anyway. :)

Oh *facepalm*


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 05, 2014, 10:57:00 AM
Note: classes have started again, so I will not be able to maintain the level of activity I used to have during the summer break. I fully intend to keep on with the State profiles until I've covered the entire new US maps, but it will be at a slower pace - something like one State per week. Also, my presentations will be more succinct. Hope you guys are OK with that. :)


Erie

Centered around the heavily industrial areas of Cleveland, Akron and Toledo along the eponymous lake, Erie is the quintessential Rust Belt State. Once the nation's industrial heartland, it has suffered a massive economic collapse and population decline over the last four decades. However, contrary to neighboring Allegheny, this State's political leanings haven't changed much in response to the depression. From the 1960s to these days, Erie was and remains a markedly Democratic State.

ER Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Erie's Democratic lean may not be as overwhelming as that of Massachusetts, Maryland or New York, but goes clearly beyond the "swing State" mark. The only Republican candidates who managed to prevail here were Nixon in 1972, and Reagan both times - and never by a margin of more than 10 points. The extent of the Democratic advantage hasn't varied much, generally comprised between 9 and 15 points (if anything, the State has experienced a slight Democratic trend over the long run). In the New Deal era, a heavily unionized white industrial working class was the key of Democratic supremacy in the State. Today, losses among this category have been more than compensated by the overwhelming Democratic vote of African-Americans, particularly in Cleveland. This partisan setting is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Capital: There's really no choice besides Cleveland.

Governor: Lee Fisher

Senators: Tim Ryan (class 2) and Sherrod Brown (class 3) - many thanks to the poster Dubya for his very fitting suggestions.

Representatives: Even after 2010, my numbers indicate that Democrats should retain control of the State legislature, and thus be able to enact their gerrymander. Thanks to Fuzzybigfoot and Muon (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868.msg4288576#msg4288576) we know for sure that they would be able to get a 6D-1R map.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on September 05, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
Ohio is going to be brutal for Democrats. Great work! :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on September 06, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?

Surely Jesus will provide.

I was asking Antoino V


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on September 06, 2014, 09:18:03 PM
Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?

Surely Jesus will provide.

I was asking Antoino V

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 07, 2014, 03:55:02 AM
Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?

Surely Jesus will provide.

I was asking Antoino V

I'm not really interested in taking the realism of this scenario that far, tbh. Assume what you wish on "compensation" etc.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 12, 2014, 10:19:58 AM
Ohio

What is left of Ohio when we chop off the industrial shore is, unsurprisingly, a safely Republican State. This more rural and somewhat southern-influenced State is our newest addition to the already large "never voted Democrat except in 1964" club. Demographically, it is the biggest of the two, and its population decline hasn't been as catastrophic as Erie's (though still quite pronounced).

OH Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

There is not much to say about OH's political evolution, since (in net terms) the State can hardly be said to have "evolved" at all. Essentially, this state appears like a mirror image of Erie, having a Republican advantage comparable to the latter's Democratic advantage. This advantage never really reaches stronghold levels (good years have the GOP around +15) but also never really becomes competitive (around R+8 at its lowest). The only possibly significant shift might be an increase in Republican strength in the 1980s, which has more or less held until now.

However, county map comparisons across time (below you can see 1976 and 2012, both of which saw GOP wins of similar magnitudes) reveal that Ohio's internal geography has shifted somewhat.

()

The story of this geographic shift is one with which we are becoming quite familiar: rural areas (some historically favorable to Democrats, like southeastern Appalachian Ohio, as well as some already GOP leaning ones in the western part of the State) trending decisively toward the GOP, while urban cores (in this case, Columbus' Franklin County, Cincinnati's Hamilton County, and Athens' eponymous county) become increasingly dominated by Democrats. It's quite interesting that, in this particular case, the two trends have roughly canceled out each other, while in so many other States the cities (like in PA) or the country (like in TX) have clearly won the battle.

Capital: Columbus still fits perfectly.

Governor: John Kasich crushed Ted Strickland in this part of the State in 2010, and is probably headed to a landslide reelection.

Senators: Mike DeWine (class 1) and Rob Portman (class 3) - once again, courtesy to Dubya for these picks. ;)

Representatives: Once again thanks to Muon (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868.msg4293760#msg4293760), we now know that Republicans, with their obvious supermajorities in the State Legislature, would be able to craft the perfect gerrymander and get a 10R-0D map (with every district having a PVI above R+9 in 2008).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on September 12, 2014, 10:36:34 AM
It would be interesting to see what happens here in the future if Columbus continues to grow at their currently pace (+4.51 for the city, +3.42% for the metro area). Obama actually saw a pretty good swing in the Columbus area in 2012. Then again its doubtful he would have campaigned there if the states were divided like this.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 12, 2014, 02:27:42 PM
Population growth and a 2012-style Dem trend in Columbus would definitely not be sufficient to make Ohio competitive in the foreseeable future, though. It would take a massive shift in its suburbs (which, so far, have remained overwhelmingly Republican) to make a difference at the State level. And even then, it would probably need to be supplemented by other areas like the Cincinnati metro. I don't see that happening, sadly. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 19, 2014, 12:39:09 PM
Sorry, it's been a busy week with all these elections, and I got the flu yesterday, so I didn't have time to come up with a full State update. I will try to post Indiana in a couple days (though I must warn you that it's pretty boring).

In the meantime, here's the Erie / Ohio PVI comparison chart:

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on September 19, 2014, 11:46:58 PM
We'll it's been an entire year since my second bump (in December it will be two years) so far I think that with about five pages of updates, this is one of my favorite threads on the forum. Keep up the good work Antonio! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 20, 2014, 07:23:48 AM
We'll it's been an entire year since my second bump (in December it will be two years) so far I think that with about five pages of updates, this is one of my favorite threads on the forum. Keep up the good work Antonio! :)

Well, in this year there have been 10 months of complete oblivion. :P I really can't believe it took me 4 damn years to restart this thing!

Still, I'm also pretty happy with the result! I really appreciate all the compliments and appreciation this thread has received. :) This seems to be one of the few things I've ever done on the forum that has attracted a significant following, so I really need to prioritize it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: TNF on September 20, 2014, 11:38:55 AM
Excellent work here, Antonio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 22, 2014, 01:32:03 PM
Indiana

I have taken away Indiana's northwestern corner, the area around Gary (which, as JCL angrily pointed out, gave it access to Lake Michigan) due to its connection with Chicagoland. As you can imagine, removing one of the few Democratic bases of support in an already solid-GOP State didn't exactly stimulate competitiveness. And so, our "never voted Democrat except in 1964" club grows even bigger.

IN Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Unsurprisingly, Obama's historic win in 2008 does not survive this amputation, as McCain instead even managed to crack 50%. Otherwise, the pattern is pretty much the same as IRL: that of a consistently Republican State which Democrats can only hope to capture in LBJesque landslides. Over the observed time span, this new Indiana is consistently 2 to 4 points more Republican than its OTL counterpart:

()

The result is that only twice (1984 and the still impressive 2008) the Democrats managed to come within 10 points of the national margin. The State's movements remain roughly the same, with a slight Democratic uptick in the 1970s followed by a massive Republican shift from 1984 to 2004 (that shift is a bit more pronounced in the new State than IRL, indicating that the Gary area began to diverge even more strongly from the rest of the State). Overall, any Democratic candidate would say "meh, nothing to see there" and not even bother campaigning there.

Capital: Still Indianapolis

Governor: Still Mike Pence

Senators: Joe Donnelly (class 1) and Dan Coats (class 3) - Donnelly still won, though by a mere 2 points.

Representatives: Indiana would lose a Representative, and it would obviously be the Gary-based one held by a Democrat. The State government wouldn't change much, since Republicans already have full control of the Legislature. Interestingly though, the actual Indiana map doesn't look much gerrymandered - with a nice square-looking Democratic seat around Indianapolis. I would assume they keep this arrangement and thus create a 7R-1D delegation.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 22, 2014, 03:50:03 PM
Chicago and Illinois are next! They're gonna be a lot more interesting. :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 27, 2014, 03:15:24 PM
Chicago

The other City-State of this scenario, Chicago encompasses the eponymous city's entire metropolitan area (that is, the Chicago-Naperville CSA as defined by the Census Bureau). This means it is mostly carved out of Illinois' Northeastern corner, but also takes a few counties away from Indiana (as we have seen) and Wisconsin's Kenosha County. The resulting State has about as many inhabitants as Georgia, and more than twice as many as those that are left in Illinois. Thus, despite its name, this State can't be reduced to its core city, as it include a large ring of populous suburbs whose political leanings have been somewhat different.

CH Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Unsurprisingly, modern Chicago is utterly dominated by Democrats, giving Obama over two-thirds of its votes in 2008. Since 1992, no Republican has come even somewhat close to winning it. However, while a Democratic preference can be found as far back as 1960 (where Richard Daley no doubt helped Kennedy distance Nixon by 7 points), it was nowhere near as lopsided as it is these days. Nixon and Reagan both carried CH easily in their landslide reelections, and several times in those decades, the State's vote was very hotly contested. In 1976, Carter squeaked in by a trivial 0.05 points margin; four years later, Reagan beat him by 0.94 points; and in 1988, Bush edged Dukakis by 0.21 points.

Clearly, there was a time when Republicans had a sizable constituency in Chicago State. And as you can imagine, this base was located in the city's suburbs and exurbs. While Cook County's demographic weigh tended to win the State for Democrats, if Republicans managed to keep the margin there close enough, they could rack up the votes in the suburbs and stand a chance to sweep the State. Their most recent presidential win, in 1988, illustrates this strategy pretty well:

()

Although 2 of the State's 3.2 million votes were cast in Cook County, which Dukakis carried by 12 points, Republicans managed to make up for that loss with their massive success in the outer rings of the metropolitan area. They took more than 60% (and sometimes more than 70%) in 9 of the State's 16 counties, including the populous DuPage, Kane, and Lake (OTL IL) counties. Even though Dukakis actually won two other counties (OTL IN's Lake County and Kenosha County) he still failed to carry what clearly is a must-win State for the Democrats. What happened since 1992 is that Democrats brought their Cook County edge up to 11 (or rather, up to about 50 points) while making the suburbs actually competitive (with Obama winning all but 2 counties in 2008). Thus, just like New York, Chicago provides a striking illustration of the rise of Democratic dominance in large metropolitan areas over the past 3 decades.

Capital: I'll let you guess this one. :P

Governor: Pat Quinn was reelected by a narrow but decisive margin in 2010, and he's probably favored for reelection this year.

Senators: Bobby Rush (class 1) and Lisa Madigan (class 2)

Representatives: Obviously Democrats control the State Legislature, and would thus be able to mess around with the districts map as they please. How far could they reach while complying with VRA? I'm not really sure. My guess would be a 12D-2R map, with two Republicans being packed in safer versions of IL-6 and IL-14. That would definitely require some balls, though. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on September 27, 2014, 04:29:12 PM

Capital: I'll let you guess this one. :P


Kenosha?

()

Aurora?

()

Gary?

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2014, 03:51:48 AM
Yeah... no. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: RR1997 on October 05, 2014, 09:15:48 AM
This is one of the greatest threads ever


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on October 05, 2014, 02:41:33 PM
I'd say Aurora would at least have a shot if you wanted someplace that wasn't crowded (politicians hate traffic, after all ;) )  But eh, not surprising, yet interesting cause I have a vested interest nonetheless ;)  Though personally I'd prefer Lisa Madigan as governor, as while I like Quinn, he does some boneheaded things at alarming regularity...  I'm not in Chicago though so I'll be busy being quashed under Brady's heel no doubt :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Princess Nyan Cat on October 05, 2014, 07:30:26 PM
I used to live in McHenry and Kane Counties, but this state formed around Chicago would be about the most horrible place I could imagine. The taxation and corruption alone would be staggering.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 10, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
Sorry for the long absence! I'm getting really busy these days. Anyway, while I have some time, let's move on to...


Illinois

What would Illinois look like without Chicagoland? Certainly nothing like the image that we tend to have this State IRL. The level of demographic, economic, political and cultural hegemony that Chicago exerts over downstate IL rivals that of NYC over upstate NY. We can pretty sure that our Illinoisans would welcome this split as a liberation. In a nutshell, the new Illinois is a sparsely populated (ranking just below Kentucky) but relatively vast State. It remains quite diverse, with several mid-sized cities like Springfield, Peoria or Champaign, and both major industrial and rural areas (including regions that would fit well in the South). How would such a State have voted throughout the past half-century?

IL Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

To no one's surprise, Illinois has historically tended to favor Republicans, at least at the Presidential level. It only rarely went Democratic, and generally in exceptional circumstances like LBJ's landslide or Obama's favorite-son effect in 2008 (would it have crossed Chicago's borders in such a scenario? this remains unclear). Clinton seems to be the only Democrat to have done genuinely well in the State, sweeping it by 10 points in 1992. The contrast with Obama, who only narrowly carried IL in 2008 and was severely distanced by Romney four years later, is quite striking. On the whole, Democrats seem to be on the decline when compared to their performances in the 1990s - although if you look at the bigger picture, Democrats were already doing pretty bad in Kennedy's days. It's also interesting to note that, since 1984, Illinois has displayed an uncanny similarity with Missouri in its voting patterns. Over this period, the two States' margins differed by no more than 2 points in every election except 2008. Thus, just like Missouri, Illinois seems to have a peculiar blend of Southern and Midwestern identities.

At the same time, Illinois (like most other States seen so far) has undergone some significant shifts in its internal geography, as this 1960-2012 comparison highlights (Republicans wins by 10 and 8 points, respectively):

()

The trend seems quite clear: southern Illinois (especially southeastern Illinois) has moved sharply to the right, with most of its counties giving Romney results over 60%. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have gained in the northern half of the State, most notably along the border with Iowa. Clearly southern IL has been caught in the same dynamic as the rest of the South, the long-term collapse of Democratic support. Meanwhile, Northern Illinois, just like neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin, went from likely R to lean D after the 1980s. Still, being deprived of Chicago's influence, Democrats will generally face an uphill battle in Illinois.

Capital: Springfield remains the obvious choice.

Governor: Bill Brady would have no trouble getting elected here.

Senators: Dick Durbin (class 2) and Mark Kirk (class 3). The funny thing is that, while Illinois would keep the same Senators as IRL, their electoral positions would be essentially flipped: Durbin is probably facing a very close race for his reelection this year, while Kirk was swept to office in 2010 and has a decent shot at winning again in 2016 (his biggest fear should be a conservative primary challenge).

Representatives: Easily holding the trifecta after 2010, the Republicans would have several options to go with. As Muon has demonstrated (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868.msg4324087#msg4324087), it is possible to draw a gerrymander that perfectly dilutes Democratic strength throughout the State, resulting in six districts with lean-R to likely-R ratings. That said, I'm not sure Republican would be ready to take such a big risk (all 6 districts voted for Romney in 2012, but for Obama in 2008). Maybe they'd choose instead to work a Democratic vote sink packing together East St. Louis, Springfield and Peoria, so as to keep 5 seats safe? I'm not sure, but for lack of an alternative proposal I'll stick with Muon's. So 6R-0D.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on October 10, 2014, 11:47:40 AM
Just a heads up that Mark Kirk lives in Highland Park in Lake County, which means he'd be in the Chicago state.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 10, 2014, 12:02:39 PM
Just a heads up that Mark Kirk lives in Highland Park in Lake County, which means he'd be in the Chicago state.

Yeah I know, but he was born in Champaign and lived in downstate IL up till college (he transferred to Cornell afterwards). If he wanted to seek a political career, he'd be quite a fool to move to Chicago State, where his opportunities would be extremely limited. I'd say he'd be most likely to stay in his native State. But anyway, if it wasn't Kirk, it could have been Patrick Hughes instead.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on October 10, 2014, 02:08:44 PM
Really, considering Kirk is definitely a Republican I can live with, please let him stay down here.  Please :P

We're doomed with Brady anyway though...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 18, 2014, 01:16:14 PM
PVI comparison

()

As the previous two posts had already shown, Illinois and Chicago have very little in common in terms of their political evolution. Unsurprisingly, Chicago has always been the most Democratic of the two States since at least the 1960s, but this is not the most interesting aspect of the above chart. What's really striking is how differently the two States have evolved over time.

Chicago displays the familiar pattern that we have already seen in many Northeastern States: a Dem-leaning State that moves more and more towards the democrats throughout the 90s and 2000s, reaching stronghold territory. It seems crazy today, but in two instances Chicago was actually more favorable to Republican candidates than the country as a whole (in 1964, it reacted with limited enthusiasm to the LBJ wave, and in 1976 Carter only eked out a win there). Those two years were particular, but it's only after 1992 that Chicago could be safely counted in the Democratic  column. In the early 2000s, it reached landslide territory, and doesn't seem to be coming back anytime soon.

For Illinois, instead, the picture is much less clear. From the beginning of the period, the State was clearly in the Republican column, although the strength of this leaning varied significantly. But interestingly, Democrats seemed to actually gain ground during the 1980s and even moved Illinois to lean-D in 1988 and 1992. However, this trend reversed itself after 1992, and, with the exception of a slight uptick under Obama in 2008, Democrats have done worse in every election since. In 2012, Romney overperformed by 12 points there, the best result for a Republican candidate over the entire period.

As a result, OTL Illinois' mythical 32 years of uninterrupted Democratic trend from 1976 to 2008 seems to be nothing more than an illusion resulting from the combining of these two very different evolutions. If you're looking for a starting point in Democratic growth in Chicago, 1988 is the way to go, not 1976 (in relative terms, Dukakis lost ground compared to 1984). Meanwhile, the Republican drift of Illinois clearly started after 1992 (which followed the Democratic gains of 1980-1992). All this resulted in a considerable drift: in 1988, Chicago was only 4 points more Democratic than Illinois; in 2012, this gap was of 36 points. Clearly, OTL Illinois is increasingly suffering from split personality.




I'll try to wrap up the two snoozefests that are Michigan and Wisconsin by the end of this week, so that we can move on to more interesting States in the West. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 22, 2014, 11:11:29 AM
Michigan

With barely 300,000 inhabitants (less than half a Congressional District), Michigan's Upper Peninsula never left much of a mark in Michigan politics. As a result, the State wouldn't look much different without it.

MI Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

As you can see, no Presidential winner has changed, and even the magnitude of their victory has remained almost identical. There really isn't much to see here. The PVI curves of old and new Michigan are also nearly identical.

()

In the last two decades, removing the UP has brought a benefit to Democrats of less than half a point (although funnily enough, this is enough to change the sign of MI's 1996-2000 trend, from R to D). In the past however, the UP was actually a bit more Democratic than the rest of the State (most notably in 1984 and 1988), meaning that this change would have weakened the Dem's position. Still, we're talking of really minimal changes.

Capital: Still Lansing

Governor: Still Rick Snyder, still facing a close reelection contest.

Senators: Still Debbie Stabenow (class 1) and Carl Levin (class 2)

Representatives: The Republicans' control over the State Legislature would also remain virtually unchanged, meaning that the gerrymander would still be there. Michigan would keep its 14 Congressional Districts as well, which means that CDs would be somewhat smaller in population. In terms of party split, it probably also stays the same at 9R-5D.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on October 23, 2014, 12:07:06 AM
Now for Wisconsin right?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 23, 2014, 04:24:23 AM

Yeah, Wisconsin's next (though not much more interesting than Michigan).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: pbrower2a on October 24, 2014, 06:08:14 PM
Michigan would be more interesting if it were shorn of Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, and (for contiguity to Erie, to which it belongs) Lenawee and Monroe Counties.

I'd be tempted to graft South Bend and Milwaukee into "Chicagoland".


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2014, 02:02:29 PM
Wisconsin

Since Wisconsin is smaller, the transfer of the Upper Peninsula has a somewhat more significant impact on it than it had on Michigan (it would represent about 5% of the new State's population). Still, WI's political outlook under this scenario is generally unchanged.

WI Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Actually, adding the UP did make a difference in the State's Presidential vote once: in 2000, Bush would have edged Gore by a narrow 0.16 points margin (Gore won by 0.22 points IRL). This Republican gain could make a huge difference in the bitterly-fought 2000 election, although the Florida split more than makes up for it in Gore's favor. Also to note, Kerry's 2004 win manages to survive, but it's reduced from 0.38 points to a razor-thin 0.02 points (ie, less than 500 votes) lead. These are significant results due to Wisconsin's status as a key battleground State in the early 2000s, but in numerical terms, the shifts remain trivially small. The PVI chart puts things in perspective:

()

As you can see, at no point did the new State differ significantly from the old by more than half a point or so. Before 2000, it's even hard to tell which party benefited from the change, though in recent times it seems to have helped Republicans - for what little it's worth.

Capital: Still Madison

Governor: Still Scott Walker

Senators: Still Tammy Baldwin (class 1) and Ron Johnson (class 3)

Representatives: The UP is not big enough to earn Wisconsin an additional CD in the current census (it would have brought its delegation from 2002 to 2012 to 9 seats, though). With Republicans still controlling the legislature, the makeup of WI's delegation probably would remain 5R-3D (the UP is neither big nor Republican enough to give the GOP the opportunity to dilute Democrats further).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OAM on October 26, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Ah, the tiny tiny type of distinction that political scientists like me would eat up in debate.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 27, 2014, 03:46:11 AM
So, I'm planning to move on to Lincoln (the big northwestern State) in a week or so, then do Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and end this in beauty with the Californias. Does that work for you guys?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on October 27, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
Yes this is brilliant! I am really looking forward to your new Pacific coast states! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on October 27, 2014, 12:07:14 PM
Sounds good to me. I've been looking forward to seeing the western states! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 27, 2014, 05:08:02 PM
Cool! :) Just be warned that I'm getting very busy these days, and that I can't guarantee a weekly update as I usually did - but I won't let you guys down, I promise!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 16, 2014, 05:25:33 PM
And since I'm back, this is back too! :D You can expect an update tomorrow. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on December 16, 2014, 08:31:10 PM
Excellent! Been loving this project, in particular the detail you go into with each state. Looking forward to the Californias in particular.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 17, 2014, 11:18:14 AM
Lincoln

This would be a really large State, with a land area over a million square kilometers (1.5 times as much as OTL Texas!). I'm a bit annoyed to have created such a monster, and I realize it's not exactly optimal for governance. That said, the only alternative would be merging Nebraska and the Dakotas, which wouldn't be much better. So, there you have it: Lincoln, a quite homogeneously rural and conservative State lost in the northernmost section of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains.

LN Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

As you probably would have guessed, this is Republican country. The only Democrat to prevail there over the past half-century was, as is often the case, good ol' Lyndon. Despite this general picture, the Republican margin has fluctuated a lot. On the one hand, Clinton came within 4 points of carrying the State in 1992 - helped by a strong Perot showing. On the opposite side however, Dubya distanced his opponents by over 25 points in both his elections. In raw percentage terms, the best Democratic performance after 1964 was Jimmy Carter's in 1976, followed by Dukakis'. An odd combination that goes to show how helpless today's national Democrats tend to be in the State.

()

The PVI chart indicates that Lincoln's political leanings bear more resemblance to the Dakotas than to either Montana or Wyoming - with the former being generally the most Democratic of the four States, and the latter being far more Republican. Especially since 2000, Wyoming stands out as the most politically distant of the bunch, and its small size would make it a politically marginalized area. Regardless, Lincoln would be solidly grounded in the Republican camp. The only Democratic candidate to ever do better there than nationwide was favorite son George McGovern in 1972. Apart from that year and 1988 (when Dukakis could have carried it had he won by a clear margin), Republicans could always rely about the State staying on their column.

With that said, things could be very different in non-presidential elections. Democrats have continuously held at least 4 of the 8 Senate seats in the original States from 1986 to 2014, and regularly held House seats and gubernatorial offices. Even today, a likable, populist-leaning Democrat with solid local roots (see Brian Schweitzer, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin or Heidi Heitkamp) could very well prevail in Lincoln. Of course, retail politics would be quite difficult in a 1-million-km² State, but still, we could often see pretty competitive races there.

Capital: The most logical choice would be Billings, being the only decent-sized city located near the State's population center.

Governor: Matt Mead seems a pretty good fit for the State.

Senators: Jon Tester (class 1) and John Thune (class 2)

Representatives: The Legislature would be in Republican hands, but I doubt they would choose to enact a gerrymander (I assume it's the kind of place where political culture might not be as completely rotten as it is in most of the country). Population numbers seem to indicate that there would be two districts corresponding roughly to the Dakotas (with the SD one a bit smaller and the ND one larger), a district covering Wyoming and a significant chunk of Montana, and one covering roughly 3/4 of Montana. Depending how that last one is drawn, it might actually be a fairly competitive seat. Still, it's most likely that the State would end up 4R-0D

Note: for the sake of consistency, I will keep listing elective offices as they would have been prior to the 2014 election. I'll turn on post-2014 changes once I'm done with everything else.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on December 17, 2014, 06:12:54 PM
Yes it's back! And if the Premier of my state (Western Australia) can manage governing an area 2.5x the size of Lincoln, I'm sure the Governor of Lincoln would manage OK :P. On another note, as you mentioned, downstate elections would be interesting to watch here, and 1992 with Lincoln as an actual state could be interesting too - Perot could have campaigned harder, and won the state (or handed it to Clinton).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 18, 2014, 08:03:21 AM
Yes it's back! And if the Premier of my state (Western Australia) can manage governing an area 2.5x the size of Lincoln, I'm sure the Governor of Lincoln would manage OK :P. On another note, as you mentioned, downstate elections would be interesting to watch here, and 1992 with Lincoln as an actual state could be interesting too - Perot could have campaigned harder, and won the state (or handed it to Clinton).

Not sure if there was room for Perot to grow above what he got. And anyway, if he absolutely wanted to carry a State, Nevada would be his best opportunity in this scenario (and Maine IRL).

BTW, reposting that regions map I made if anyone is interested:
()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: pikachu on December 20, 2014, 09:20:23 PM

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2014, 09:04:22 AM

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

The main reason is that New Jersey is fine in terms of population, neither too big nor too small, and that splitting it between NY and PA (as I understand you'd want to) would create two very large States. Besides, I don't think North and South Jersey are as culturally different as, say, North and South Florida.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: hurricanehink on December 21, 2014, 09:27:39 AM

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

The main reason is that New Jersey is fine in terms of population, neither too big nor too small, and that splitting it between NY and PA (as I understand you'd want to) would create two very large States. Besides, I don't think North and South Jersey are as culturally different as, say, North and South Florida.

Speaking as a Jerseyite, the cultural difference is fairly small, as is the voting pattern. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=192957.msg4178016#msg4178016 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=192957.msg4178016#msg4178016) I actually made a post on this and found that the two "states" would've voted the same way since '92. Btw, Loving this timeline still, can't wait for California!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2014, 10:37:55 AM
Oregon

Despite its name, this scenario's Oregon is basically Idaho + the Western portion of Oregon and Washington. That's a little confusing, but I though it would be a shame to keep a name as meaningless as "Idaho" while losing the historically significant "Oregon". And considering that this State covers most of the land that used to be America's portion of Oregon Country, I think the name is pretty fitting. Anyway, Oregon would be a large - not as large as Lincoln, but still - sparsely populated and rural State. Under this arrangement, rural conservatives living east of the Cascade Range would finally be free from the political alienation they suffer IRL in the liberal-leaning OR and WA. Actually, they might even feel that their new State is a bit too conservative for their tastes.

OR Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

On Dave's maps, Oregon would always be a deep-blue State. Republican Presidential candidates perform even better there than in neighboring Lincoln, regularly winning over 60% of the vote. This was one of LBJ's weakest States, giving him less than 55% (a performance comparable to Utah's). And apart from him, no Democrat has ever come close to carrying the State's 6 or 7 Electoral Votes. Since 1968, and excluding election where Perot spoiled a large number of Republican votes, Republicans have always won an absolute majority and distanced their Democratic opponents by at least 15 points. Clearly, Idaho's influence would be significant, although in a "lighter and softer" version. Oregon wouldn't be the Republican fortress that Idaho is: in 2012 for example, Romney "only" won it by 23 points, instead of 32 in IRL Idaho. The areas in the Western part of the State would have a significant moderating influence and make the State's politics less lopsided. Nonetheless, Democrats would have a very hard time winning any statewide election in the modern era.

Capital: It would be possible to keep Boise, although it becomes a little southern for the State's new demographic center. Spokane could be an alternative, though it has the opposite problem.

Governor: Butch Otter - oddly enough, I can't find anyone else with a gubernatorial profile.

Senators: Jim Risch (class 2) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (class 3)

Representatives: It would be pretty interesting to see how the districts would be drawn if they could cross the ID/OR/WA border. But barring an upset, the most likely result is still 5R-0D.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: KingSweden on December 21, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
Oregon

Despite its name, this scenario's Oregon is basically Idaho + the Western portion of Oregon and Washington. That's a little confusing, but I though it would be a shame to keep a name as meaningless as "Idaho" while losing the historically significant "Oregon". And considering that this State covers most of the land that used to be America's portion of Oregon Country, I think the name is pretty fitting. Anyway, Oregon would be a large - not as large as Lincoln, but still - sparsely populated and rural State. Under this arrangement, rural conservatives living east of the Cascade Range would finally be free from the political alienation they suffer IRL in the liberal-leaning OR and WA. Actually, they might even feel that their new State is a bit too conservative for their tastes.

OR Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

On Dave's maps, Oregon would always be a deep-blue State. Republican Presidential candidates perform even better there than in neighboring Lincoln, regularly winning over 60% of the vote. This was one of LBJ's weakest States, giving him less than 55% (a performance comparable to Utah's). And apart from him, no Democrat has ever come close to carrying the State's 6 or 7 Electoral Votes. Since 1968, and excluding election where Perot spoiled a large number of Republican votes, Republicans have always won an absolute majority and distanced their Democratic opponents by at least 15 points. Clearly, Idaho's influence would be significant, although in a "lighter and softer" version. Oregon wouldn't be the Republican fortress that Idaho is: in 2012 for example, Romney "only" won it by 23 points, instead of 32 in IRL Idaho. The areas in the Western part of the State would have a significant moderating influence and make the State's politics less lopsided. Nonetheless, Democrats would have a very hard time winning any statewide election in the modern era.

Capital: It would be possible to keep Boise, although it becomes a little southern for the State's new demographic center. Spokane could be an alternative, though it has the opposite problem.

Governor: Butch Otter - oddly enough, I can't find anyone else with a gubernatorial profile.

Senators: Greg Walden (class 2) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (class 3) - guess I evened things out by axing both Idaho Senators. :P

Representatives: It would be pretty interesting to see how the districts would be drawn if they could cross the ID/OR/WA border. But barring an upset, the most likely result is still 5R-0D.

This is my favorite TL on this forum, bar none. A question on your Senators here - would Hood River (where Greg Walden lives) be in Oregon or Washington in this scenario? It's not far from Portland, all things. Eastern Oregon is so very underpopulated compared to WA that Bend is really the only population center on that side of the mountains, but Hood River is more in the mountains than across them.

The interesting political case you'd likely see in a state like this is alienation from North-South, a true Boise-Spokane rivalry with the conservative, heavily-Mormon Boise region pitted against the more moderate Spokane area. Coeur d'Alene would probably be considered part of a larger Spokane metro in this situation, too.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
Oops, you're right, my bad. Hood River is actually in Washington. I had no idea Walden lived there, I thought he was a true westerner. I guess he can be replaced by Jim Risch then.

And yeah, I guess Eastern Washington has a lot in common with Northern Idaho and that they would form tbe State's most distinctive area.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 26, 2014, 02:39:46 PM
Washington

After getting rid of their conservative hinterland, the only thing left of OTL Oregon and Washington is a long but thin strip of land along the northern-Pacific coast, which forms this scenario's State of Washington. Almost entirely covered by the Portland and Seattle metropolitan areas, this State would obviously be much more urbanized and densely populated than its eastern neighbor - with a population comparable to New Jersey's. And accordingly, it would be even more Democratic and liberal-leaning.

WA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Even then, it turns out that this new Washington would have supported the exact same candidates as... OTL Washington. Over the last 14 Presidential election, the winner was always the same: even Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976, who lost OR and WA by fairly narrow margin IRL, would still be unable to carry this State. And it's only with Dukakis in 1988 that Washington began its uninterrupted Democratic voting streak. Until the 1980s, it seems that the Western and Eastern portions of the two States didn't differ that much in their partisan leanings, so removing the latter didn't significantly alter the balance of power. When the coastal region began trending D, this trend was powerful enough to swing the two RL States to the Democratic column despite the opposite shift in the inland region.

Thus, it turns out that this change did nothing but strengthen Democrats where they were already strong enough. This certainly could help Democrats feel more comfortable in Statewide races: for example, Republicans probably wouldn't stand a chance to win a Senate seat there, even in 2010 with a moderate candidate. Also, Gore, who came veeery close to losing Oregon in 2000, would sweep Washington by almost 10 points in this scenario. Finally, Democrats wouldn't be bothered by Republican obstruction in the State Legislature, as they would probably maintain their grip on both houses in any circumstance. On the other hand, the combination of losing the Western areas and merging the two States together would cost a total of 5 Electoral Votes to Democratic Presidential candidates. Not that good of a deal overall, even if it would give Obama the symbolic satisfaction of breaking the 60% line in 2008.

Capital: Vancouver would work well (so would Portland, though).

Governor: Jay Inslee

Senators: Ron Wyden (class 1) and Patty Murray (class 3)

Representatives: Even if a few renegade Democrats decided to switch sides and prop up the Republicans, they almost certainly wouldn't be able to flip control of any house of Washington's State Legislature. Democrats would thus hold the balance of power for redistricting. They probably wouldn't be able to get a full D delegation, but an 11D-1R split seems fairly logical.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 26, 2014, 03:40:51 PM
So, now there's only Nevada and the Californias left! :D How should I go about with them? I was guessing Pacific/California/CS, or Pacific/CS/California. Which of them are you guys most interested in, so that I keep it for last? :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on December 26, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I would save CS for last, considering it's the largest of your states, but I'm fine with whatever you decide to do.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 27, 2014, 05:46:08 AM
I would save CS for last, considering it's the largest of your states, but I'm fine with whatever you decide to do.

Seems fair! Let's do this. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on December 27, 2014, 07:03:58 AM
Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 27, 2014, 12:52:34 PM
Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things :P

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific. :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 28, 2014, 02:44:56 PM
PVI evolution of RL Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and this scenario's Oregon and Washington:

()

As you can see, the new Washington is didn't diverge much from RL OR/WA until very recently. It was actually more Republican than Washington in 1968, and than Oregon in 1972 and 76. It's only after 2000 or even 2004 that you see a gap really emerging, as the western coastal region really turns into a Democratic stronghold. And even then, it only moves Washington toward the Dems by about 5 points.

This scenario's Oregon is regularly 7 to 10 points less Republican than OTL Idaho (with the exception of 1960, interestingly).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2015, 07:10:10 AM
Nevada

So, what to say about Nevada?... Well, nothing. :P It's basically RL Nevada, with the three Californian Sierra Nevada counties added for good measure. Even in 2010, these counties total less than 35,000 inhabitants - so their influence would be close to nil.

NV Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Indeed, Nevada is still pretty much the same, voting for the same Presidential candidate by the same magnitude. You can see that on the percentages chart above, but the PVI chart really makes it obvious.

()

Until 1976, the mountain counties did manage to shift the State's PVI by about half a percentage point. But since then their effect has become imperceptible - either because these counties have trended D or because the Las Vegas demographic boom has made them increasingly irrelevant. Regardless, the bottom line is "nothing to see here".

Capital: Still Carson City (as silly as that may be)

Governor: Still Brian Sandoval

Senators: Still Dean Heller (class 1) and Harry Reid (class 3)

Representatives: Still 2D-2R.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2015, 09:47:08 AM
For the Californias unfortunately you'll have to wait about a week or so. But it will be worth the wait, I promise! ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Boston Bread on January 04, 2015, 11:51:24 AM
WAIT DID New-Washington ANNEX BC (Vancouver) ???
I think you meant Seattle. Or Olympia.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2015, 12:13:55 PM
WAIT DID New-Washington ANNEX BC (Vancouver) ???
I think you meant Seattle. Or Olympia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver,_Washington

I was surprised too when I found out.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2015, 09:44:07 AM
Pacific

Next time you hear someone say that the West Coast is the land of hippy ultra-leftish liberalism, you can answer one simple thing: that they're right. Pacific, the State that spans across the coastal areas of Northern and Central California (from Santa Barbara to Eureka) is not just "very Democratic". It is, by all measures, the most Democratic State in the nation. The Bay Area would dominate this State, both demographically (with 75% of the population) and culturally. Relaxed lifestyles, progressive values and Democratic dominance would go hand in hand in this leftist utopia.

PC Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

As it turns out, my graph itself (which I capped to 70% for the sake of uniformity) can't even account for how Democratic Pacific has become. Pacific had always been Dem-leaning, with Kennedy, Humphrey and Carter all winning it quite decisively. However, its unstoppable march to the left really began in the 1980s. Mondale already came within a few decimals of defeating Reagan there in 1984. Four years later, Dukakis swept the State by 14 points despite his major defeat nationwide. Clinton managed to win absolute majorities despite Perot's presence, then Al Gore broke the 60% barrier despite Nader, then Kerry racked up more than two-thirds of the statewide vote... All this culminating with Obama winning 71.6% and 70.6% in 2008 and 2012, respectively. This is actually better than what he got in Hawaii, meaning that Pacific would be today the most Democratic State in the nation. The trend, over the last 16 years, has been of over 20 points (and over the last 32, nearly 40).

()

How does this Democratic dominance reflect in geography? As the 2012 map shows, the epicenter is clearly located in the Bay Area: above all San Francisco, and secondarily the counties of Alameda, Santa Cruz and Marin (all places where Obama distanced Romney by 50 points or more). This would be the State's dominant area, dictating the agenda and setting the standards for political competition. By contrast, if you move North and South of the Bay, you begin finding areas that are more balanced politically. Obama did not break 59% in Santa Barbara and Lake, failed to win a majority in San Luis Obispo county, and even fell behind in two counties of the State's northern tip (Trinity and Del Norte). These areas North and South of the Bay, which are more "classically" Californian and value some degree of moderation, would probably feel pretty alienated from the State's institutions.

Capital: Any choice other than San Francisco would be a travesty.

Governor: Jerry Brown's aura would smile and never frown.

Senators: Kamala Harris (class 1) and Barbara Boxer (class 2) - I could see Feinstein being pushed out for being too old and conservative, and eventually retire in 2012.

Representatives: It would be a 13D-0R delegation, no doubt.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2015, 10:31:38 AM
Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things :P

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific. :D

So? ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on January 12, 2015, 11:14:46 AM
Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things :P

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific. :D

So? ;)

You were right - this state is just.... fabulous! ;) I love it... I absolutely f***ing love it!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on January 12, 2015, 12:05:16 PM
Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite. :P

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. ;))


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2015, 05:46:28 PM
Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite. :P

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. ;))

What is your favorite new State, btw? I'm curious. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on January 12, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite. :P

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. ;))

What is your favorite new State, btw? I'm curious. ;)

I'll go with California del Sur, although there are quite a few states that I like. Here's a map to show what I think of them:

()

The dark green is my top 10, the lighter green is the 10 just below them, the dark red is my bottom 10, the light red is the 10 just above them, and the 11 states in between are gray. For the sake of comparison, here is the same map using the OTL states:

(
)

Basically, a lot of my favorite states (warm and more heavily populated) were split up, while a lot of my least favorite ones (cold and less heavily populated) were merged together.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2015, 04:39:45 AM
I get the weather stuff, but having Florida and Arizona among your favorites and Minnesota and Wisconsin among your least favorites is almost a sacrilege. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
More interesting facts about Pacific! :) The last time it voted Republican in a statewide election was actually... 2006, where Schwartzy won 47.04% against 46.67% for Angelides. Bustamante won it easily in 2003 (where it also voted against the recall with around 60%). If you want to see it vote Republican again, you have to go back as far as 1986, for Deukmejian's landslide reelection. However, the last non-incumbent Republican to win the State was Reagan in 1966. In Senate elections, you'd have to go back to 1962 to find a Republican prevailing (specifically, Thomas Kuchel, who even won San Francisco by 10 points). Those who came closest were S.I. Hayakawa in 1976, who lost by 2.59 points, and Pete Wilson, who came within 2.13 points of Jerry Brown in 1982.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 16, 2015, 01:17:06 PM
California

Like for Illinois, land area and the location of the State capital prevailed over demographics in deciding which of the three States carved out of California would keep the original name. Indeed, California is smallest of them, keeping only slightly over 7 million inhabitants of the original State's 37. Consisting of the counties of the Central Valley and non-coastal Northern California, CA is the most rural and conservative of the three States. The inhabitants of these regions, who have grown increasingly alienated by RL CA's leftward turn, would surely welcome such a split as a liberation. It's worth noting, incidentally, that since the 1970s this is also the fastest growing of the three Californias. Without it, California's share of the national population would actually have declined in 2000 and 2010. Clearly, this region has been less affected than the southern and coastal areas by housing inflation and overpopulation, and still has a lot of room to grow.

CA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Politically, everyone has probably already guessed that this California is significantly more friendly to Republicans. However, this actually hasn't always been the case. In the 1960s and 1970s, California actually had a clear Democratic lean. Kennedy won a higher percentage there than in friggin' Pacific, and both Humphrey and Carter also carried it. Even Nixon's 1972 performance was pretty pathetic for someone who swept the country in a landslide, a paltry 53% (though he was helped by Schmitz taking over 3%). Like in many other States that saw a Republican trend, 1980 marked the turning point. Since then, Democratic Presidential candidates have carried California only twice - both times by a hair. Clinton narrowly edged out Bush in 1992, winning the State with only 39% of the vote. However, this proved to be a mere fluke, as Dole handily defeated him four years later (this pattern mirrors other Western States like Colorado and OTL Montana, where the Perot vote seems to have critically hurt Bush). The 2000s appear to have been the peak of California's rightward shift, as Dubya trounced both Gore and Kerry by double-digit margins. However, in a surprising turn of events, the State might now have begun to move back to the Democrats. In 2008, Obama narrowly beat McCain 49.2/48.5, and four years later Romney prevailed by an even closer margin (California was in fact the closest State in 2012!). Of course, it's worth reminding that CA's newfound competitiveness occurred in the context of two Democratic victories. Just like North Carolina (or OTL Florida and Ohio), this State is likely to come into play only if the Democrat has a slight edge in the campaign, and being close there should be a cause of worry for Republicans. Still, a Democratic trend is ongoing and it might eventually succeed in turning California Atlas-red.

What has changed between old, pre-1980 California and today's California? A comparison between 1976 and 2008 - two narrow Democratic wins - can help figure that out:

()

Carter's 2-point win in 1976 translated into a rather uniform map, without stark patterns of conflict. He swept most of the San Joaquin Valley except its conservative southern tip around Bakersfield, the Sacramento area, a good chunk of the mountainous eastern counties, and even part of Northern California. Seeing this map, it actually quite surprising he didn't win the State by more. By contrast, Obama's 2008 strength is concentrated in a western strip of counties along the border with Pacific, from Yolo to Fresno. While Carter actually did all but one of these counties, Obama racked up huge margins there: 36 points in Yolo county (against 12 for Carter), 19 in Sacramento (against 8 ), 11 in San Joaquin (against -2). These three counties formed the core of Obama's strength, supplying him with a surplus of almost 154,000 votes (he won by 17,000). Their movements toward the Democrats might have something to do with "spillover" from the Bay Area, as those counties become increasingly integrated to the West Coast megalopolis. In the Southern part of the State, Democratic strength also has a lot to do with Latino population growth. By 2010, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings and Tulare counties all had over 45% Hispanics in their VAP, which bodes pretty well for the Democrats' future. Meanwhile, the Northern tip of the State (an area that would probably fit better in a hypothetical State with southern Oregon than in this State) swung hard toward Republicans, with McCain often breaking 60%. California is thus bound to become increasingly polarized between two very different socio-demographic realities.

Capital: Still Sacramento

Governor: Tom McClintock, I guess?

Senators: It's a hard one, seeing how politically marginal this region is in OTL California... Let's say, Bill Jones (class 1) and Kevin McCarthy (class 3). I've been pretty nice to Democrats in purple States so far, so let's even it out. ;)

Representatives: It's impossible to infer who would control the State Legislature from OTL results, considering that the area forming this State has barely a dozen districts in the State Assembly. However, actual results indicate that geography might favor the Democrats here, with Republicans winning big in a couple districts in the North, East and South while Democrats take most districts by narrow margins. So I'm going to assume a split control, preventing Republicans from enacting a gerrymander. Therefore, I'll keep the current balance of 6R-4D.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bobloblaw on January 16, 2015, 05:53:26 PM
Sorry for the long absence! I'm getting really busy these days. Anyway, while I have some time, let's move on to...


Illinois

What would Illinois look like without Chicagoland? Certainly nothing like the image that we tend to have this State IRL. The level of demographic, economic, political and cultural hegemony that Chicago exerts over downstate IL rivals that of NYC over upstate NY. We can pretty sure that our Illinoisans would welcome this split as a liberation. In a nutshell, the new Illinois is a sparsely populated (ranking just below Kentucky) but relatively vast State. It remains quite diverse, with several mid-sized cities like Springfield, Peoria or Champaign, and both major industrial and rural areas (including regions that would fit well in the South). How would such a State have voted throughout the past half-century?

IL Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

To no one's surprise, Illinois has historically tended to favor Republicans, at least at the Presidential level. It only rarely went Democratic, and generally in exceptional circumstances like LBJ's landslide or Obama's favorite-son effect in 2008 (would it have crossed Chicago's borders in such a scenario? this remains unclear). Clinton seems to be the only Democrat to have done genuinely well in the State, sweeping it by 10 points in 1992. The contrast with Obama, who only narrowly carried IL in 2008 and was severely distanced by Romney four years later, is quite striking. On the whole, Democrats seem to be on the decline when compared to their performances in the 1990s - although if you look at the bigger picture, Democrats were already doing pretty bad in Kennedy's days. It's also interesting to note that, since 1984, Illinois has displayed an uncanny similarity with Missouri in its voting patterns. Over this period, the two States' margins differed by no more than 2 points in every election except 2008. Thus, just like Missouri, Illinois seems to have a peculiar blend of Southern and Midwestern identities.

At the same time, Illinois (like most other States seen so far) has undergone some significant shifts in its internal geography, as this 1960-2012 comparison highlights (Republicans wins by 10 and 8 points, respectively):

()

The trend seems quite clear: southern Illinois (especially southeastern Illinois) has moved sharply to the right, with most of its counties giving Romney results over 60%. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have gained in the northern half of the State, most notably along the border with Iowa. Clearly southern IL has been caught in the same dynamic as the rest of the South, the long-term collapse of Democratic support. Meanwhile, Northern Illinois, just like neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin, went from likely R to lean D after the 1980s. Still, being deprived of Chicago's influence, Democrats will generally face an uphill battle in Illinois.

Capital: Springfield remains the obvious choice.

Governor: Bill Brady would have no trouble getting elected here.

Senators: Dick Durbin (class 2) and Mark Kirk (class 3). The funny thing is that, while Illinois would keep the same Senators as IRL, their electoral positions would be essentially flipped: Durbin is probably facing a very close race for his reelection this year, while Kirk was swept to office in 2010 and has a decent shot at winning again in 2016 (his biggest fear should be a conservative primary challenge).

Representatives: Easily holding the trifecta after 2010, the Republicans would have several options to go with. As Muon has demonstrated (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868.msg4324087#msg4324087), it is possible to draw a gerrymander that perfectly dilutes Democratic strength throughout the State, resulting in six districts with lean-R to likely-R ratings. That said, I'm not sure Republican would be ready to take such a big risk (all 6 districts voted for Romney in 2012, but for Obama in 2008). Maybe they'd choose instead to work a Democratic vote sink packing together East St. Louis, Springfield and Peoria, so as to keep 5 seats safe? I'm not sure, but for lack of an alternative proposal I'll stick with Muon's. So 6R-0D.

While I really apprecaite all your work, the problem is it is static. It doesnt take into account that in Illinois, especially, there is an anti-Chicago backlash among down state voters. Obviously in 2010, Alexi Gianolious would not have been the Dem nominee for IL senate. And BTW neither would Kirk. Durbin would likely not be Senator either, despite being from Springfield. Or else he'd be a different Durbin than he is today. More like Claire McCaskill


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Boston Bread on January 16, 2015, 07:33:23 PM
If California was divided like that it would be a swing state that both Romney and Obama would have campaigned in. Given Obama's campaign strength and the turnout boost, California would have gone to Obama by a couple points in an actual election.

And yeah, Pacific is one crazy state! Incredible that a highly populous state would go >70% for one party in a close election, the last time that happened was during the solid south.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 16, 2015, 09:52:18 PM
See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on January 17, 2015, 01:05:44 AM

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Get out.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 17, 2015, 07:57:36 AM
While I really apprecaite all your work, the problem is it is static. It doesnt take into account that in Illinois, especially, there is an anti-Chicago backlash among down state voters. Obviously in 2010, Alexi Gianolious would not have been the Dem nominee for IL senate. And BTW neither would Kirk. Durbin would likely not be Senator either, despite being from Springfield. Or else he'd be a different Durbin than he is today. More like Claire McCaskill

Well, that's one of the limits of my scenario, I can't predict counterfactuals. Of course the political culture of Illinois would be totally different if it didn't include Chicagoland, and this could have really huge repercussions on election results. It's even doubtful that Obama would have carried it in 2008 in such circumstances (even though it would be surprising to see him benefit from a large "home state effect" in downstate IL). Still, I don't see why my picks are necessary wrong. Politicians adapt to the conditions they are in, so while Durbin would probably have slightly different views he'd still be able to win statewide elections.

And yes, Northern California > Southern California (normal). Still, I find it really fascinating to see how each of the three States had their own unique political trajectories. And CS will be interesting in that regard too, I promise! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on January 17, 2015, 01:33:22 PM

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Get out.

Nagas=FF


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
Tune in tomorrow for the final State! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 18, 2015, 01:05:17 PM
Biley fascinated.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bobloblaw on January 18, 2015, 01:43:23 PM
See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Yours is a post the best describes progressives: Utopia can be achieved if only all opposition is removed. This is the heart of leftism, progessivism etc. "The prefection of man is possible with the right people in control" A well educated, well cultured bureaucracy to plan the lives of the serfs to achieve the "prefect society" Nudge is a word used by the likes of Cass Sunstein.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2015, 04:46:48 PM
See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Yours is a post the best describes progressives: Utopia can be achieved if only all opposition is removed. This is the heart of leftism, progessivism etc. "The prefection of man is possible with the right people in control" A well educated, well cultured bureaucracy to plan the lives of the serfs to achieve the "prefect society" Nudge is a word used by the likes of Cass Sunstein.

It's a thread about splitting up States, could you keep your deranged political nonsense out of it? Thanks.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 18, 2015, 05:37:09 PM
See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.




Yours is a post the best describes progressives: Utopia can be achieved if only all opposition is removed. This is the heart of leftism, progessivism etc. "The prefection of man is possible with the right people in control" A well educated, well cultured bureaucracy to plan the lives of the serfs to achieve the "prefect society" Nudge is a word used by the likes of Cass Sunstein.

It's a thread about splitting up States, could you keep your deranged political nonsense out of it? Thanks.

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. :P San Francisco falls are the best. :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 18, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. :P San Francisco falls are the best. :D

Given I just lived through that, I'm going to have to say:...What's the difference  XD?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2015, 06:17:58 PM
I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. :P San Francisco falls are the best. :D

Given I just lived through that, I'm going to have to say:...What's the difference  XD?

Not much (though August has a lot of fog and wind, which go away in September and the next months), but for a summer, the weather isn't all that impressive, while for fall, it's amazing. Going out wearing only a T-shirt in November is a rather thrilling experience for someone used of Paris' weather. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 19, 2015, 12:44:37 AM
To all who speculate California going Atlas Red, while such is possible, it could be a while given that this state clearly is a misplaced Southern State. Depending on how far Fresno and Sacramento grow rather than rural areas or pseudo cities like Downeyville the state could be like North Carolina, or like Alabama.

Plumas County may as well be a stand in for Georgia given its straight Democrat record from 1928-1976 and one final Clinton nod in 1992.

And the state probably voted for Stevenson in 1956, or at least gave Eisenhower a plurality victory and was one the closest in 1952 for Ike too.





Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2015, 01:04:52 PM
And now, ladies and gentlemen... five years, four months and six days after the start of this thread... it is my pleasure to introduce you to our 51st and final State!


California del Sur

Like the RL State it is carved from, California del Sur has the distinction of being - by far - the most populous State in the country. With 21 million inhabitants enumerated in the 2010 census, it is still bigger than any RL State besides California and Texas. Compared to OTL CA, its rise to the forefront is delayed by a decade: while IRL, CA passed NY in 1970, this scenario's New York remained the biggest State until the 1980 census. Still, the trend is largely comparable, and although CS's demographic growth has slowed down since 1990, its status remains unchallenged. Aside from that, CS is a densely populated and largely urban State. Although it contains some vast deserted areas in the East (the "Inland Empire"), the coast hosts the gigantic megalopolis built around Los Angeles and San Diego. This is the land of sprawling cities, hot weather, and, obviously, Latino politics. Making up 38.6% of the VAP (compared to 22.6% in Pacific and 30.5% in California), Hispanics would play a major role in the State's political life.

CS Presidential election results, 1960-2012:
()

Politically, this is probably the most significant Democratic conquest of the current realignment. Before 1992, CS had never supported a Democrat aside from LBJ. Since 1992, however, the Democratic Presidential candidate has always carried it. The realignment is undeniable. Back in the days California del Sur used to be a pretty conservative State. In 1964, it was one of Goldwater's best States outside of the South (he did better there than in Indiana, for example). Favorite sons Nixon and Reagan had no trouble prevailing there. The first, while he struggled a bit against Kennedy, distanced Humphrey by 8 points and broke 50% despite Wallace's presence. As for Reagan, he trounced Carter by 22 points in 1980, and four years later he became the only candidate to break 60% in the State.

Although the importance of 1992 is often exaggerated in the political evolution, it really was a pivotal moment for California Del Sur. With Bush's percentage dropping by more than 20 points, the State went from a solid Republican margin to a solid Democratic one without any transition. The trend continued in the following years. CS reelected Clinton with an absolute majority, then saw Gore prevail by the exact same margin over Bush. 2004 marked a step backwards, with Bush taking an honorable 47% and proving that the State could still be somewhat competitive. However, in the Obama years, CS is beginning to look like a Democratic stronghold. It remains less Democratic than OTL California - even in 2008, Obama couldn't get above 60% - but still enough to keep the State outside of the competition. Maybe Romney could have tried campaigning there, but it's hard to see him gain more than a couple points.

While CS is probably gone for the GOP at the Presidential level, its statewide politics would be pretty interesting to follow. The State retains some notable conservative tendencies: it went 55% in favor of Prop 8, only 52% in favor of Prop 30, and back in 1994 it gave a whopping 62.5% to Prop 187. It also gave Schwarzenegger a landslide in 2003 and 2006. The main factor of the Democrats' strength would obviously be Hispanics, but their leanings at the local level might vary. The right kind of Republican could still prevail in Senatorial or Gubernatorial races. Its legislatures are probably safely in Democratic hands, though.

There's not need for fancy maps to describe CS's geography, I think you can all guess it pretty easily. Los Angeles County is the base of Democratic strength, and without it the State would actually be fairly competitive - if not GOP-leaning. In all Presidential elections since 1960, LA County has been more Democratic than the State as a whole. And, a testimony of its impact, in all elections since 1980, all the other counties (except the heavily Hispanic Imperial) have been more Republican than the State as a whole. In 2012, it cast 45% of the State's total vote. The only real base of support left to Republicans is Orange County. San Diego County, once solidly Republican (it gave Bush over 60% in 1988), has seen a massive Democratic trend. The remaining three counties are still relatively marginal, but are also trending Democratic. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising to see a Democrat eventually surpass Reagan's 1984 peak (provided they win nationally).

Capital: Riverside

Governor: I feel creative... and since the race was in 2010, let's say Steve Cooley

Senators: Antonio Villaraigosa (class 2) and Loretta Sanchez (class 3)

Representatives: I can only assume that the political climate around redistricting would be similar than in OTL California, with a nonpartisan redistricting commission being enacted through popular initiative. As a result, we can keep the original tally of 21D-9R.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on January 19, 2015, 01:53:35 PM
Very good job, AV! I've enjoyed it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2015, 06:29:31 PM
Thanks! :)

Anyone else has comments on this final State? I thought it would be a bigger deal for people. :P

BTW, since I brought it up in this last post, here are all the States where Hispanics make up more than 20% of the VAP. With these modifications, their number has jumped from 6 to 10:
- Rio Grande: 53.4% !!!
- New Mexico: 42.3%
- California del Sur: 38.6%
- California: 30.5%
- South Florida: 27.7%
- Texas: 25.6%
- Arizona: 25.0%
- Jefferson: 24.3%
- Pacific: 22.6%
- Nevada: 22.3%


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on January 19, 2015, 07:55:34 PM
Well done! It's been great following this, reading all about the alternate states, and imagining how different the US could be if these were the states.

Also, on CS, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the residents of California del Sur wanted to transfer LA County into Pacific, for political reasons. Good job on dividing up CA and TX in particular as well, along with the partitioning of Chicagoland.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on January 19, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
It looks pretty great! However, what would be the county map? I'm a bit confused on where are the Republican ones, and the Democtaric ones. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 19, 2015, 08:45:42 PM
Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial  if I'm not mistaken.


More importantly though, what's the graph of the three and the real California look like?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: KingSweden on January 19, 2015, 10:54:14 PM
If we could vote on it, I'm sure most people on this forum would vote this Best Timeline (I certainly would). Great work, Antonio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on January 20, 2015, 01:53:59 AM
It's been a great series, Antonio! :D

BTW, would it possible to see the full election maps for 1960-2012? I'm particularity interested to see if the 2000 and 1960 results. No need to rush it of course, I'm just curious. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2015, 06:58:30 AM
Thanks, everybody! :)


More importantly though, what's the graph of the three and the real California look like?

You thought I could forget such an important piece of the project? Here it is! :)

()

As you can see, it started off with the two northern States leaning Democrat while CS leaned Republican. 1972 seems to have been a rather anomalous year, with McGovern doing comparatively very well in all of California (he even kept Nixon below his national margin in his native State of California del Sur!). Democrats began losing ground in California right after that: in 1976, it was the perfect bellwhether, and in subsequent elections it had a slight GOP lean (becoming, after 1992, the most Republican of the three States). Meanwhile, both PC and CS began their Democratic trend in 1984. Their movement over the 1980-2012 was comparable, but since PC started off as a Democratic and CS as Republican they remain very different. CS realigned to the Democrats in 1992, and saw a few ebbs and flows in the following years, but in 2008 and 2012 saw a pronounced Democratic trend. Pacific, meanwhile, saw a 19-point trend over the span of two elections (1996-2004) going from safe D to one-party State levels. Finally, California slipped further to the right in the late 1990s and early 2000s, peaking at R+14 in 2004, but by 2012 it has moved back to Swing State territory in 2012.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2015, 10:18:09 AM
BTW, would it possible to see the full election maps for 1960-2012? I'm particularity interested to see if the 2000 and 1960 results. No need to rush it of course, I'm just curious. :)

...and yes, that's exactly what I had in mind next! :) I'm gonna run through all Presidential elections from 1960 to 2012, similarly to what I did for the States. Brace yourselves!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 20, 2015, 10:34:05 AM
I actually have results for the strongest and closest of the Alternates.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on January 20, 2015, 01:11:50 PM
Antonio, this series has been terrific - I can only hope you will have so many extra content for us left! ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2015, 01:28:27 PM
I actually have results for the strongest and closest of the Alternates.

You calculated them by yourself? You could simply have asked, I can tell you the details of any State you're interested in. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
...and let's begin with 1960! :D I won't be able to give you the complete run-up that I plan on doing for other elections, because I lack data on the 1950 census to calculate EV numbers as well as data from 1956 to calculate swing and trend statistics. But anyway, here's what I have:

First, the standard Atlas map:
()

Under the 1962 Apportionment, Kennedy would have won 286 EVs, Nixon 240, and the unpledged electors 12 (if we count the faithless OK elector, then it's Nixon 239 and Byrd 13). Extrapolating from RL apportionment numbers from 1952, I calculated that under the normal scenario Kennedy should win a bit more, probably about 290 electors. It's slightly down from his actual 303 score (probably due to the splits in NY, PA, IL and TX, which are only countered by OH and CA), but still an impressive result if you consider that the PV was basically tied.

Now let's have a loot at the PVI map:
()

For the record, the cutoffs are 5, 10 and 20 (eg, the lightest shade means the State leans toward a party by less than 5 points, and the darkest means that it leans by more than 20 points). Again, considering the tied national vote, the PVI basically equals the winning margin (except for Hawaii, which Kennedy won by a mere 0.06 points!).

Anyway, this map does a good job at explaining Kennedy's broad victory: he won a sh*tload (and I mean a sh*tload) of States by ridiculously narrow margins. While this map takes out his razor-thin Illinois win (looks like Daley's not needed after all!), it adds California and Pacific to the column of States Kennedy won by less than 5 points. In fairness, Nixon also scored a lot of close wins, so this is above all a testimony of how de-polarized politics were in that era. Also an interesting detail: as you can see, among the States that stand out in Kennedy's column, there is MA, NY, a bunch of Deep South States, but also Rio Grande. So LBJ really did do a good job at delivering his home State. ;)

Finally, a few statistics about the States (there will be more for the next elections ;)):
- Most Democratic: Georgia (PVI +24.95)
- Most Republican: Nebraska (PVI -24.30)
- Closest: Hawaii (PVI -0.10)
- Bellwether: Hawaii (PVI -0.10)
- Tipping point (under the 1962 apportionment): New Jersey (PVI +0.64)

Not much has changed, then.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on January 22, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
Awesome! :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 22, 2015, 06:23:31 PM
How would Hawaii vote for Nixon here (great map btw)? It was a razor thin margin for Kennedy IRL, and it hasn't been altered far as I can tell.

Anyway of the Alternates:

Massachusetts is the tops for Kennedy (60.7%) (though clearly behind the unaltered Georgia), Nevada is the closest (50.6%) (clearly a greater divide than Hawaii IRL and should be on this)

Ohio is the best for Nixon (58.9%) [once again the unaltered Nebraska is the ultimate Anti-Kennedy here, just as IRL], and North Florida is the closest (50.1%) [or should be, not Hawaii, anyway it's the same as IRL California]


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 23, 2015, 05:35:43 AM
As I said in my post, Kennedy won Hawaii by 0.06 points. Since he won the national PV by 0.16 points, this means that Hawaii has a 0.1 points Republican PVI.

Also, the closest Kennedy State that I've tampered with actually isn't Michigan (which Kennedy won by 1.94), but rather Nevada (which he won by 1.25). Yes, the modification of Nevada was pretty marginal, but the same could be said about Michigan. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 23, 2015, 09:41:39 AM
For 1964


Strongest Johnson: Massachusetts (76.9%) [not as strong as Rhode Island IRL, but slightly ahead of  he actual Massachusetts]
Closest Johnson: Oregon (54.9%) [Idaho IRL, but since Idaho was absorbed...it still shows]

Strongest Goldwater: Mississippi (87.9%) still, North Florida (53.3%) of the alternates
Closest Goldwater: Arizona (50.45%) still,  and still North Florida (53.3%) of the alternates by virtue of being the only one to turn to Goldwater


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 23, 2015, 09:43:11 AM
Are you going to spoil all my election summaries? :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 23, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
Are you going to spoil all my election summaries? :P

Alright, alright I'll cut it out :p, not like he map is here yet.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 26, 2015, 09:23:15 AM
1964

()

Lyndon Johnson: 479 (-7)
Barry Goldwater: 59 (+7)

LBJ's landslide win obviously isn't in any way threatened by these geographic adjustments. The only effective change is brought by the Florida split: instead of a close LBJ win, we have Goldwater winning the Northern State by 6.6 points while Johnson sweeps the South by 8.8 points. Apart from that, there is not much to see here. Some divides do highlight notable differences (Ohio is still much more Republican-friendly than Erie, and CS ends up being one of Goldwater's best States outside of the South). On the other hand, other States remain surprisingly uniform, like the PA and NY splits (actually, Johnson does slightly better in Adirondack than in New York). It's also impressive to see Johnson break 60% in Jefferson, a traditional Republican stronghold. Clearly the home State effect was at work here IRL, and if this scenario was actually in place he might not have done so well.

Here is what it looks like in net PVI terms:
()

In a tied race (assuming uniform national swing), the Electoral College would end up like that:
Johnson: 293 (-5)
Goldwater: 245 (+5)

Again, the Electoral College structure is almost unchanged, still working to Johnson's favor due to the millions of wasted Goldwater votes in the Deep South. LBJ is hurt by the split in Ohio and Texas, but gains thanks to the California one. The Northeast still stands out as his main area of strength, along with the industrial Great Lakes area, Appalachia, Hawaii, and obviously his home State of Rio Grande. Goldwater does well in the old Confederacy, as well as in the Plains and the Mountain West, but also the southwestern corner with AZ and CS. One surprise is Chicago, where LBJ underperformed compared to his national result due to the suburbs' love for Goldwater.

Finally, here is the swing/trend map:
()

The extreme northeastern corner (NE+AD), and to a lesser extent MA, OH and the Appalachian area, are the areas where Johnson most improved over Kennedy. Clearly his candidacy benefited from the support of traditionally moderate rural northerners who strongly supported Civil Rights, as well as by populists in the Outer South and Midwest who supported LBJ's Great Society program. Goldwater improved particularly in the South (obviously) but also, as said in the Southwestern corner. It's interesting to see Texas stand out compared to its western neighbors and trend GOP, a proof of its more southern nature. Also, a clearer Democratic trend emerges on the Pacific coast, as California's rightward shift was almost exclusively due to CS.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Hawaii (PVI +34.94)
- Most Republican: Mississippi (PVI -96.86)
- Closest: Arizona (margin -0.99)
- Bellwether: Colorado (PVI +0.49) - Jefferson is really close though
- Tipping point: Iowa (PVI +1.39) - Colorado and Texas would also have to flip
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Hawaii (trend +35.04)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Mississippi (trend -108.37)
- Most Stable (absolute): Arkansas (swing +5.53)
- Most Stable (relative): California (trend -0.26)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 26, 2015, 11:52:50 AM
OK, I plan to keep the current rythm and cover two elections per week. Does that work for you guys? ;) And how do you like the format?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on January 26, 2015, 12:35:28 PM
This format is great! I beg for more! ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on January 26, 2015, 03:42:42 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Prince of Salem on January 26, 2015, 05:29:12 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on January 26, 2015, 06:59:25 PM
I definitely approve of the format, and am looking forward to the next elections! No rush Antonio, you've done a great job on this series!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 26, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
I definitely approve of the format, and am looking forward to the next elections! No rush Antonio, you've done a great job on this series!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 30, 2015, 09:43:19 AM
1968

()

Richard Nixon: 258 (-44)
Hubert Humphrey: 228 (+37)
George Wallace: 52 (+7)

This time, redrawing the States might actually have changed the entire course of US history. In the chaotic and bitterly fought 1968 election, Richard Nixon would fall 12 votes short of a victory in the Electoral College, instead of the 301-vote majority he got IRL (302 without a NC faithless elector). Nixon's huge structural advantage, built by sweeping all the decisive States by narrow margins, is significantly shrunk when many such States get split. The most important changes is the Chicago/Illinois split: instead of Nixon grabbing a full 26 EVs, Humphrey narrowly snatches Chicago's 19 by a narrow 1.5 points margin. The same goes for Erie/Ohio and for the Californias, of which Humphrey won two out of three. Nixon partly makes up for it with Adirondack and Jefferson, but still emerges as a net loser. Furthermore, Nixon also loses the 7 EV from Vermont and NH - as Muskie's Maine is enough to carry New England for Humphrey - the 3 from Delaware, and another 7 due to the Lincoln merger. The icing on the cake is North Florida, which gives 40.8% of its votes for Wallace, against only 33.5% for Nixon - allowing the former to break 52 EVs.

The election's outcome would thus be completely different from what happened IRL. With no electoral majority, the election would go to the House, where Democrats hold a majority. Who would prevail in such a scenario? It's really hard to say. It's hard to see many Democrats voting for Nixon, but they would also be wary of going against the popular vote. A lot would also depend on Wallace's attitude. If he chooses to stay in the race, there could be enduring dreadlock. Otherwise, he could choose to throw his weight on Nixon's camp to send a message against Democrats. Many Southern Democratic representatives could follow him and vote Nixon, giving him a majority. Still, there is an outside chance that we end up with President Humphrey, and thus with a very different 1969-1973 political evolution. (BTW, note that, among the 5 States that gave Humphrey an absolute majority, there is, once again, Rio Grande. Pretty amazing.).

Here's the PVI map:
()

Nixon: 277 (-37)
Humphrey: 261 (+37)

As you know, the PVI map doesn't take into account Third Party candidates like Wallace, so this map is a bit artificial. Wallace States are assigned to the candidate who came in second (except for Arkansas, where Nixon beat Humphrey under his national margin). Anyway, as you can see, Humphrey wins more close races than Nixon: NE, PA, AY, CH, TX, WA and CA all go to him by under 5 points. Nixon does the same in AD, NJ, WI, MO and AK. In a tied race overall (and without Wallace) Nixon would still prevail, but the margin becomes much more reasonable. Humphrey's strongholds are those, already mentioned, that gave him over 50%, including RG. Nixon's area of strength is still in the inner West and lower Midwest, with a peak in Nebraska.

Finally, here is the swing/trend map:
()

The swing map looks like a mirror image of 1964, with the Deep South moving back to the Democrats while the rest of the country swinging toward the GOP. The only State that doesn't swing in the opposite way is North Florida, which goes to the right both times. The trend map too shows a largely reverse pattern: the Old Confederacy, but also Chicago, Arizona and CS, trend Democratic, while almost everywhere else in the country (especially the Midwest and Northeast) Republicans gain ground. Indeed, overall the 1968 map looks a lot like 1960. Major differences among split States include NY (with Adirondack trending much more to the right), FL (the North trending more Democratic than the South), TX (with a hierarchy opposite to 1964), and IL (Chicago goes Dem, Illinois right).

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Massachusetts (PVI +31.12)
- Most Republican: Nebraska (PVI -27.31)
- Closest: California (margin +0.44)
- Bellwether: Arkansas (PVI +0.02)
              - excluding the Wallace States: Missouri (PVI -0.43)
- Tipping point: Missouri (PVI -0.43)
              - tipping point for a Nixon majority: New England (PVI +1.74), after California
              - tipping point for an Humphrey majority: Wisconsin (PVI -2.61), after MO, NJ, and AK
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Mississippi (trend +107.06)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Adirondack (trend -18.58)
- Most Stable (absolute): North Florida (swing -1.24)
- Most Stable (relative): Pacific (trend +0.03)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on January 30, 2015, 10:35:55 AM
I think with this result you end up with four years of Nixon.

After looking at the 1968 county results and the partisan make up of the House, I think Nixon (with Wallace's blessing) wins 28-23.

()

The Vice Presidential race would be much more interesting as I think Johnson and Humphrey would have a lot more pull in Senate and might be able to get Edmund Muskie through the Senate. Imagine how much fun 4 years of Nixon having a Democratic VP would be! :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 30, 2015, 11:04:40 AM
That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on January 30, 2015, 11:21:37 AM
That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.

I think Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee could be close calls and they would probably determine the election. Wallace had little strength in Oklahoma, so I think Humphrey gets that state. Also I could see Humphrey would get the support of Congressmen in the Upper South Union-frendily states of Kentucky and Missouri. Also Colorado had a huge Democratic Congressional delegation and I don't see the Wallace politics coming into play. Also Nixon is lucky that Republicans had congressional majorities in Michigan and Minnesota in '68.     


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Maxwell on January 30, 2015, 11:22:11 AM
I really like how creative you got with this. This is really great Antonio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on January 30, 2015, 11:27:18 AM
Amazing as always Antonio, to think 1968 would have been so different... makes you wonder how it would have affected future third-party candidacies in this TL.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 30, 2015, 05:41:45 PM
I'm so glad you guys like it! :)


That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.

I think Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee could be close calls and they would probably determine the election. Wallace had little strength in Oklahoma, so I think Humphrey gets that state. Also I could see Humphrey would get the support of Congressmen in the Upper South Union-frendily states of Kentucky and Missouri. Also Colorado had a huge Democratic Congressional delegation and I don't see the Wallace politics coming into play. Also Nixon is lucky that Republicans had congressional majorities in Michigan and Minnesota in '68.     

Wow, you seem to know a lot about congressional politics in the 1960s! ;) I see no reason to contradict you on this, except maybe that Jefferson could go for Nixon due to him winning the State comfortably (then again, the same is true for Colorado). Anyways, thanks a lot for your contribution! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 02, 2015, 01:26:38 PM
1972

()

Richard Nixon: 522 (+1)
George McGovern: 16 (-1)

Just like in 1964, the sheer lopsidedness of the popular vote means that a redrawing of State borders would change little to nothing to the Electoral College's results. McGovern ends up doing even worse than IRL, losing one EV to a total of 16. He takes Rhode Island's two House-based Electors due to the merger with Massachusetts, but loses the three from DC, which get drowned out into Maryland. Apart from that, nothing is changed. However, McGovern's impressive performance in Pacific is worth mentioning: coming within a mere 3 points of Nixon, he managed to keep him below the 50% line. Clearly, that State's liberal bent was already emerging by the 1970s.

PVI map:
()

Nixon: 286 (+21)
McGovern: 252 (-21)

For the first time, the State modifications result in flipping a structural advantage in the Electoral College. While IRL, McGovern would have won a tied race with uniform national swing, in this scenario Nixon manages to preserve his edge and win a clear majority of Electors. The main reason for this is Ohio: 1972 is one of the 3 elections when that State actually had a slight Democratic lean instead of a slight Republican one, but splitting it means that the bulk of its Electoral Votes remains solidly in the Republican column. Nixon further benefits from snatching Adirondack and Illinois to McGovern, although the latter can mitigate the losses with Rio Grande and Maryland (which had a Rep PVI IRL).

Otherwise, this map is an interesting mix of old and new. On the one hand, you see the modern Democratic coalition, made up of the Coasts and Lakes areas, emerging, and the South consolidating as a Republican stronghold (even West Virginia falls for Nixon!). On the other hand, McGovern is still notably weak in the Northeast, losing New England and barely taking Pennsylvania, while doing far better than modern Republicans in the rural Midwest and Mountains region. Clearly McGovern's rural populist appeal played a role in this election, especially in his home State of Lincoln. On the other hand, Nixon, as conservative as he was, still appealed to moderate Northeasterners better than any Republican from Reagan on.

Swing/trend map:
()

With South Dakota being fused into Lincoln, the swing map becomes entirely blue, erasing McGovern's home State effect. Apart from that, McGovern improves quite strikingly over Humphrey throughout the Midwest and West, while losing ground in the South and Northeast. The impact of Wallace's votes flowing to Nixon is visible in the South, where the improvement is striking. On the other hand, the upper Midwest+Lincoln is an area where McGovern's appeal really worked. In terms of State divides, the only one which presents any interest is PA. This scenario's Pennsylvania thus becomes the only Northeastern State trending Democrat. Also note that MA now trends Republican, due to the inclusion of Rhode Island.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Massachusetts (PVI +29.92)
- Most Republican: Mississippi (PVI -35.42)
- Closest: Pacific (margin -2.64)
- Bellwether: Alaska (PVI -0.36)
- Tipping point: Illinois (PVI -1.42) and Missouri (PVI -1.44) together, after AK and NM
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Iowa (trend +17.51)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Mississippi (trend -45.62)
- Most Stable (absolute): Iowa (swing -4.94)
- Most Stable (relative): Kentucky (trend -0.01)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 06, 2015, 02:09:30 PM
1976

()

James Carter: 306 (+9)
Gerald Ford: 232 (-9)

As it turns out, Carter manages to expand his electoral map a bit. He even manages to break Ford's complete domination over the western half of the country by carrying Pacific and California. His victory would seem a less embarrassingly close, though still not particularly impressive considering his early lead in the polls. Carter benefits particularly from the splits in California (which, as mentioned, allows him to carry 2 of the 3 States) and in Illinois (with a mere 1500-vote lead over Ford, he manages to take Chicago's 19 electoral votes). These gains are partly counterbalanced by Ford's victories in Adirondack, Jefferson and Ohio, but Ford's narrow defeat in Allegheny and the disadvantage accumulated by New England and Lincoln's mergers eventually tip the balance in Carter's favor. These changes also have the side-effect of altering the balance of States won without an absolute majority, while IRL, Carter won 3 of them and Ford 7, now Carter wins 6 and Ford 4. Interestingly, their overall number is unchanged, indicating that the State splits have created as many close States as they have destroyed.

PVI map:
()

Ford: 291 (+7)
Carter: 247 (-7)

Indeed, the PVI map shows how many States narrowly won by Carter would switch to Ford if a uniform swing brought the national popular vote to a tie. It is the flip side of Carter's expanded victory: Ford already had a slight structural advantage IRL, and these alterations of the electoral maps slightly increase it. This time, Ford benefits from the PA split by taking Allegheny, limits the damage in the West by taking California, and actually gains a little with the IL split. Thus, we end up with as many as 11 States with a slight Republican lean. Just like IRL, this election remains one of the least polarized of recent history, with a impressive number of States very close to the median.

Swing/trend map:
()

Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Georgia (PVI +31.72)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -30.85)
- Closest: Chicago (margin +0.05)
- Bellwether: California (PVI -0.11)
- Tipping point: Wisconsin (PVI -0.52), after CA and MS
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Georgia (trend +58.96)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Alaska (trend -23.95)
- Most Stable (absolute): Alaska (swing +1.26)
- Most Stable (relative): Indiana (trend -0.34)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 13, 2015, 04:01:10 PM
Sorry it took so much time. I'm getting too busy for the usual biweekly update, so I think I'm going to cover one election per week from now on. Hope you guys don't mind. :)


Anyway, let's move on to...

1980

()

Ronald Reagan: 477 (-12)
James Carter: 61 (+12)

Carter manages to lose a little better than IRL, thanks entirely to the MA/RI merger. While IRL Reagan prevailed by less than 4000 votes, the addition of strongly Democratic Rhode Island is enough to hand the State to Carter. This gives him an additional 12 EVs, which is all he gains. The Maryland merger, while it increases the amount of red territory on the map, is electorally neutral, because of the loss of DC's two Senate-based EVs. None of the splits is helpful for Carter either. He comes close, but still can't crack Erie, Chicago or even friggin' New York! Clearly there was more than bad luck in his landslide electoral defeat despite a not to heavy PV loss. It seems that Reagan had a significant appeal in urban States, and, with Anderson's help, managed to flip even the most solidly Democratic ones.

PVI map:
()

Carter: 324 (+27)
Reagan: 214 (-27)

Well, it's really a shame Carter didn't tie the Popular Vote, because he would have scored one of the most impressive victories a candidate in his position could hope for. Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the most lopsided PVI map we will see in the entire series. Carter did better than nationally in most of the country's regions: in the South of course, but also in the Northeast, most of the Midwest and the Pacific coast. Reagan's weakness is the gigantic margins he pulls in the interior West and Plains States, which puts him at a deficit in the rest of the country. While this was already true IRL, the redrawing makes it worse by adding Erie, Rio Grande, Pacific and Washington to Carter's column. Reagan could only counteract this with Illinois and the New England merger (IRL, VT and ME had a Democratic PVI), which don't amount to much. Thus, we end up with a lot of Democratic States in the 5-10 range, just enough to fall for Reagan's 10-point win. Had the election been just a couple points closer, the electoral map would have looked a lot more balanced.

In terms of individual States, the divide between CS and PC is quite interesting, showing that Reagan's home State appeal was mostly in the South. Also, it's worth noting that 1980 marks the date when Texas definitely flips Atlas blue, while Rio Grande still resists to the Republican advance. In the Northeast, Allegheny becomes more Democratic than Pennsylvania, a status that will endure until the mid 1990s.

Swing/trend map:
()

Well, Adirondack does really stick out on those maps. Not only is it the only State to swing left, but it did so rather clearly, by almost 7 points. While the entire country was turning its back on Carter, Adirondack seemed to suddenly warm up to him. Of course, Carter still won a lower percentage in 1980 than he did in 1976 (he went from 44% to 42.5%), and Anderson certainly took more votes away from Reagan than from Carter. Still, Anderson alone doesn't explain this swing. He only won 8.5% in Adirondack, about as much as in Minnesota and much less than in some States that trended R, like Massachusetts. There must have been something about Reagan that really did not go well with Upstate New Yorkers.

More generally, it's interesting to see that many States created from splits drift in opposite direction. While Adirondack sees this massive movement to the Democrats, NY decisively trends Republican. Allegheny moves to the left, and Pennsylvania to the right. Chicago goes massively toward the Dems, Illinois to the GOP. Pacific toward Carter, the rest of California strongly toward Reagan. Clearly 1980 was a point when the political geography began to shift quite dramatically. However, these shifts aren't always consistent: if the R trend in NY and PA seems to indicate Republican growth in large metropolises, why the exact opposite happens in Chicago? California, on the other hand, is not very surprising. Lefty-hippies in the Bay Area had never been fond of Reagan to begin with, and it makes sense that they would rally around Carter to contrast him. Additionally, Jefferson is pulled more strongly toward Reagan than the rest of Texas due to its western bent, and, more surprisingly, South Florida sees a much stronger Republican trend than its northern neighbor.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Georgia (PVI +24.55)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -42.46)
- Closest: Tennessee (margin -0.29)
- Bellwether: Connecticut (PVI +0.11)
- Tipping point: Michigan (PVI +3.14!!!), after CT, PA, WA and MO
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Adirondack (trend +18.52)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Nevada (trend -18.90)
- Most Stable (absolute): Hawaii (swing -0.63)
- Most Stable (relative): Iowa (trend +0.11)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Peeperkorn on February 13, 2015, 06:18:06 PM
Great work Tony! One of the best threads ever.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vosem on February 15, 2015, 12:35:54 AM
Yeah -- I haven't commented here in a while, but I'm still reading, and this is fantastic.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: YaBoyNY on February 15, 2015, 01:57:51 PM
Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

Ford did a lot worse in NYC especially than he could of due to his initial refusal to grant a federal bailout to NYC, which was doing really badly in the 70's. He did eventually relent, but he performed a lot worse than he could have because of that initial refusal.

All great work, by the way. Excellent timeline.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 16, 2015, 04:13:59 AM
Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

Ford did a lot worse in NYC especially than he could of due to his initial refusal to grant a federal bailout to NYC, which was doing really badly in the 70's. He did eventually relent, but he performed a lot worse than he could have because of that initial refusal.

Thanks a lot for the explanation, it makes sense then. :) I was really curious about this trend.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 20, 2015, 04:36:48 PM
1984

()

Ronald Reagan: 516 (-9)
Walter Mondale: 22 (+9)

Unlike RL, Reagan wouldn't be able to surpass Nixon's 1972 landslide in the Electoral College and set the record for post-Great Depression elections. Indeed, with the inclusion of DC, Maryland flips red on the Atlas map and actually becomes Mondale's best State, thus allowing him to break the "only one State" curse. While this must have been a slight consolation for Mondale, he would nonetheless suffer from bad luck, seeing New York and Pacific slip away from him by a meager 0.2 and 0.4 percentage points. Had he done just a little bit better, he could have claimed a full 60 electoral votes - only one less than Carter four years ago! Still, it's amazing that such a landslide election would end up with 4 States being so competitive. Who knows how things would have turned out with both candidates campaigning heavily in those States. On the other hand, the California split also allows Reagan to break 60% in his home State of CS.

PVI map:
()

Reagan: 335 (+29)
Mondale: 203 (-29)

Though Reagan was suffering from a huge Electoral College disadvantage in 1980, in 1984 he was instead heavily favored by the Electoral math. In rough numbers, this is one of the largest structural advantages in modern history (though this doesn't mean the advantage makes a huge difference - this depends on the PVI of the tipping-point State). Just like in 1980, the imbalance was already there in the original map, but the State shifts make it much worse. The New York and California splits are the big reason for this, with the latter adding a full 37 EVs to Reagan's column. Mondale regains a bit from Rio Grande and Erie, but it makes little difference in the big picture. As this map shows, a sh*tload of States end up with a slight Republican lean (12 of them to be exact), mostly thanks to the South's slipping away from the Democrats now that Carter is out of the ticket. Meanwhile, TN, IL and RG are the only States with a Democratic PVI under 5 points. Mondale is pretty strong in a lot of States, including the close 4 already mentioned but also Allegheny, Erie, Massachusetts and Iowa. Reagan's strongholds, meanwhile, are mostly sparsely populated Western States.

Swing/trend map:
()

It's interesting to see that so many States actually swung toward Mondale. IRL, these were mostly Western States where Carter had been obliterated in 1980. Here, we see that that a whole bunch of States of all kinds, from NY to AY and IL. I don't really see a pattern here: you have a city-State, a heavily industrial Rust Belt State, and a pretty rural Southern-Midwest one. Of course, this doesn't mean Reagan actually lost ground in these States, in all likelihood it only means that the Anderson voters broke out in Mondale's favor. Still, it's interesting to see in what States this happened. I would guess the workers from Pittsburgh were really fired up about Reagan's supply-side policies, and New Yorkers got also hurt badly by the crisis like other big cities (although Chicago swung toward Reagan almost like the nation). Go figure.

In overall trend numbers, contrasts between split States are fairly rare. You have New York, where, once again, the pattern is reversed from the previous year: NY becomes more Democratic and Adirondack more Republican. Meanwhile, Erie trends D and Ohio trends R, also a reversal from 1980 (probably reflecting Erie's working-class bent vs Ohio's more Appalachian feel). The two Floridas both trend toward the GOP, but SF only by an absolutely trivial margin. Keep that in mind for the next election.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Maryland (PVI +18.63)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -31.61)
- Closest: Minnesota (margin +0.18)
- Bellwether: Illinois (PVI +0.14)
- Tipping point: Georgia (PVI -2.17) and New Mexico (PVI -2.26) together, after MI, AD, CA and MO
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +14.54)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Georgia (trend -26.72)
- Most Stable (absolute): Erie (swing -0.88)
- Most Stable (relative): South Florida (trend -0.08)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on February 20, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
Excellent as usual, and as you said, Pacific and New York would have been fun to observe the campaigning in ITTL.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 27, 2015, 01:17:28 PM
1988

()

George Bush: 389 (-37)
Michael Dukakis: 149 (+37)

This election produces a pretty big shift in the Electoral College, comparable to 1968. Bush's victory now looks much less lopsided on the electoral map, and more in line with what one would expect considering his PV margin of victory. He does a little better than Clinton in OTL 1996 EV-wise, while running slightly behind PV-wise. Thus, this map is much more helpful than the actual one for the sake of identifying Dukakis' areas of strength. The most striking of them is a chunk of States spanning from the mid-Atlantic (Maryland) to the Lakes (Erie), where Dukakis did impressively well in historical perspective. For example, he is the only Democrat in this period to carry Allegheny while losing (rather heavily) Pennsylvania. His performance in the urban Northeast is rather mediocre by contrast: he only wins the historical Democratic strongholds of NY and MA. The rural northern Midwest remains one of his strongest areas, like in IRL - and once again, the contrast is striking with the urban State of Chicago (which, by narrowly voting for Bush, takes away 1988's peculiarity as an election where all States were won with an absolute majority). Dukakis also unsurprisingly adds Pacific to his column (which actually is his best State nationwide), forming a strip of red on the West Coast that spans from Santa Barbara to Seattle. Finally, Rio Grande also throws its support behind its favorite son Lloyd Bentsen and his running mate. All these gains are what allow Dukakis to come close to 150 EVs, a far more honorable loss than IRL. The only split that works to Bush's advantage is New York, and he also regains some lost ground through the chopping off of Eastern OR/WA. Bush breaks 60% in a rather disparate set of States, located in the southern Midwest, the Southeast, and the Plains area.

PVI map:
()

Bush: 308 (+22)
Dukakis: 230 (-22)

However, the structural electoral dynamic follows almost exactly the same scheme as 1984. Only five States, representing 49 EVs, switched sides between the two elections: Tennessee from D to R; CT, AD, MO and NM in the opposite direction. This reduces the disadvantage under which both Democratic candidates had to compete in these years a bit, but such disadvantage remains larger than IRL (Dukakis could have counted on 252 EVs in a tied race in OTL 1988). The main culprit is, once again California. IRL, Pacific's emerging status as a Dem stronghold was enough to carry the rest of the State along. With this map, he remains an underdog to carry the 37 EVs held together by CA and CS. The two other splits that are significant in this map both work to Dukakis' advantage, handing him Rio Grande and Erie. However, and less visibly, the mergers actually do a lot of damage to his Electoral College position. IRL, the States of VT, SD and MT all had a Democratic PVI that year, meaning that Dukakis would have won nearly half of the EVs from New England and Lincoln - both of which now lean R. The end result is still a map that works to Bush's advantage.

Swing/trend map:
()

What's really striking in these maps is how much the urban centers - especially those that form the core of the Democratic party arguably since its foundation - disliked Dukakis (or at least liked him less than Mondale). New York, Chicago, Pennsylvania (Philly), Maryland (Baltimore/Washington) all trended Republican, the latter two by more than 5 points. Clearly Bush's campaign portraying Dukakis as "soft on crime" played a big role in this movement. At a time when concern about law and order was at its historical peak, crime-ridden big cities clearly expressed their repudiation of Dukakis' anti-death penalty stances. At the same time, rural States saw big swings to the Democratic side. This rural/urban divide appears rather clearly in the New York and Illinois divides, and manifests itself fully in the Plain States. The only anomalous case is California, which trends toward Bush while its coastal neighbors PC and CS move to the left - clearly a reflection of the emerging new divide in California. Finally, it's rather hilarious to see South Florida trending R by an infinitesimal amount for the second time in a row.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +21.77)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -26.44)
- Closest: Chicago (margin -0.21)
- Bellwether: Colorado (PVI -0.05)
- Tipping point: Louisiana (PVI -2.48), after CO, MI and CA
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Oklahoma (trend +10.80)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Tennessee (trend -10.56)
- Most Stable (absolute): Tennessee (swing -0.07)
- Most Stable (relative): South Florida (trend -0,06)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Cranberry on March 01, 2015, 06:12:38 AM
I can't wait to see a Democratic win again ;)

Seriously though, this is some amazing stuff you're doing here! Bravo!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on March 03, 2015, 10:43:15 PM
I can't wait to see a Democratic win again ;)

Seriously though, this is some amazing stuff you're doing here! Bravo!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 06, 2015, 03:14:03 PM
1992

()

William Clinton: 381 (+11)
George Bush: 157 (-11)

Still no Perot State. :P Not that it's surprising, obviously. Perot actually loses his best State IRL, Maine, and doesn't really come as close anywhere else. He still does very well (over 25%) in Jefferson, Oregon and New England. In traditional D/R terms, Clinton increases its Electoral Vote count somewhat, making his victory nearly as wide as Bush's four years before (ITTL, I mean). The change isn't huge, but it's still worth 11 EVs. Rio Grande and South Florida are the main States where Clinton gains, though these gains are somewhat offset by the Ohio split. Also notable is the fact that Clinton end up winning an absolute majority in five different States, totaling 73 EVs (IRL, Arkansas is the only State where he only got more than 50%). The other four largely foreshadow complete Democratic domination in the years to come: New York, Maryland, Chicago and Pacific. On the other hand, poor H. W. Bush is still far from carrying even a single State with an absolute majority. Clinton is below 40% in only two States, instead of 4 IRL (frustratingly enough, he gets 40.03% in Adirondack).

PVI map:
()

Bush: 276 (+1)
Clinton: 262 (-1)

Despite the loss, Republicans have the satisfaction of drawing a net benefit from the Electoral College for the third time in a row. This advantage, however, is much more marginal and easy to offset with a mere 7 or 8 EVs. It is also virtually unchanged from the RL one, indicating that the redrawing of State boundaries did not really hurt the Democrats in these conditions. What has changed from 1984-1988. The answer is easy: California del Sur, with its 32-EV bloc, finally flipped. Now a lean-D State, it makes the California split much less problematic for the Dems. In overall terms, California and Adirondack brought 24 EVs to the GOP, 21 of which are regained by the Democrats with Erie and Rio Grande. Add to that the handful EV lost by Republicans with the Lincoln and New England mergers (which drowns Rep-leaning NH with Dem-leaning VT and ME) and you get an EV result that's roughly identical to the real one. Apart from that, it's interesting to see that Pacific is once again the only State with a Democratic PVI over 20.

Swing/trend map:
()

These maps give us a vivid glimpse of some electoral trends that were hard to visualize in the original ones. For example, look at how the northern Appalachian area (AD-AY-ER-WV) stands out with a very stark Republican trend while the neighboring States all move toward the Democrats. Clearly, the Democratic collapse in Appalachia has begun earlier than we usually think, and even a Southern Populist like Clinton had begun underperforming in these white working-class areas. Meanwhile, we see Democratic improvements in the coastal Northeast (although this compensates for Dukakis' poor performance four years before), in most of the South (though not in Texas), the lower Midwest (with a stark ER/OH contrast) and the greater Southwest. That last one is quite interesting, especially as we see that the trend even extends to Jefferson (though by a trivial margin). The trend is particularly strong in Nevada, but also in California del Sur, for which 1992 can legitimately be called a realigning election. Apart from the ones already cited, Republican trends are concentrated in the Plains and the Northwest. As IRL, Iowa is the epicenter, returning to normalcy after Dukakis' insanely strong performance there. Lincoln, Oregon, Colorado and Washington all follow the same movement, as does California, which Clinton just barely won, and which has been getting further and further away from the Democrats over the past decade.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +22.57)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -24.27)
- Closest: California (margin +0.48)
- Bellwether: Iowa (PVI +0.45)
- Tipping point: Tennessee (PVI -0.91)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Arkansas (trend +18.61)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Iowa (trend -17.50)
- Most Stable (absolute): Wisconsin (swing +1.30)
- Most Stable (relative): Jefferson (trend +0.04)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: NeverAgain on March 06, 2015, 06:35:36 PM
Poor Perot, the Northeast unites to take away the American Billionaire Dream.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 14, 2015, 01:17:45 PM
I'm sorry guys, I think I'll have to take a break from this for a while. I'm very busy with my studies right now, and this is only going to get worse and worse over the next two months. I'll probably take a break from the entire forum eventually. I promise I'll complete the election series as soon as things get better (and after this is done I have a couple other stuff planned to keep this thread going), but it's gonna have to wait. :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 29, 2015, 04:36:53 AM
Alright, let's get back to business! :) For those who haven't given up all hope in this thread yet, here's the next election, finally.



1996

()

William Clinton: 357 (-22)
Robert Dole: 181 (+22)

Despite increasing his margin of victory by three percentage points compared to 1992, Clinton actually ends up with a smaller EV count. To some extent, Dole would manage to salvage the appearance of a respectable showing, winning more than a third of the Electoral College. How did this happen? Florida is the main culprit here: whereas IRL, it was still a Republican-leaning State that flipped from Bush to Clinton in 1996, the split creates a solid R State that remained to the GOP candidate both years, and a genuine swing State that Clinton carried both times. Thus, while this change worked to Clinton's advantage in 1992 (bringing him 16 EV), it cost him North Florida and its 11 EV in 1996. In addition, the California split adds another State that flipped from Clinton to Dole (in addition to Georgia and Colorado). Like many Western States, California indeed trended strongly to the right in this election, to the point of moving outside of Clinton's reach. Finally, the Ohio split continues to work to the benefit of the right, as Dole manages to come ahead there. Clinton's only consolation prize is to carry Rio Grande by an absolute majority, offsetting his losses a bit.

PVI map:
()

Clinton: 279 (=)
Dole: 259 (=)

For the first time, amazingly enough, the EV breakdown of a hypothetical tied race remains exactly identical to what it was IRL. Clinton and Dole's gains in different areas manage to offset each other perfectly. The latter draws an advantage from the splits in PA and IL, as the States of Allegheny and of Illinois both flip from lean-D to lean-R over the span of four years. These two Republican conquests will consolidate in the following elections, making of 1996 a crucial turning point in the electoral history of these States. On the opposite direction, this election also marks a turning point for South Florida, which, for the first time, becomes more Democratic that the country as a whole, and thus could bring 16 additional EVs to Clinton in the event of a tied race. Just like in 1992, the California split works to the Republicans' advantage, but is partly offset by the Ohio split's pro-Democratic impact. Finally, it is worth pointing out that Clinton underperformed in Oregon IRL. The creation of a unified (and exclusively coastal) Washington State thus grants another handful of EV to Clinton in relative terms. Finally, adding to 1996's status as a "turning point", Rio Grande has a (marginally) Republican PVI for the first time in the observed period. Overall, this means that Clinton would have a slight but significant structural advantage, as Dole would have to carry both Iowa and Wisconsin (with PVIs close to D+2) to win an electoral majority.

Swing/trend map:
()

The urban Northeast, from Massachusetts to New Jersey, really developed a fondness for Clinton over the course of his first term, trending toward him by more than 10 points. Along with a handful of other States (New England, Adirondack, South Florida, Hawaii), this area is the only one to see a really significant movement toward the Democrats. In this regard, 1996 seems to mark the beginning of the "solid Northeast" for Democrats, with States like MA and NY becoming their rock-ribbed strongholds. To a lesser extent, the Upper Midwest also consolidated its Democratic lean. Meanwhile, Republican gains are more widespread, spanning across most of the South, Lower Midwest, and West (including, somewhat surprisingly, the Pacific States). Dole's native Kansas really stands out, probably also a consequence of Perot's decline. Overall, a dynamic of polarization seems perceptible, with Democratic States becoming more Democratic and Republican States more Republican. Two State splits seem particularly interesting to look at: Pennsylvania and Illinois. In both cases, you have the most urban of the two States (PA and CH) moving to the left, while the more rural or industrial ones (AY and IL) trend strongly toward Dole. It's also worth noting that the Democratic trend is stronger in NY than in AD, and stronger in SF than in NF, and that the Republican trend is stronger in CA than in CS or PC, and weaker in RG than in TX and JF. The modern partisan divide is clearly beginning to emerge.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: New York (PVI +30.87)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -29.59)
- Closest: Nevada (margin +0.65)
- Bellwether: Rio Grande (PVI -0.02)
- Tipping point: Wisconsin (PVI +1.86), after IA
- Strongest Democratic Trend: New Jersey (trend +12.53)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Kansas (trend -16.03)
- Most Stable (absolute): Indiana (swing -0.07)
- Most Stable (relative): Virginia (trend -0.55)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on May 29, 2015, 05:01:28 AM
YAY! IT'S BACK AGAIN! :D

Might I add that it still is technically two months, so I guess you could say that you made it by two or three days! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 29, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
YAY! IT'S BACK AGAIN! :D

Might I add that it still is technically two months, so I guess you could say that you made it by two or three days! :)

I guess so. ;)

Though the biggest issue is for me to try to wrap this up by September 13, in order to be able to claim that I finished my project in less than six years! :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: YaBoyNY on May 29, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
2000 is gonna be sick. Excellent stuff.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 29, 2015, 02:32:31 PM

You have no idea how much. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 01, 2015, 12:55:24 PM
2000

()

George W. Bush: 285 (+14)
Albert Gore Jr.: 253 (-14)

Ah, poor Al Gore... Even with a massively redrawn Electoral College map - which even erases the nightmarish Florida clusterf**k - he still ends up losing to Dubya despite having received more popular votes. His structural disadvantage indeed goes beyond a fluke provoked by arbitrary State boundaries. In fact, this theoretically "fairer" map significantly damages Gore's position, as he loses 14 EVs compared to OTL. Despite the 16-EV boost that the Florida split brought him (which, alone, would have been enough to put him ahead in the EV count), as well as the 10 EVs brought by Erie, he only ends up with a 253 total. There 26 EVs are offset by the combined 31 gained by Republicans from the splits in Pennsylvania, Illinois and California. The last straw is provided by Wisconsin, which, with the addition of Michigan's UP, flips from a slight Gore edge to a slight Bush one, costing the former another 11 EV. Despite the fact that population inequalities have been significantly reduced under this map, their impact remains strong: out of the 51 new States, Bush won 32 and Gore only 19. This means that, without the Senate-based EVs, Bush would have 221 EVs and Gore 215. Still, at the end of the day, Gore's main problem is that he does very well in a few very populous States in the coastal Northeast and in California, but ends up narrowly losing a large chunk of States in "Middle America". As this experiment shows, it's often hard to correct the biases created by the Electoral College system.

PVI map:
()

Bush: 297 (-4)
Gore: 241 (+4)

Somewhat surprisingly considering the previous map, this change in State borders slightly corrects the imbalance in the Electoral College's breakdown - although Bush would still win over 55% of it in a tied race. In most cases, the comments that I made for the actual map are also valid for this one (the OH and FL splits benefit Gore, the PA, IL and CA ones benefit Bush). However, the improvement in Gore's results is due to the fact that, this time Wisconsin already had a Republican PVI IRL: as such, the State's 11 EV aren't technically lost for Gore. In addition, RL Oregon also had a Republican PVI. The new OR/WA divide allows Gore to grab 13 EVs to Bush's 6, a much more favorable breakdown. Still, this doesn't mean that the structural deficit of Democrats has been reduced. In fact, the opposite is true. IRL, Gore could count on Florida, with a -0.5 PVI, to be the tipping point. However, with Florida out of the Swing State column, Gore's path to victory becomes significantly longer. He would have to reach out for at least one of five States that are all about 4 points more Republican than the nation (MO, AY, TN, NV and IL) in order to have a shot at the Presidency.

Swing/trend map:
()

The split even accentuates the very strong divide between the coastal, urban regions - where Gore held his ground compared to Clinton four years before - and the rural South, West and Midwest - where Bush made massive gains compared to Dole. The New York-Washington megalopolis stands out, with trends of over 5 points in favor of Gore. The same is true in Pacific, where Gore did even better than Clinton, and CS, where the Democratic margin of victory is almost exactly the same (0.0009 points smaller, to be precise) over the two elections. On the other hand, the inland Northwest swings massively to the right, as do all three Texas States and several Southern States that Clinton had previously carried. It's also interesting to note how the entire Midwest (with the exception of the most urbanized States) moves in the GOP's direction. In terms of State splits, the most striking difference that emerges is between New York and Adirondack: the former sees a strong Democratic trend, while the latter moves back to the Republican side, mirroring New England. Illinois and Ohio also see a Coast vs. Inland split, with the latter featuring much stronger Republican swings. The same pattern also emerges in California (though all three States trend to the left). Finally, Pennsylvania's D trend is unsurprisingly stronger than Allegheny, whereas Texas' R trend is surprisingly weaker than RG and JF.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: New York (PVI +37.69)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -41.01)
- Closest: New Mexico (margin +0.06)
- Bellwether: Iowa (PVI -0.21)
- Tipping point: Missouri (PVI -3.86), after IA, NM and WI
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +9.31)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Arkansas (trend -14.38)
- Most Stable (absolute): California del Sur (swing -0.00)
- Most Stable (relative): Erie (trend +0.06)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on June 01, 2015, 01:17:47 PM
This doesn't bode well for Kerry, who will lose NM, Iowa, and probably South Florida too...and just for Wisconsin.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
This doesn't bode well for Kerry, who will lose NM, Iowa, and probably South Florida too...and just for Wisconsin.

Well, he surely won't win the 2004 election, if that's what you mean. ;) Still, it's worth noting that, IRL, Kerry's structural position was comparatively stronger than Gore's. Kerry would have won Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Oregon in a tied election, for one (though only the first three will matter).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 10, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Apologies for not getting 2004 done earlier. I had a pretty busy week, catching up with many friends that I probably won't be seeing for a long time. I hope it was worth the wait. :)


2004

()

George W. Bush: 292 (+6)
John Kerry: 246 (-6)

Kerry does a little worse than IRL, but still wins a pretty high EV count for someone who lost the popular vote by 2.5 points. The result would still be considered very close, although there wouldn't be this crazy obsession for Ohio. Compared to 2000, Bush would gain Iowa and New Mexico, but Kerry would still manage to flip a State, carrying Wisconsin by a razor-thin margin. In this election, WI would be the equivalent of New Hampshire, going against the national tide. Overall though, Bush is advantaged by this map for roughly the same reasons as Gore, taking advantage of the splits of Allegheny, Illinois and California. The 29 EVs he gains outweigh the 26 that Kerry gains thanks to Erie and South Florida (the loss of Eastern OR/WA, along with having three solidly Republican Texas States, provides additional gains for Bush). Still, these changes in the States map end up shifting only six EVs, and don't really alter the nature of the election.

PVI map:
()

Bush: 280 (+26)
Kerry: 258 (-26)

Taken in relative terms, the picture gets a bit more grim for Kerry. What really makes all the difference here is Ohio. Indeed, 2004 was one of the extremely rare instances (the others being 1964 and 1972) where Ohio was more Democratic than the nation as a whole. In such conditions, the new split is really bad for Democrats, who, in this case, lose 11 EVs. Meanwhile Republicans gain 12, which add up to the combined 29 gained from the aforementioned AY, IL and CA, for a total of 41. On their side, all Democrats have to show for themselves is South Florida, which admittedly grants them a much needed 17-EV boost. Still, overall, the structural advantage decisively shifts towards the GOP. While, if the popular vote had been tied IRL, Kerry would have commanded 284 EVs, in this scenario, Bush would have prevailed with 280. In order to reverse this situation, Kerry would have to win Nevada (where he came very close), and either Colorado or Missouri, which are quite far from his reach. Presumably these three States would have seen much more intense campaigning from both candidates in this scenario.

Swing/trend map:
()

The geography of the 2004 trend doesn't change much. A significant number of States buck the national swing, moving toward the Democrats. Unsurprisingly, these are mostly "yuppie White liberal" States, where Nader had done very well in 2000. The prime examples of this movement are New England, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, and especially Pacific - which, with a whopping 6-point swing toward Kerry, is the strongest Dem-trending State for the second election in a row. In addition, Kerry also improves in most rural Western States where Bush had crushed Gore in 2000 (such as Lincoln, Oregon and Alaska). Bush, on the other hand, significantly improves on his 2000 performance in the NYC area (probably a "9/11 effect") and in the non-coastal South and Appalachia. In terms of State splits, the most impressive contrast is provided by the Californias. On Dave Leip's 2004 trend maps, California seems to have trended D, but this trend is in fact entirely explained by Pacific's massive swing. Meanwhile California and CS actually trended Republican that year. This is a pretty surprising setback for Democrats, especially in California Del Sur, whose Democratic trend since the 1980s seemed very robust. The other notable gap is between the Dem-trending Pennsylvania and the Rep-trending Allegheny, and between the Dem-trending Chicago and the Rep-trending Illinois (although these movements are in line with the long-term dynamics). Finally, the Democratic trend is visibly stronger in Erie than in Ohio, and the Republican one stronger in NF than in SF.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +37.59)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -43.08)
- Closest: Wisconsin (margin +0.02)
- Bellwether: Nevada (PVI -0.28)
- Tipping point: Colorado (PVI -2.21), after NV
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +9.00)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Alabama (trend -7.76)
- Most Stable (absolute): Chicago (swing -0.10)
- Most Stable (relative): Massachusetts (trend +0.03)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Skill and Chance on June 10, 2015, 04:46:50 PM
Very interesting.  It seems clear that Obama will flip the tied PV EC advantage as IRL when Colorado and Nevada drift left of the nation.  But he probably loses it after reapportionment and 2012 comes down to even VA (which Obama would still have won PVI wise in a tie, but only by <1000 votes).  This is all pending Rio Grande, of course.  Obama probably wins there.

Edit: Obama does win Rio Grande both times, but by less than he won the nation.  So 2012 still comes down to VA, provided at least 3 net EV shift south/west.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 10, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
Very interesting.  It seems clear that Obama will flip the tied PV EC advantage as IRL when Colorado and Nevada drift left of the nation.  But he probably loses it after reapportionment and 2012 comes down to even VA (which Obama would still have won PVI wise in a tie, but only by <1000 votes).  This is all pending Rio Grande, of course.  Obama probably wins there.

Edit: Obama does win Rio Grande both times, but by less than he won the nation.  So 2012 still comes down to VA, provided at least 3 net EV shift south/west.

I don't have the exact calculations in mind right now, but I'm pretty sure you're right. The tipping point in 2012 will be Virginia, and RG frustratingly remains slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 15, 2015, 06:47:01 AM
2008

()

Barack H. Obama: 331 (-34)
John S. McCain, III: 207 (+34)

The 2008 map really reveals the full extent of the political polarization that characterizes modern US elections. Despite winning the highest share of the popular vote since George Bush in 1988 and defeating McCain by over 7 points, Obama's performance in the Electoral College could only be described as mediocre. He would only win 331 EVs (including Nebraska's CD-based one), 34 less fewer than IRL, and 50 fewer than Clinton did in 1992, even though Clinton's winning margin was nearly 2 points lower. This disappointing result would seriously damage the narrative of an "Obama landslide", and probably reduce his political capital at the beginning of his term. It certainly goes to show how many solid Republican States were carved out of previously competitive ones, limiting the possibility of Democrats to expand their electoral map. Three States stand out as Republican holdouts: Allegheny, Ohio and South Florida, all of which chose McCain by comfortable margins. Together, they account perfectly for the 34 EVs gained by the Republican candidate. On the other hand, Obama's only source of increased electoral strength comes from Rio Grande, which returns to the Democratic fold after the Bush years. Still, the loss of Indiana (due to the amputation of its section of Chicagoland) and the OR/WA border reshuffle finished to offset any potential gain for Democrats. In addition to these setbacks, Obama would also see the map of States where he broke 60% shrink considerably: the split in New York, Illinois and California deprive him of his largest dark-shaded areas on the map. Even more frustratingly, several of the new states (NE, PA, ER) come very close to the 60% mark, but still fall short. His only consolations would come on the West Coast, with Washington reaching that level and Pacific even giving more than 70% of its vote to him.

PVI map:
()

Obama: 272 (-6)
McCain: 266 (+6)

In the relative PVI maps, Obama still makes significant inroads compared to his two Democratic predecessors. However, these gains are the same as IRL, coming from States that weren't (or were marginally) affected by the changes: namely, Nevada and Colorado. The addition of these two States is enough to shift the balance in favor of Democrats, meaning that, for the first time since 1996, the Democrats would have an advantage in a close race. Still, the advantage is very slight: while IRL, the Democrats could lose Colorado and still tie the Electoral College (making Iowa necessary in the GOP path to 270), now every piece needs to fall into place for the "firewall" to work. Overall, Democrats lose 6 EV. They gain 26 from South Florida and Erie, but lose 29 from Allegheny, Illinois and California. Obama's performance in SF is also underwhelming, making this State more vulnerable to Republican capture than it ever was in the past 16 years. On the other hand, Illinois also moves back to the Democrats, probably because of Obama's extended home State effect. McCain brings the Republican landslide territory to its largest extension, encompassing the entire non-coastal South (even reaching to Texas and Jefferson). On the other hand, the number of GOP-leaning Swing States has been reduced to 3, namely IL, VA and RG.

Swing/trend map:
()

As IRL, Democrats considerably improved their standing in the West, Midwest, and Southeastern coast, while Republicans continued to make inroads in the rest of the South and most of the Northeast. Republican progress is concentrated in a line that stretches from Allegheny down to Oklahoma, and culminates with Arkansas, which swings by over 10 points in the opposite direction as the country. These former Clinton States, characterized by a very white and relatively poor population, were not a good match for the Obama coalition, and 2008 durably cemented their Status as Republican territory. On the opposite end, Obama made massive gains compared to Kerry throughout the heavily Hispanic Southwest (except for McCain's Arizona). The trends of the three Texas States are particularly revealing: the culturally Southern Texas moves to the right, following its eastern neighbors. Meanwhile, the Plains-conservative Jefferson trends somewhat toward the Democrats, similarly to Kansas. Finally, the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande follows New Mexico as sees a massive shift toward Obama. Pennsylvania see a similarly sharp divide: on the one hand, Allegheny continues its rapid drift toward the GOP, while on the other hand, the heavily urbanized Pennsylvania cements itself as a solid D State. Other States show less dramatic, but still significant divides. As usual, Chicago's movement toward the Dems is stronger than Illinois' (although in both cases a home State effect is clearly at work). California's Democratic trend is the most impressive of the three States, although CS is close behind. Pacific, by contrast, only sees a 0.6 trend. Finally, it's interesting to see that Vermont alone manages to make the entire New England pink on the trend map, despite ME and NH trending toward the GOP.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +38.17)
- Most Republican: Oklahoma (PVI -38.55)
- Closest: Missouri (margin -0.13)
- Bellwether: Rio Grande (PVI -0.92)
- Tipping point: Colorado (PVI +1.69)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Hawaii (trend +26.79)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Arkansas (trend -19.82)
- Most Stable (absolute): Oklahoma (swing -0.15)
- Most Stable (relative): New England (trend +0.09)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 15, 2015, 01:47:42 PM
Comments?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on June 16, 2015, 02:25:57 PM
Interested to see what Obama loses in 2012. I have to imagine Illinois and California will flip to Romney.

Also thinking back on how you made your new states, kinda surprised you didn't create a Washington DC/Capital Region state. It could have consisted of DC, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Charles County, Loudon County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington County, City of Alexandria, City of Fairfax, City of Manassas, and City of Manassas Junction I know it would have been a massive Democratic vote sink, but it would probably make sense from a COI mindset.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Boston Bread on June 16, 2015, 02:32:36 PM
I don't like the idea of having a state solely composed almost entirely of one large metropolitan area. Doesn't seem balanced.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 17, 2015, 03:12:58 AM
I don't like the idea of having a state solely composed almost entirely of one large metropolitan area. Doesn't seem balanced.

In some cases, like New York and Chicago, it makes sense since they are so big, and every area around them fits easily into another State. However, in DC's case, I agree that would have created more problems than it solved. Maryland and Virginia already have an appropriate population, creating a DC-based State would probably leave both of them underpopulated. Besides, I wanted to keep the total number of States at 51 (so that the Electoral College would be at 538). Otherwise, I would have ended up with 54 or 55 of them.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 22, 2015, 01:40:49 PM
2012

()

Barack H. Obama: 292 (-40)
Willard Mitt Romney: 246 (+40)

In a strange coincidence, Obama's EV count ends up being exactly the same as George Bush's in 2004. That's obviously a pretty disappointing result, considering that his margin is 1.5 points wider. Once again, the change in the States map massively reduces the extent of Obama's victory, this time making it look genuinely close. Only two States, RG and VA, would need to flip to Romney for him to win an electoral majority. Overall, exactly 40 EVs have gone from the Democratic candidate to the GOP one, seriously curtaining Obama's 332-EV sweep. The "usual suspects" are once again to blame: Allegheny's 9 EVs, Ohio's 12, and North Florida's 13 combine into a severe loss for Obama. In addition, compared to 2008, two more States split from Dem strongholds also end up falling for Romney: Illinois (by a wide margin), and California (narrowly). Combined, these five States bring an additional 54 EVs to the Republican column. Meanwhile, like in 2008, all Obama has to show for himself are Rio Grande's 13 EVs.

PVI map:
()

Obama: 279 (-6)
Romney: 259 (+6)

As the previous map already hinted, this relative PVI map makes it crystal clear how polarized modern America would become under this alternative State map. While it is already impressively polarized IRL, most remaining Swing States end up getting split into a Democratic and a Republican one, leading to an America that is almost entirely split in two. Republican States are particularly affected by this phenomenon: of the 28 States where Romney did better than average, only two had a GOP advantage of less than 5 points (RG and CA), and just one (NC) had an advantage of 5 to 10 points. The Obama map is slightly less polarized, as several Swing States persist in the Midwest and West. Along with Virginia, these lean-D States allow Obama to keep a slight structural advantage. In a tied race, he would win 279 EVs (instead of 285 IRL). Still, this advantage hinges entirely on Virginia, whose PVI is only 0.01 points to the left of the nation as a whole. For all intents and purposes, the 2012 map is thus effectively neutral, and neither Obama nor Romney were at serious risk of losing in the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. The gains or losses they make with the new map compared to the previous one are exactly the same as 2008 (ER and SF for Obama, AY, IL and CA for Romney).

Swing/trend map:
()

Nothing particularly surprising catches the eye in this trend map. As IRL, most of the Sun Belt along with the Northeast trends toward Obama, while the Republicans gain ground in the Midwest, Mountain West, and Appalachia. The State splits manage to heighten these trends in some instances: for example, we can see that NY is one of the States that trended the most toward Obama, similarly to neighboring NJ (Sandy probably played a role in these two) and Mississippi. Adirondack, meanwhile, saw a nearly nonexistent swing between the two elections, each time voting by a margin slightly below 10 points. Also, Illinois saw a rightward trend nearly as strong as Indiana, indicating a massive dissatisfaction for Obama throughout the rural Lower Midwest. On the other hand, Chicago's evolution is more stable, in line with other Upper Midwest States like Michigan. Of the three Texas State, one continues to move toward the Democrats, and fortunately for them it's the very swingy (and heavily Hispanic) Rio Grande. Finally, Allegheny's Republican trend is also slightly stronger than Pennsylvania's, though this movement remains relatively slow compared to what we have seen in the previous cycle.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +40.60)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -51.74)
- Closest: California (margin -0.62)
- Bellwether: Virginia (PVI +0.01)
- Tipping point: Virginia (PVI +0.01)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Alaska (trend +10.96)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Utah (trend -16.45)
- Most Stable (absolute): Adirondack (swing -0.02)
- Most Stable (relative): Colorado (trend -0.18)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on June 22, 2015, 02:05:59 PM
Very good, Antonio! Just a suggestion, maybe do a 2014 Update with new Governors and Senators to finish it off?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 22, 2015, 03:02:28 PM
Very good, Antonio! Just a suggestion, maybe do a 2014 Update with new Governors and Senators to finish it off?

Yes, I'm planning to go around with several election cycles for both Senatorial and gubernatorial elections! Stay tuned. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 24, 2015, 04:47:39 AM
Before we move on to the other types of elections, here's some compiled data on how the redrawing has affected Presidential elections. First, the evolution of the actual Electoral College makeup:
- 1964: R+7
- 1968: D+37, I+7
- 1972: R+1
- 1976: D+9
- 1980: D+12
- 1984: D+9
- 1988: D+37
- 1992: D+11
- 1996: R+22
- 2000: R+14
- 2004: R+6
- 2008: R+34
- 2012: R+40

And here's the same but in relative PVI terms:
- 1964: R+5
- 1968: D+37
- 1972: R+21
- 1976: R+7
- 1980: D+27
- 1984: R+29
- 1988: R+22
- 1992: R+1
- 1996: No change
- 2000: D+4
- 2004: R+26
- 2008: R+6
- 2012: R+6

Overall, there seems to be a clear advantage for Republicans, especially when considered in relative terms. In absolute terms, it's often the losing side that gains ground, making the EC less lopsided (the only exceptions are 1972, 1976, 1992 and 2004). In terms of the election's actual outcome, there is no actual change except for 1968, where Nixon would fail to secure a majority (but would probably still end up in the White House anyway).

The elections where these changes made a bigger impact were 1968 (44 EVs moved), 2012 (40), 1988 (37) and 2008 (34). In the relative makeup, it's 1968 (37), 1984 (29), 1980 (27), and 2004 (26).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Peeperkorn on June 24, 2015, 09:18:11 AM

Great as always. An orgasm.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 24, 2015, 11:50:41 AM
Finally, here's the best measure of the structural bias produced by the Electoral College. It's basically the relative PVI of the tipping point State. Under uniform national swing, this number corresponds to the margin by which the opposite party would need to win the popular vote in order to win a majority in the Electoral College. Positive numbers reflect and advantage for the Democratic candidates, negatives one a Republican advantage.

()

As you can see, in 9 elections out of 14, the changes helped the Republican candidate in a structural sense (the Democrats were favored in 3 elections, and there was no difference whatsoever in 2 of them). Also, in 8 of the 14 elections, the change worsened the structural imbalance in the EC, making it more likely for the PV winner to lose the election.

Overall, I sadly have to conclude that these changes would be a pretty bad deal for American democracy (at least for Presidential elections).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: YaBoyNY on June 24, 2015, 07:40:33 PM
However, campaigns would have definitely been different, with each party adjusting their platforms and messages accordingly if need be, so it could end up canceling out.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 25, 2015, 06:52:50 AM
However, campaigns would have definitely been different, with each party adjusting their platforms and messages accordingly if need be, so it could end up canceling out.

Yes, of course. This is an entirely theoretical exercise, and nothing can be predicted with certainty.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 27, 2015, 10:36:34 AM
Now let's move on to Senate stuff...


The 113th Senate (2013-2015)


States that see no change: 22D - 28R

AL - Richard Shelby / Jeff Sessions
AK - Lisa Murkowski / Mark Begich
AZ - John McCain / Jeff Flake
AR - Mark Pryor / John Boozman
CO - Mark Udall / Michael Bennet
CT - Richard Blumenthal / Chris Murphy
GA - Saxby Chambliss / Johnny Isakson
HI - Brian Schatz / Mazie Hirono
IA - Chuck Grassley / Tom Harkin
KS - Pat Roberts / Jerry Moran
KY - Mitch McConnell / Rand Paul
LA - Mary Landrieu / David Vitter
MN - Amy Klobuchar / Al Franken
MS - Thad Cochran / Roger Wicker
MO - Claire McCaskill / Roy Blunt
NB - Mike Johanns / Deb Fischer
NJ - Bob Menendez / Cory Booker
NM - Tom Udall / Martin Heinrich
NC - Richard Burr / Kay Hagan
OK - Jim Inhofe / Tom Coburn
SC - Lindsey Graham / Tim Scott
TN - Lamar Alexander /Bob Corker
UT - Orrin Hatch / Mike Lee
VA - Mark Warner / Tim Kaine
WV - Jay Rockefeller / Joe Manchin


States whose borders have been adjusted: 5D (=) - 5R (=)

Senators still in office:
Jim Risch (R-ID/OR)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Senators losing their seat:
Mike Crapo (R-ID)

New Senators:
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-OR)


Merged States: 8D (-10 or -12) - 2R (-4) - 0I (-2)

Senators still in office:
John Thune (R-SD/LN)
Jon Tester (D-MT/LN)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE/MD)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Susan Collins (R-ME/NE)
Partick Leahy (D-VT/NE)
Ron Wyden (D-OR/WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)

Senators losing their seat:
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Angus King (I-ME)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
John Walsh (D-MT)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) :'(
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
+ 2 hypothetical Democratic Senators from DC


Split States: 18D (+10) - 14R (+8)

Senators still in office:
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY/AD)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH/ER)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bill Nelson (D-FL/NF)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA/PC)
John Cornyn (R-TX/RG)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Senators losing their seat:
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) (in his case, it's just that he chose to become Governor instead)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

New Senators:
Tom Reed (R-AD)
Rick Santorum (R-AY)
Ron Klink (D-AY)
Bill Jones (R-CA)
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CS)
Antonio Villaraigosa (D-CS)
Bobby Rush (D-CH)
Lisa Madigan (D-CH)
Tim Ryan (D-ER)
Kay Granger (R-JF)
Greg Abbott (R-JF)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Jeff Miller (R-NF)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Kamala Harris (D-PC)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Julian Castro (D-RG)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-SF)
Charlie Crist (R-SF)
David Dewhurst (R-TX)


At the end of the day, we get:

()

Democrats: 53 (-2)
Republicans: 49 (+4)

So overall, it's a pretty sweet deal for Republicans. I might have slightly underestimated the Democrats in my projections (for example, it might be more appropriate to have two Dems in SF), but it seems clear that the map remains generally more favorable to Republicans. The reason is that Democrats do surprisingly well in the small States that have been merged in scenario: they took all the seats in DE, RI, and VT, as well as one in each of NH, ME, ND, SD and MT, leaving only WY to the Republicans. In comparison, the partisan balance of the new States that were created is about even. Overall, Democrats would have had much more trouble holding to the Senate in a neutral year (for example, they probably wouldn't have controlled it after the 2006 midterms).


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on July 04, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
My 2014 Senate Predictions

NE: Susan Collins (R HOLD)
MA: Ed Markey (D HOLD)
AD: Richard Hanna (R GAIN)
AY: Keith Rothfus (R GAIN)
SF: Marco Rubio (R GAIN)
TX: David Dewhurst (R HOLD)
ER: Tim Ryan (D HOLD)
CH: Lisa Madigan (D HOLD)
IL: Adam Kinzinger (R GAIN)
MI: Gary Peters (D HOLD)
LI: John Thune (R HOLD)
OR: Jim Risch (R HOLD)
PC: Anna Eshoo (D HOLD)
CS: Antonio Villaraigosa (D HOLD)
AR: Tom Cotton (R GAIN)
CO: Cory Gardner (R GAIN)
IA: Joni Ernst (R GAIN)
LA: Bill Cassidy (R GAIN)
NC: Thom Tillis (R GAIN)
WV: Shelley Moore Capito (R GAIN)
AK: Dan Sullivan (R GAIN)
Rest of holds as OTL.

Republicans: 60
Democrats: 42


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 18, 2015, 07:11:05 AM
Sorry for the long break. As always at this point in the year, the vacations and the heat are turning me into a lazy slob. :P

Anyway, over the next days I'm going to go over all Senatorial elections from 2000 on. I don't always have names for Senators, but I'll make my best guess as to who would have won each of the new States. From 2004 onward I'll be able to track the evolution of the overall composition of the Senate.


2000

()

Democrats: 19 (+1)
Republicans: 15 (=)

(special elections are excluded from the tally for the sake of comparability)

Jim Jeffords wins in NE, Rick Santorum in AY, Bill Nelson in NF, Hillary Clinton in NY, Mike DeWine in OH, Richard Rush in CH, Kay Bailey Hutchinson in TX, Max Baucus in LN, and Dianne Feinstein in PC. Would Connie Mack work for SF?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 20, 2015, 09:38:52 AM
2002

()

Democrats: 11 (-1)
Republicans: 23 (+2)

Susan Collins wins in NE, Dick Durbin in IL, Barbara Boxer in PC. In LN, Gov. John Thune narrowly defeats incumbent Byron Dorgan. I'm not sure about AD, AY, SF, CH and CS.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 26, 2015, 10:04:16 AM
2004

()

Democrats: 14 (-1)
Republicans: 20 (+1)

Chuck Schumer wins in NY, Arlen Specter in PA (being moderate enough to prevail even in a more markedly left-wing State), George Voinovich in OH, Loretta Sanchez in CS.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 27, 2015, 03:33:45 AM
And thus, we get to...


The 109th Senate (2005-2007)

()

Republicans: 58 (+3)
Democrats: 43 (-1)
Independents: 1 (=) - Jim Jeffords, caucusing with Democrats


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 27, 2015, 01:27:31 PM
Should I continue this? I'm not sure if anyone is still following at this point. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Tayya on July 27, 2015, 01:34:46 PM
Yes. Yes, you should.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 28, 2015, 03:01:19 PM
So I guess one person is following. :P Well, it's not very time-consuming at this point, so I might as well continue.


2006

()

Democrats: 22 (=)
Republicans: 11 (+2)
Independents: 1 (-1)

Patrick Leahy wins the open seat to replace Jim Jeffords after his retirement. Mike DeWine is also unseated. However, Santorum narrowly survives, lacking a sufficiently strong opponent.


The 110th Senate (2007-2009)

()

Republicans: 54 (+5)
Democrats: 47 (-2)
Independents: 1 (-1) - Joe Lieberman, caucusing with Democrats


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on July 28, 2015, 05:34:29 PM
It's really cool so far!

One thing though, I would assume that people were interested in the 2010-2020 Senate elections. Though it does make sense that you would start in the '00s.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 29, 2015, 01:50:13 AM
One thing though, I would assume that people were interested in the 2010-2020 Senate elections. Though it does make sense that you would start in the '00s.

Well, once I cover every past election, I can make Atlas-style predictions for 2016 races. :) I won't venture into 2018 or 2020 though, because trying to predict races more than two years ahead is utterly pointless IMO.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on July 29, 2015, 07:26:53 PM
One thing though, I would assume that people were interested in the 2010-2020 Senate elections. Though it does make sense that you would start in the '00s.

Well, once I cover every past election, I can make Atlas-style predictions for 2016 races. :) I won't venture into 2018 or 2020 though, because trying to predict races more than two years ahead is utterly pointless IMO.

Oh, okay, thanks!

One question, what do you think is going to be your next big project? Or is this your one big submission for us?

Also, back in 2008 when you started this (or so) did you make any timelines?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 30, 2015, 01:35:24 AM
There is one very big project I've been working on for several years now, and which is going to take me several more years before I eventually get around to posting it. It's going to be a far-reaching alternate-history timeline, but for now I can't really say more. :P Again, it will take a while.

As for TLs I've done before, nothing really worth reading, tbh. I had a half-finished "Confederacy wins the Civil War" project back in the days, but I've lost interest in it as I'm trying to focus on more fleshed-out storylines.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 30, 2015, 03:09:46 AM
2008

()

Democrats: 21 (+1)
Republicans: 13 (=)

Boy, now that's what I call a landslide! If Obama's Senate wave was impressive on its own with 8 seats gained, here it would net the Dems 10 more seats (and control of the Senate, which they failed to achieve in 2006). Kirsten Gilibrand wins the open seat in AD, Ron Klint narrowly unseats an incumbent in AY, DWS easily takes the SF seat, and Antonio Villaraigosa claims CS's second seat for the Democrats. However, Susan Collins and John Thune resist the Democratic tide respectively in NE and LN.


The 111th Senate (2009-2011)

()

Democrats: 57 (=)
Republicans: 44 (+3)
Independents: 1 (-1) - Joe Lieberman, caucusing with Democrats

Here, Democrats fall four seats short of the 62 votes needed to override a filibuster, which means that, unless Reid is willing to go nuclear, Obama would have a very hard time enacting his agenda (even after Specter switches to the Dems). So, in short, Thank God I'm not in charge of drawing State boundaries. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: hurricanehink on July 30, 2015, 09:55:03 AM
But Obama wouldn't be president here! You have Rush and Madigan as Illinois's senators, so Obama never got to run in 04 (which wouldn't have been an election year anyway for Chicago). And it's not like he could've run in 2002. He had just lost a congressional campaign in 2000 and had to run for state senate re-election in 2002. I guess that makes for an easy Hillary win then? I'm not gonna make you speculate about the primaries though :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 30, 2015, 10:29:49 AM
But Obama wouldn't be president here! You have Rush and Madigan as Illinois's senators, so Obama never got to run in 04 (which wouldn't have been an election year anyway for Chicago). And it's not like he could've run in 2002. He had just lost a congressional campaign in 2000 and had to run for state senate re-election in 2002. I guess that makes for an easy Hillary win then? I'm not gonna make you speculate about the primaries though :P

Yeah, sorry, I really can't can't think that far in the implications of these State changes. :P For the sake of simplicity, let's say Obama still got elected in 2002 somehow.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: hurricanehink on July 30, 2015, 07:59:38 PM
But Obama wouldn't be president here! You have Rush and Madigan as Illinois's senators, so Obama never got to run in 04 (which wouldn't have been an election year anyway for Chicago). And it's not like he could've run in 2002. He had just lost a congressional campaign in 2000 and had to run for state senate re-election in 2002. I guess that makes for an easy Hillary win then? I'm not gonna make you speculate about the primaries though :P

Yeah, sorry, I really can't can't think that far in the implications of these State changes. :P For the sake of simplicity, let's say Obama still got elected in 2002 somehow.
My mistake actually. Rush beat Obama in 2000, but if he was senator, Obama would've won in 2000. Meaning he could've primaried Rush in 2002 for senate (a mirror of ITL 2000) and won! Sorry to be pedantic about one particular person, but I really enjoy this timeline and the prospect of these additional states. Keep it up :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 31, 2015, 01:49:27 AM
But Obama wouldn't be president here! You have Rush and Madigan as Illinois's senators, so Obama never got to run in 04 (which wouldn't have been an election year anyway for Chicago). And it's not like he could've run in 2002. He had just lost a congressional campaign in 2000 and had to run for state senate re-election in 2002. I guess that makes for an easy Hillary win then? I'm not gonna make you speculate about the primaries though :P

Yeah, sorry, I really can't can't think that far in the implications of these State changes. :P For the sake of simplicity, let's say Obama still got elected in 2002 somehow.
My mistake actually. Rush beat Obama in 2000, but if he was senator, Obama would've won in 2000. Meaning he could've primaried Rush in 2002 for senate (a mirror of ITL 2000) and won! Sorry to be pedantic about one particular person, but I really enjoy this timeline and the prospect of these additional states. Keep it up :)

No problem! :) It's actually pretty fun to think of all the butterflies that might result from reshuffling State borders, and it's likely that some politicians' careers would be hindered while others' would be favored in an almost random way.

As for Chicago, my idea was that Bobby Rush was first elected to the Senate in 2000, and subsequently reelected in 2006 and 2012 (hence why I indicated him as a Class-1 Senator). Obama, meanwhile, was elected in 2002 and served a full term in the Senate before running for President. Madigan would have run for the seat he left open in 2008 and win easily with his coattails.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 02, 2015, 01:25:28 PM
2010

()

Democrats: 10 (=)
Republicans: 23 (=)
Write-In: 1 (=)

Republicans gain only 5 seats instead of 6, but that's only because they had overachieved in 2004 compared to RL results. This is still very much a landslide. In RG, John Cornyn unseats a longtime (and presumably Blue Dog-type) Dem incumbent amid very low Hispanic turnout. Presumably a similar thing happens in California with the last remnants of old-style Democratic populism. Loretta Sanchez face a serious challenge but hangs on, while Patty Murray resists much more easily than IRL. The NV race sees no change. Mark Kirk easily manages to fill the Republican open seat in IL. Rob Portman cruises in Ohio, but Sherrod Brown resists the wave in solidly Democratic ER. There's also obviously no pickup opportunity for the GOP in New York, but Johnson and Coats' wins in WI and IN are even wider than IRL as a result of the border shifts. Finally, in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak successfully primaries Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and proceeds to win a close race against Pat Toomey (sorry, Phil :P).


The 112th Senate (2011-2013)

()

Democrats: 52 (+1)
Republicans: 49 (+2)
Independents: 1 (-1) - Joe Lieberman, caucusing with Democrats

Note that Massachusetts is now purple because Brown still won the 2010 special election. This evens out with Specter's party switch and subsequent replacement with Sestak. Democrats still manage to keep control of the Senate, albeit only by only 4 seats instead of 6. The legislature would go largely as IRL.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 02, 2015, 08:11:20 PM
2010

()

Democrats: 10 (=)
Republicans: 23 (=)
Write-In: 1 (=)

Republicans gain only 5 seats instead of 6, but that's only because they had overachieved in 2004 compared to RL results. This is still very much a landslide. In RG, John Cornyn unseats a longtime (and presumably Blue Dog-type) Dem incumbent amid very low Hispanic turnout. Presumably a similar thing happens in California with the last remnants of old-style Democratic populism. Loretta Sanchez face a serious challenge but hangs on, while Patty Murray resists much more easily than IRL. The NV race sees no change. Mark Kirk easily manages to fill the Republican open seat in IL. Rob Portman cruises in Ohio, but Sherrod Brown resists the wave in solidly Democratic ER. There's also obviously no pickup opportunity for the GOP in New York, but Johnson and Ellsworth's wins in WI and IN are even wider than IRL as a result of the border shifts. Finally, in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak successfully primaries Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and proceeds to win a close race against Pat Toomey (sorry, Phil :P).


The 112th Senate (2011-2013)

()

Democrats: 52 (+1)
Republicans: 49 (+2)
Independents: 1 (-1) - Joe Lieberman, caucusing with Democrats

Note that Massachusetts is now purple because Brown still won the 2010 special election. This evens out with Specter's party switch and subsequent replacement with Sestak. Democrats still manage to keep control of the Senate, albeit only by only 4 seats instead of 6. The legislature would go largely as IRL.

Coats landslide Ellsworth IRL. Taking off the Democrat district would only make that landslide worse ITTL


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 03, 2015, 01:53:35 AM
Yeah, that's what I meant. I just messed up the names. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 05, 2015, 06:00:11 AM
2012

()

Democrats: 22 (-1)
Republicans: 11 (+3)
Independent: 1 (-1)

Lots of seats changing hands, but in the end Democratic and Republican gains cancel out each other and produce no real change in the overall balance of power. There's no trouble for Democratic incumbents in NY (Rangel), PA (Schwartz), MI (Stabenow) and WA (Wyden). Same for Santorum in AY, who becomes a four-termer (congrats, Phil! ;)) and for other Republicans in TX, JF, NV and CA. Jon Tester manages to keep Lincoln in the Democratic fold following Max Baucus' retirement, by narrowly edging out the uncharismatic Rick Berg. On the other hand, Democrats are unable to hold on their upset gain in Ohio, allowing Mike DeWine to reclaim his old seat. Despite Indiana being even more Republican than IRL, Donnelly still manages to edge out Mourdock by about 2 points. In Rio Grande, the retirement of the Republican incumbent (first elected in 1994) allows rising star San Antonio mayor (and Dem convention keynote speaker) Julian Castro to cruise to victory. However, these Democratic gains are negated by incumbent two-term Governor Charlie Crist's victory in SF. Crist, after dropping out of the GOP primary and running as an independent, managed to narrowly defeat his Democratic opponent after most Republican votes converged on him. However, as a sitting Senator, he has opted to rejoin the Republican caucus.


The 113th Senate (2013-2015)

()

Democrats: 53 (-2)
Republicans: 49 (+4)

You already know the deal for this one.



Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 13, 2015, 04:13:45 PM
Sorry it took so long. Hope our resident Republicans will enjoy this entry. ;)


2014

()

Democrats: 12 (+1)
Republicans: 22 (=)

Republicans gain 9 seats, just as IRL. These Republican gains would be a bit less Western and more Midwestern, as Rounds and Daines would stay out, but instead Illinois and Allegheny would supply two more Republican Senators. I'll follow RPryor and fill these seats with Adam Kinzinger and Keith Rothfus. On the other hand, I kept Adirondack and South Florida in Democratic hands, as I think the incumbents there are strong enough to survive in lean-D States, similarly to how Shaheen survived in NH. Still, it was very close, especially in South Florida. Most Republican incumbents, such as Dewhurst, Collins, Thune and Risch, are easily reelected - as are Democrats Ryan, Madigan and Villaraigosa. In Pacific, Barbara Boxer would probably renounce to seeking another term, leaving room for a crowded Democratic primary. My guess is that Gavin Newsom would be favored if he ran, but he might prefer to save himself for the Governor's office instead. In MA, Ed Markey easily wins a full term as John Kerry's successor.


The 114th Senate (2015-2017)

()

Democrats: 44 (-2)
Republicans: 58 (+4)

The GOP Senatorial majority would be as wide as the Democrats' was at the beginning of Obama's term, quite a symbolic rebuttal for the President. That still makes them 4 seats away from a filibuster-proof majority, but with the help of a few Blue Dogs (let's see... Manchin, Donnelly, and pick two among Warner, Kaine, Villaraigosa, McCaskill, Nelson and Gilibrand). If it holds together, the GOP might be able to get some major bills passed, although Obama could still end up vetoing them. In addition, they would only need 11 Democrats (or 10, depending on how you interpret the 2/3 clause) in order to sabotage the Iran deal, instead of 13. The battle might be quite close, although it really depends from who the remaining Democratic Senators are.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 14, 2015, 07:10:28 AM
Any thoughts?

2016 predictions coming next.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 18, 2015, 07:46:27 AM
2016 Senate Predictions

()

In their luckiest scenario, Democrats could potentially take as many as 9 seats to the GOP (although some of them will almost certainly fall back into the safe column as the campaign draws near). On a particularly good day, Republicans could keep all their 2010 gains and add Colorado and Nevada. The most likely outcome however should be D+1 or D+2.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 19, 2015, 04:27:20 AM
Now then, all we have left is Governors' elections. Should I bother with that, or is it time to end this thread? It doesn't seem to be getting much interest anymore.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: NeverAgain on August 19, 2015, 02:26:25 PM
Now then, all we have left is Governors' elections. Should I bother with that, or is it time to end this thread? It doesn't seem to be getting much interest anymore.
Continue!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on August 19, 2015, 03:02:40 PM
Now then, all we have left is Governors' elections. Should I bother with that, or is it time to end this thread? It doesn't seem to be getting much interest anymore.
Continue!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Anti-Bothsidesism on August 19, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
Now then, all we have left is Governors' elections. Should I bother with that, or is it time to end this thread? It doesn't seem to be getting much interest anymore.
Continue!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Higgs on August 20, 2015, 11:53:16 PM
Now then, all we have left is Governors' elections. Should I bother with that, or is it time to end this thread? It doesn't seem to be getting much interest anymore.
Continue!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on August 20, 2015, 11:59:21 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 21, 2015, 04:46:26 PM


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 22, 2015, 06:07:29 AM
Wow, I had no idea so many people still followed this! :)

Well then, let's move on! I'll start with 2006, since going earlier would be nothing but random guesswork.


2006 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 21
Republicans: 18

Democrats gaining open seats include Deval Patrick (MA), Ted Strickland (OH) and unidentified candidates in Allegheny and California. Democrats in CH (Blagojevic), MI (Granholm), WI (Doyle), PA (Rendell), RG and ER are all reelected. Eliot Spitzer and Jerry Brown hold the open seats in New York Pacific, respectively, while Martin O'Malley defeats Bob Ehrlich in Maryland. On the Republican side, Kay Bailey Hutchinson comfortably wins a first term as Governor of Texas, while Rick Perry hangs on in Jefferson despite multiple independent candidacies. New England Governor Jim Douglas is also reelected, as are Arnold Schwarzenegger of CS, Charlie Crist of SF, and the governors of AD and IL. Butch Otter holds the open seat in Oregon, as does someone in NF.


2008 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 5
Republicans: 3

(Note: New England is the only State that elects its Governor every 2 years, in even-numbered years)

Jim Douglas cruises to an easy reelection for his last term. Democrats Brian Schweitzer of Lincoln and Christine Gregoire of Washington also win a second term, as does Republican Mitch Daniels of Indiana.


Governorship Control in 2010:

Democrats: 27 (=)
Republicans: 24 (+1)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 23, 2015, 11:53:37 AM
2010 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 14
Republicans: 25

Republican Governors the country, benefiting largely from the many governorships left by term-limited Democratic incumbents. As IRL, their list include Tom Corbett (AY), Rick Snyder (MI) and Scott Walker (WI), but also Lamar Smith in Rio Grande, who all win comfortably. Further adding to Republican gains, John Kasich wrestles Ted Strickland away from the Ohio governorship (albeit in a relatively underwhelming performance for such a solid-GOP State), and Tom McClintock does the same in California (presumably in a rematch from his unsuccessful 2006 bid). Despite such an unfavorable climate, five Democrats still manage to claim open seats formerly in Republican hands, among whom are Maggie Hassan from New England and Alex Sink from South Florida (who easily edges out her controversial opponent Rick Scott). Holding open seats for the GOP, Bill McCollum, Bill Brady and Brian Sandoval easily triumph respectively in NF, IL and NV. Steve Cooley has a tougher time, but still narrowly wins the race to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger, thus keeping CS Atlas blue. On the Democratic side, Andrew Cuomo easily becomes the NY governor in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer debacle, Bob Casey Jr. manages to succeed Ed Rendell as the governor of Pennsylvania, and Lee Fisher narrowly manages to keep Erie in the Democratic column. Incumbents Deval Patrick (D-MA), Martin O'Malley (D-MD), Pat Quinn (D-CH), Jerry Brown (D-PC), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Rick Perry (R-JF), and Butch Otter (R-OR) are all reelected relatively easily.


Governorship Control in 2012:

Democrats: 20 (-1)
Republicans: 31 (+2)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2015, 12:28:49 PM
2012 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 4
Republicans: 4

Maggie Hassan is comfortably reelected in NE. In Indiana, Mike Pence manages to break 50% due to the removal of the Gary area, and thus easily succeeds Mitch Daniels - just like Jay Inslee easily succeeds Christine Gregoire in Washington. Meanwhile, in Lincoln Matt Mead wins the open seat to replace two-term incumbent Brian Schweitzer, netting another gain for Republicans (in addition to NC).


Governorship Control in 2014:

Democrats: 19 (-2)
Republicans: 32 (+3)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 24, 2015, 02:03:43 PM
2016 Senate Predictions

()

In their luckiest scenario, Democrats could potentially take as many as 9 seats to the GOP (although some of them will almost certainly fall back into the safe column as the campaign draws near). On a particularly good day, Republicans could keep all their 2010 gains and add Colorado and Nevada. The most likely outcome however should be D+1 or D+2.

Do you have a current list of Senators? Also how does the Iran Deal whip count look like? ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2015, 04:08:14 PM
2016 Senate Predictions

()

In their luckiest scenario, Democrats could potentially take as many as 9 seats to the GOP (although some of them will almost certainly fall back into the safe column as the campaign draws near). On a particularly good day, Republicans could keep all their 2010 gains and add Colorado and Nevada. The most likely outcome however should be D+1 or D+2.

Do you have a current list of Senators? Also how does the Iran Deal whip count look like? ;)

You'll find the complete list of Senators from the 2013-2015 period on the bottom of page 16 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102228.msg4644140#msg4644140). And if you look just above the post that you quoted, you'll find the names of almost all the new Senators elected in 2014 (as well as a quick word on the Iran deal). :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 24, 2015, 05:36:37 PM
2014 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 12
Republicans: 26
Independents: 1

Adding the heavily Democratic DC is enough to tip the scales in Maryland in favor of Anthony Brown. The closeness of the result would still raise some serious questions, but honor would be safe for MD Democrats. Martha Coakley isn't so lucky, since all the addition of Maryland could possibly do is bring Baker's margin below a percentage point. Republicans would gain a seat there, as they would in Erie, where GOP candidate Steve LaTourette could benefit from voter fatigue after 12 years of Democratic rule. The exact opposite scenario would play out in California del Sur, the Democrats' only pickup in this election cycle. Incumbent Steve Cooley is defeated by Raul Ruiz, who managed to shore up Latino turnout as much as you can on a midterm year. On the other hand, Democrats end up narrowly missing many pickup opportunities, most notably Allegheny (where, in a situation similar to Kansas, partisan gravity narrowly thwarted a challenge to the unpopular Tom Corbett) and Rio Grande (where Lamar Smith survived largely due to an abysmal Hispanic turnout). The Republican incumbents also survive in AD, NF, OH, MI, WI, IL, OR, NV and CA. Greg Abbott wins the race to replace Rick Perry in JF, and the controversial Steve Stockman ends up replacing the moderate Hutchinson in the Texas Governor's mansion (God have mercy of the Texans' souls...). On the Democratic side, Maggie Hassan (NE), Andrew Cuomo (NY), Bob Casey (PA), Alex Sink (SF), and Pat Quinn (CH) all win a second term. FWIW, I calculated that the latter would defeat Rauner by 8.6 points in the Chicago area, a testament to how Downstate IL can make a difference. Finally, Gavin Newsom easily wins the race to succeed Jerry Brown in Pacific.


Governorship Control in 2015:

Democrats: 17 (-1)
Republicans: 33 (+2)
Independents: 1 (=)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Gass3268 on August 24, 2015, 09:01:12 PM
I really don't see a Republican winning in Erie, the fundamentals change in that state without Kasich and a better Republic. Also I made this:

Adirondack (AD) – Kristen Gillibrand (Democrat – Brunswick – 2)
Adirondack (AD) – Tom Reed (Republican – Corning – 3)
Alabama (AL) – Richard Shelby (Republican – Tuscaloosa – 3)
Alabama (AL) – Jeff Sessions (Republican – Mobile – 2)
Alaska (AK) – Lisa Murkowski (Republican – Anchorage – 3)
Alaska (AK) – Dan Sullivan (Republican – Anchorage – 2)
Allegheny (AY) – Rick Santorum (Republican – Penn Hills – 1)
Allegheny (AY) – Keith Rothfus (Republican – Sewickley – 2)
Arizona (AZ) – John McCain (Republican – Phoenix – 1)
Arizona (AZ) – Jeff Flake (Republican – Mesa – 3)
Arkansas (AR) – John Boozman (Republican – Rogers – 3)
Arkansas (AR) – Tom Cotton (Republican – Dardanelle – 2)
California (CA) – Bill Jones (Republican – Fresno – 1)
California (CA) – Kevin McCarthy (Republican – Bakersfield – 3)
California del Sur (CS) – Loretta Sanchez (Democrat – Lakewood – 3)
California del Sur (CS) – Antonio Villaraigosa (Democrat – Los Angeles – 2)
Chicago (CH) – Lisa Madigan (Democrat – Chicago – 2)
Chicago (CH) – Bobby Rush (Democrat – Chicago – 1)
Colorado (CO) – Michael Bennet (Democrat – Denver – 3)
Colorado (CO) – Cory Gardner (Republican – Yuma – 2)
Connecticut (CT) – Richard Blumenthal (Democrat – Greenwich – 3)
Connecticut (CT) – Chris Murphy (Democrat – Cheshire – 1)
Eire (ER) – Sherrod Brown (Democrat – Cleveland – 3)
Eire (ER) – Tim Ryan (Democrat – Howland – 2)
Georgia (GA) – Johnny Isakson (Republican – Marietta – 3)
Georgia (GA) – David Perdue (Republican – Atlanta – 2)
Hawaii (HI) – Brain Schatz (Democrat – Honolulu – 3)
Hawaii (HI) – Mazie Hirono (Democrat – Honolulu – 1)
Illinois (IL) – Mark Kirk (Republican – Springfield – 3)
Illinois (IL) – Adam Kinzinger (Republican – Channahon – 2)
Indiana (IN) – Dan Coats (Republican – Fort Wayne – 3)
Indiana (IN) – Joe Donnelly (Democrat – Granger – 1)
Iowa (IA) – Chuck Grassley (Republican – New Hartford – 3)
Iowa (IA) – Join Ernst (Republican – Des Moines – 2)
Jefferson (JF) – Kay Granger (Republican – Fort Worth – 1)
Jefferson (JF) – Greg Abbott (Republican – Duncanville – 3)
Kansas (KS) – Pat Roberts (Republican – Dodge City – 2)
Kansas (KS) – Jerry Moran (Republican – Hayes – 3)
Kentucky (KY) – Mitch McConnell (Republican – Louisville – 2)
Kentucky (KY) – Rand Paul (Republican – Bowling Green – 3)
Lincoln (LN) – John Thune (Republican – Sioux Falls – 2)
Lincoln (LN) – Jon Tester (Democrat – Big Sandy – 1)
Louisiana (LA) – David Vitter (Republican – Metairie – 3)
Louisiana (LA) – Bill Cassidy (Republican – Baton Rouge – 2)
Maryland (MD) – Barbara Mikulski (Democrat – Baltimore – 3)
Maryland (MD) – Tom Carper (Democrat – Wilmington – 1)
Massachusetts (MA) – Elizabeth Warren (Democrat – Cambridge – 1)
Massachusetts (MA) – Ed Markey (Democrat – Maiden – 2)
Michigan (MI) – Debbie Stabenow (Democrat – Lansing – 1)
Michigan (MI) – Gary Peters (Democrat – Bloomfield Township – 2)
Minnesota (MN) – Amy Klobuchar (Democrat – St. Paul – 1)
Minnesota (MN) – Al Franken (Democrat – Minneapolis – 2)
Mississippi (MS) – Thad Cochran (Republican – Jackson – 2)
Mississippi (MS) – Roger Wicker (Republican – Tupelo – 1)
Missouri (MO) – Claire McCaskill (Democrat – St. Louis – 1)
Missouri (MO) – Roy Blunt (Republican – Strafford – 3)
Nebraska (NB) – Deb Fischer (Republican – Valentine – 1)
Nebraska (NB) – Ben Sasse (Republican – Fremont – 2)
Nevada (NV) – Harry Reid (Democrat – Searchlight – 3)
Nevada (NV) – Dean Heller (Republican – Carson City – 1)
New England (NE) – Patrick Leahy (Democrat – Middlesex – 1)
New England (NE) – Susan Collins (Republican – Bangor – 2)
New Jersey (NJ) – Bob Menendez (Democrat – North Bergen – 1)
New Jersey (NJ) – Corey Booker (Democrat – Newark – 2)
New Mexico (NM) – Tom Udall (Democrat – Santa Fe – 2)
New Mexico (NM) – Mark Heinrich (Democrat – Albuquerque – 1)
New York (NY) – Chuck Schumer (Democrat – Brooklyn – 3)
New York (NY) – Charlie Rangel (Democrat – New York City – 1)
North Carolina (NC) – Richard Burr (Republican – Winston-Salem – 3)
North Carolina (NC) – Thom Tillis (Republican – Cornelius – 2)
North Florida (NF) – Bill Nelson (Democrat – Tallahassee – 1)
North Florida (NF) – Jeff Miller (Republican – Milton – 3)
Ohio (OH) – Rob Portman (Republican – Cincinnati – 3)
Ohio (OH) – Mike DeWine (Republican – Springfield – 1)
Oregon (OR) – Jim Risch (Republican – Boise – 2)
Oregon (OR) – Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Republican – Deer Park – 3)
Oklahoma (OK) – Jim Inhofe (Republican – Tulsa – 2)
Oklahoma (OK) – James Lankford (Republican – Oklahoma City – 3)
Pacific (PA) – Barbara Boxer (Democrat – Greenbrae – 2)
Pacific (PA) – Kamala Harris (Democrat – San Francisco – 1)
Pennsylvania (PA) – Allyson Schwartz (Democrat – Jenkintown – 1)
Pennsylvania (PA) – Joe Sestak (Democrat – Edgmont Township – 3)
Rio Grande (RG) – John Cornyn (Republican – Austin – 3)
Rio Grande (RG) – Julian Castro (Democrat – San Antonio – 1)
South Carolina (SC) – Lindsey Graham (Republican – Seneca – 2)
South Carolina (SC) – Tim Scott (Republican – Charleston – 3)
South Florida (FL) – Charlie Crist (Independent/Republican – St. Petersburg – 1   
South Florida (FL) – Debbie Wasserman Shultz (Democrat – Weston – 2)
Tennessee (TN) – Lamar Alexander (Republican – Nashville – 2)
Tennessee (TN) – Bob Corker (Republican – Chattanooga – 1)
Texas (TX) – Ted Cruz (Republican – Houston – 1)
Texas (TX) – David Dewhurst (Republican – Houston – 2)
Utah (UT) – Orrin Hatch (Republican – Salt Lake City – 1)
Utah (UT) – Mike Lee (Republican – Alpine – 3)
Virginia (VA) – Mark Warner (Democrat – Alexandria – 2)
Virginia (VA) – Tim Kaine (Democrat – Richmond – 1)
Washington (WA) – Patty Murray (Democrat – Seattle – 3)
Washington (WA) – Ron Wyden (Democrat – Portland – 1)
West Virginia (WV) – Joe Manchin (Democrat – Charleston – 1)
West Virginia (WV) – Shelly Moore Capito (Republican – Charleston – 2)
Wisconsin (WI) – Ron Johnson (Republican – Oshkosh – 3)
Wisconsin (WI) – Tammy Baldwin (Democrat – Madison – 1)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 25, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
That's really nice, thanks! :) Just one minor thing, in this TL I assumed Boxer would retire in 2014 (as she will in 2016 IRL). RFayette suggested Anna Eshoo as a replacement. Barbara Lee could also be a choice if the State wanted to go full Liberal.


I really don't see a Republican winning in Erie, the fundamentals change in that state without Kasich and a better Republic.

My reasoning was that Erie has roughly the same PVI as OTL Illinois, so if it could happen there with Rauner, it could happen in ER as well. Granted it's not the most likely scenario, and would require not only a bad year for Democrats, but also a particularly unpopular incumbent (no idea if Lee Fisher fits the profile, tbh). I also figured it would be better to have more than 4 States changing hands, as there were 6 IRL.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on August 25, 2015, 07:51:59 AM
That's really nice, thanks! :) Just one minor thing, in this TL I assumed Boxer would retire in 2014 (as she will in 2016 IRL). RFayette suggested Anna Eshoo as a replacement. Barbara Lee could also be a choice if the State wanted to go full Liberal.


I really don't see a Republican winning in Erie, the fundamentals change in that state without Kasich and a better Republic.

My reasoning was that Erie has roughly the same PVI as OTL Illinois, so if it could happen there with Rauner, it could happen in ER as well. Granted it's not the most likely scenario, and would require not only a bad year for Democrats, but also a particularly unpopular incumbent (no idea if Lee Fisher fits the profile, tbh). I also figured it would be better to have more than 4 States changing hands, as there were 6 IRL.

Lee Fisher is a pretty bad campaigner iirc.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 25, 2015, 01:46:27 PM
Lee Fisher is a pretty bad campaigner iirc.

Then it all comes around. ;)


2016 Gubernatorial Predictions

()

Both parties could, in a best-case scenario, sweep 6 out of 8 governorships (although the Democrats' real ceiling is probably at 5). Maggie Hassan and Jay Inslee are both safe, due to their States being somewhat more left-wing than IRL. So is Matt Mead,  a reasonably popular incumbent in a solid-R (although somewhat friendly to Democrats at the local level) State. Mike Pence is probably favored in Indiana due to the removal of the Chicagoland counties, but the election could still easily go either way. Overall, expect no change or R+1.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 25, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
All right, the Governors run-up is over. I'll wrap up this thread with an overview of the composition of the House of Representatives and of State Legislatures for the 2013-2015 period.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: NeverAgain on August 25, 2015, 03:00:51 PM
Sad that this is ending ;(
Maybe you could do different states now? :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 25, 2015, 03:38:49 PM
Sad that this is ending ;(
Maybe you could do different states now? :D

I have other projects in mind at the moment - much, much bigger than this one which took me 6 frigging years to finish. :P And I'll also probably be somewhat busier for the next couple years, starting my PhD and all. So I'm afraid I can't do that. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 25, 2015, 05:08:57 PM
On the other hand, you (and all this thread's readers) can still contribute to this project, by drawing the CDs of the new States (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196868)! Anyone wants to take a look at one of the Californias, Floridas or Texases? :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: NeverAgain on August 25, 2015, 10:11:27 PM
Sad that this is ending ;(
Maybe you could do different states now? :D

I have other projects in mind at the moment - much, much bigger than this one which took me 6 frigging years to finish. :P And I'll also probably be somewhat busier for the next couple years, starting my PhD and all. So I'm afraid I can't do that. ;)
6 years, Smeesh! Wow, I guess I didn't look how far back this went. Congratz on this btw, excited for your new projects!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Figueira on August 26, 2015, 01:59:56 PM
Thanks for doing this, Antonio. I really enjoyed it; this is one of the threads I checked often when I was lurking.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
6 years, Smeesh! Wow, I guess I didn't look how far back this went. Congratz on this btw, excited for your new projects!

Well, to be fair, I completely rebooted it about a year ago (and before then it had been dead for 4 years), so that's when I did 90% of the wok.


Thanks for doing this, Antonio. I really enjoyed it; this is one of the threads I checked often when I was lurking.

Thanks! :) It's great to see I've actually managed to contribute something so appreciated on this forum.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
2012 House of Representatives Elections

()

Democrats: 207 (+6) - including Bernie Sanders, formally I-NE
Republicans: 229 (-5)

Finally a branch of government where Democrats benefit from the States redrawing! :D After getting severely diminished in the Electoral College, the Senate and Governorship, the Dems certainly could use six more House seats. The map would still be stacked against Democrats (remember than in 2012 they actually won the PV), and there would still be lots of gerrymandering throughout the country (though more evenly spread between the two parties, thanks to golden opportunities like New York, Erie, Chicago, Maryland and Washington). Still, in this scenario Democrats would only be 12 seats away from a majority, certainly a much more attainable target. So, in a reasonably good year, the House might be up for grabs.

Most State splits end up working to the advantage of Democrats. For example, in Pennsylvania, a fair map would net the Democrats two more seats than what they actually won in the corresponding area (6 instead of 4). I've guesstimated the same outcome in South Florida (although that might be excessive). In Ohio, controlling Erie would allow Democrats to replace the GOP's abomination with their own gerrymander, and double their delegation from 3 to 6. Down South, all Republicans can take is one more seat, meaning that the two States' partisan balance 6 to 11 instead of 4 to 12 (one seat is gained in the apportionment). Meanwhile, the Texas split leaves the same number of Democrats, but takes away one Republican. Another safe-D seat is gained with DC's inclusion into Maryland, finally giving Washingtonians the representation they deserve. Another seat shifts from GOP to Dem hands due to the new borders of Washington State. Finally, Republicans lose one seat due to MN only getting 7 in apportionment (presumably it's Michelle Bachmann who gets axed off).

Republicans have their silver linings too. Although they are forced to cede one of their two NY seats to Democrats, they more than make up for it in Adirondack, netting two seats from them thanks to an elaborate gerrymander. They could also possibly draw a 6 lean-R districts in Illinois, but I've settled for a 5-1 map to make those 5 CDs absolutely safe. Overall, this means that one more Republican would represent the area covered by CH and IL than IRL (but the same number of Democrats). Finally, Republicans might find a way to take one of New England's five seats due to a more favorable CD makeup around southern NH).

The California split doesn't change the partisan balance (possibly, Republicans could take one seat away from Dems in CA, but I've decided to take the safe route and leave it at 6-4). Neither do the tweaks to Nevada's border or the exchange of territory between MI and WI. Merging the four inland-NW States into Lincoln still keeps all of them Atlas blue. And MA + RI still equals an all-Dem congressional delegation.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Maxwell on August 26, 2015, 05:02:19 PM
What about Raul Ruiz for SF Governorship?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 05:07:58 PM
What about Raul Ruiz for SF Governorship?

You mean CS? Sure, he sounds perfect for the job. :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Maxwell on August 26, 2015, 06:06:11 PM
What about Raul Ruiz for SF Governorship?

You mean CS? Sure, he sounds perfect for the job. :)

Oh yes.

and for Eerie Governor I was thinking either David Joyce or Steve LaTourette.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 06:20:55 PM
The 2014 post has been updated to reflect these contributions. ;) For Erie, I've chosen LaTourette as he's the more seasoned politician.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on August 26, 2015, 06:49:13 PM
The 2014 post has been updated to reflect these contributions. ;) For Erie, I've chosen LaTourette as he's the more seasoned politician.

Tony, Steve LaTourette found out in 2014 that he had pancreatic cancer. Joyce is the better option. Or you could go with John Husted from the State Senate.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 06:59:22 PM
Ah, too bad. Well, Husted apparently managed to fool Ohioans into believing he was a sensible moderate when he ran for SoS, presumably he could do that again when running for governor. I still think Joyce doesn't have the resume of a gubernatorial candidate.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on August 26, 2015, 07:13:42 PM
Ah, too bad. Well, Husted apparently managed to fool Ohioans into believing he was a sensible moderate when he ran for SoS, presumably he could do that again when running for governor. I still think Joyce doesn't have the resume of a gubernatorial candidate.

Shoot. Not Husted, Treasurer Josh Mandel. (And Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor as well)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 07:16:20 PM
Isn't Mandel a bit of a far-right wacko? Maybe Taylor then...


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: rpryor03 on August 26, 2015, 07:17:49 PM
Isn't Mandel a bit of a far-right wacko? Maybe Taylor then...

Somehow he's been re-elected twice, but yeah. He's a wack.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 26, 2015, 07:25:20 PM
Yeah, as I thought. Mary Taylor it is then.

Anyway, to avoid my pretty map I worked so hard on from getting forgotten at the bottom of the page, here's a comparison of the RL House delegations map and the one from this scenario.

Actual States:
()

New States:
()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 27, 2015, 08:30:42 AM
And finally, let's conclude this project with...

State Legislatures Control in 2014

()

Democrats: 18 (+1)
Republicans: 29 (+1)
Split: 4 (-1)

Both Democrats and Republican control one more State capitol, at the expense of split legislatures... So we end up with very polarized local governments.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 27, 2015, 09:53:39 AM
Overall, in 2014, there were 13 States with a Democratic Governor and a Democratic-controlled Legislature, 25 where all branches were in Republican hands, and 13 with some form of divided government. IRL, these figures were 13/24/13. So there is virtually no change.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 27, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
Well, guys, this project was really fun to do, and I'm really glad so many of you enjoyed following it. :) I hope I will some day be able to replicate its success with my even bigger project. ;)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Enderman on August 27, 2015, 05:09:53 PM
Amazing work Antonio! I hope the next big project comes soon :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 24, 2016, 10:57:08 PM
Been a while, but I figured I might bump this with some results for the 2016 Primary! :)


New York Democratic Primary

()

Hillary: 820205 (62.43%)
Bernie: 493564 (37.57%)



Adirondack Democratic Primary

()

Bernie: 259157 (53.63%)
Hillary: 224094 (46.37%)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 24, 2016, 11:18:07 PM
New York Republican Primary

()

Drumpf: 272996 (66.42%)
Kasich: 88579 (21.55%)
Cruz: 46206 (11.24%)
Other: 3256 (0.79%)


Adirondack Republican Primary

()

Drumpf: 242095 (53.61%)
Kasich: 125635 (27.82%)
Cruz: 78028 (17.28%)
Other: 5798 (1.28%)


Pretty surprising Cruz couldn't even come second in AD.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Goldwater on April 24, 2016, 11:55:18 PM
It's back! :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 25, 2016, 12:20:11 AM

To a very limited extent, but yeah, it is. ;)

I'll take any requests for calculating results in other States.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vosem on April 25, 2016, 01:39:42 AM
I think trump still wins alt-Illinois and South Florida, but it would be very narrow over Cruz and Rubio, respectively, and I'd love to see the exact calculations. North Florida and Chicagoland would be rather foregone conclusions :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 25, 2016, 01:55:22 PM
Here's the IL split! :)


Chicago Republican Primary (IL segment only)

()

Drumpf: 311709 (39.26%)
Cruz: 194948 (24.55%)
Kasich: 191862 (24.16%)
Lavenous: 78967 (9.95%)
Other: 16511 (2.08%)


Illinois Republican Primary

()

Drumpf: 250755 (38.24%)
Cruz: 243287 (37.10%)
Kasich: 94256 (14.37%)
Lavenous: 47714 (7.28%)
Other: 19739 (3.01%)


Interestingly, Drumpf did about as well in each, and the main difference between CH and IL is in Cruz and Kasich's scores.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Vosem on April 25, 2016, 02:32:46 PM

Nice work, Antonio! Fascinating stuff. Cruz actually comes much closer than I expected in alt-Illinois; he would probably have won had an actual primary like that been held, since his attention could've been more focused.

I think trump still wins alt-Illinois and South Florida, but it would be very narrow over Cruz and Rubio, respectively, and I'd love to see the exact calculations. North Florida and Chicagoland would be rather foregone conclusions :P

Trump's worst areas in FL after Miami were Orlando and Tallahassee, and they are in his North Florida.  The remarkable thing about FL was how consistent Trump's margin was everywhere in the state outside of those three cities.

Yeah, but Miami would absolutely dominate the political life of South Florida; it would be a massive presence. Even in real life, Rubio did better than his statewide totals in just 7/67 counties in FL (Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Seminole, St. John's, and Leon), and worse in 60/67. He received 27% statewide while crossing 30% in just two counties (Orange and Dade).

I don't think Miami's dominance over the rest of South Florida, especially in a Republican primary, is quite enough for Rubio to win. But I'd love to see how much closer he gets.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 25, 2016, 03:01:48 PM

Nice work, Antonio! Fascinating stuff. Cruz actually comes much closer than I expected in alt-Illinois; he would probably have won had an actual primary like that been held, since his attention could've been more focused.

In general (as seen in the past few GE results), alt-Illinois looks a lot like Missouri, another State that was very close between Drumpf and Cruz that same day. Not sure if that means Cruz would have won it, since MO and IL already were the two States he was contesting, but it would certainly have made for an interesting matchup.

SF/NF next, then! :)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: msnmllr on April 25, 2016, 05:06:17 PM
I assume that Ohio will be more competitive for the Republican Primary, whereas Erie should be safely Kasich


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on April 25, 2016, 10:01:44 PM
I assume that Ohio will be more competitive for the Republican Primary, whereas Erie should be safely Kasich

The fact that Lee Fisher, not John Kasich, is the Gov. of Erie might make thinks more competitive in my neck of the woods. Kasich might end up having to fight for either or both Erie and Ohio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 25, 2016, 11:14:10 PM
No maps from now on, because they take forever to make, and they're not very useful since you can see just as much on the regular State maps.


South Florida Republican Primary

Drumpf: 550970 (44.68%)
Lavenous: 364432 (29.55%)
Cruz: 182807 (14.82%)
Kasich: 91921 (7.45%)
Other: 43082 (3.49%)


North Florida Republican Primary

Drumpf: 528900 (46.86%)
Lavenous: 274229 (24.30%)
Cruz: 222084 (19.68%)
Kasich: 68055 (6.03%)
Other: 35325 (3.13%)


Once again, the Drumpf vote was surprisingly evenly spread.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on November 10, 2016, 05:44:30 PM
So, how does the '16 general election look in this world?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Wells on November 15, 2016, 07:38:33 PM
So, how does the '16 general election look in this world?

This is very interesting. I would like to see all the 2016 results please.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Metalhead123 on November 20, 2016, 05:26:53 PM
so when are we going to see the 2016 results here?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on November 29, 2016, 06:17:51 PM
per https://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Lachi on November 29, 2016, 08:54:16 PM
per https://kevinwilsonhayes.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using

How do you make seperate states? I can olny add or remove counties from states and give them to another one.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Metalhead123 on November 29, 2016, 11:03:21 PM
per https://kevinwilsonhayes.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using
That sight isnt working for me for some reason


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Lachi on November 30, 2016, 05:38:51 AM
per https://kevinwilsonhayes.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using
That sight isnt working for me for some reason
two of the words are in the wrong order, this is the right site: http://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: AGA on November 30, 2016, 10:36:40 PM
per https://kevinwilsonhayes.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using

How do you make seperate states? I can olny add or remove counties from states and give them to another one.

You can't actually add extra states. DC was just used for Southern California.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Figueira on January 15, 2017, 06:28:48 PM
per https://kevinwilsonhayes.com/redraw/

()

clinton 265 — 273 trump

caveäts:
1. there doesn't appear to be a zoom feature, so i may have missed some small counties (i'm glad tony didn't do anything with virginia!)
2. i'm not sure how up-to-date that site's results are — which, with california beïng within 2700 votes, could decide the election!
3. disregard the electors column — it doesn't recalculate d.c.'s electoral votes, which i used for california del sur

Quote
Details
State    Population    Electors    Democrat    GOP    Green    Libertarian    McMullin    Other
AD   6,339,276   12   1,143,277   1,241,190   42,339   95,663   0   0
AL   4,779,736   9   718,084   1,306,925   9,287   43,869   0   0
AK   710,231   3   93,007   130,415   4,445   14,593   0   4,128
AY   4,928,928   9   887,592   1,322,146   16,229   58,413   0   8,725
AZ   6,392,017   12   936,250   1,021,154   25,255   80,151   0   0
AR   2,915,918   6   378,729   677,904   9,837   29,518   0   12,627
CA   7,166,682   13   982,747   985,394   32,044   85,544   0   8,696
CS   21,146,847   3   3,817,026   2,136,018   110,569   200,100   0   29,852
CH   9,686,021   17   2,506,106   1,264,250   52,333   142,799   0   432
CO   5,029,196   10   1,212,209   1,137,455   33,147   129,451   26,779   25,144
CT   3,574,097   7   884,432   668,266   22,793   48,051   0   0
ER   4,684,303   9   1,080,561   975,506   19,042   63,702   0   9,738
GA   9,687,653   17   1,837,300   2,068,623   0   123,641   0   0
HI   1,360,211   4   266,827   128,815   12,727   15,949   0   4,507
IL   4,130,574   8   682,116   1,040,372   22,646   79,906   0   0
IN   5,664,265   11   856,999   1,405,802   0   118,373   0   0
IA   3,046,355   7   650,790   798,923   11,119   57,322   12,267   12,459
JF   8,796,339   15   1,234,977   1,827,516   22,203   105,822   0   0
KS   2,853,118   6   414,788   656,009   22,698   53,648   0   0
KY   4,339,367   9   628,834   1,202,942   13,913   53,749   22,780   0
LN   3,039,812   7   441,438   892,202   13,950   82,745   0   8,996
LA   4,533,372   9   779,535   1,178,004   14,018   37,950   8,546   9,678
MD   7,273,209   13   1,993,755   1,070,302   41,934   90,359   0   0
MA   7,467,433   13   2,177,458   1,238,605   52,167   148,970   0   0
MI   9,572,279   16   2,213,277   2,197,796   48,788   167,409   0   18,435
MN   5,303,925   10   1,366,676   1,322,891   36,957   112,944   53,080   23,856
MS   2,967,297   6   462,001   678,457   3,580   13,789   0   5,160
MO   5,988,927   11   1,054,889   1,585,753   25,086   96,404   0   12,966
NB*   1,826,341   5   273,858   485,819   8,346   37,615   0   0
NV   2,734,474   6   543,922   517,858   373   37,866   0   36,696
NE*   3,270,572   7   881,573   775,680   27,239   78,638   0   1,386
NJ   8,791,894   15   2,021,756   1,535,513   35,949   68,695   0   12,980
NM   2,059,179   5   380,724   315,875   9,729   73,669   0   3,130
NY   13,038,826   22   3,000,597   1,399,380   57,556   66,173   0   0
NC   9,535,483   16   2,162,074   2,339,603   0   127,794   0   0
NF   7,762,275   14   1,719,419   2,200,607   28,474   104,513   0   12,233
OH   6,852,201   12   1,236,440   1,796,478   25,268   104,897   0   13,763
OK   3,751,351   8   419,788   947,934   0   83,334   0   0
OR   3,549,764   7   478,386   856,900   20,220   69,266   46,538   13,833
PC   8,906,504   15   2,424,757   713,183   72,708   108,028   0   13,132
PA   7,773,451   14   1,957,113   1,590,795   32,683   84,240   0   12,171
RG   7,885,270   14   1,424,938   1,149,118   29,324   95,455   0   0
SC   4,625,364   9   849,469   1,143,611   12,917   48,715   20,795   8,937
SF   11,039,035   19   2,766,326   2,404,908   35,545   101,494   0   13,231
TN   6,346,105   12   867,110   1,517,402   15,919   70,084   0   14,176
TX   8,596,715   15   1,245,113   1,728,841   20,678   83,704   0   0
UT   2,763,885   6   274,188   452,086   7,695   33,142   207,288   10,558
VA   8,001,024   14   1,916,845   1,731,156   27,272   116,600   52,914   0
WA   8,573,432   15   2,256,446   1,421,925   84,442   189,895   0   16,901
WV   1,852,994   5   187,457   486,198   8,000   22,798   0   3,773
WI   5,831,921   11   1,401,356   1,455,451   32,025   109,359   0   15,816

*NB = nebraska, NE = new england. forget what abbreviations tony was using

How do you make seperate states? I can olny add or remove counties from states and give them to another one.

You can't actually add extra states. DC was just used for Southern California.

If I have time I might do this again later now that there's a zoom feature, but the correct way to do this is to add one of Antonio's fictional states to Alaska, and then add Alaska to DC, and then add DC to Maryland. Alaska has 3 EVs anyway so calling it DC doesn't change anything.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 05, 2017, 09:05:42 AM
I tallied up all the votes on Atlas, and California was a Clinton win.
Trump: 1,158,747 (46.39%)
Clinton: 1,212,797 (48.55%).

However, given that the results in it were likely changed because of there were no republicans running for CA-SEN, it might have actually gone red. 


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: sentinel on August 08, 2017, 01:00:28 PM
There is a zoom feature now btw (just scroll using mouse wheel) (on redrawthestates)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: RINO Tom on August 08, 2017, 01:07:43 PM
Interesting that the states with Dallas and Houston go Republican.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on August 08, 2017, 10:43:22 PM
Interesting that the states with Dallas and Houston go Republican.
not really. two words: 'suburban' and 'margins' :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: tschandler on August 09, 2017, 01:29:46 AM
Of all the alternate US States I have yet to see one where the Panhandle from the Apalachicola River is part of Alabama. 


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on August 09, 2017, 01:47:40 AM
Of all the alternate US States I have yet to see one where the Panhandle from the Apalachicola River is part of Alabama. 
You mean everything just west of Tallahassee being in Alabama?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: tschandler on August 09, 2017, 11:51:26 PM
It's a frequently mentioned thing (jokingly) in Alabama.  Everything before west of the Apalachicola River.  Panama City Beach, Fort Walton, Destin, Pensacola etc. 
 



Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 30, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
All right, I've been putting it off long enough (first because I was too depressed to look at the results, then because I wasn't quite sure if they were final, and eventually just because I was too busy or because it slipped my mind). Here is, at long last, the update you've all been waiting for. Who would have won the 2016 election if it had been held under the Alternate US States map? The answer is...


2016

()

Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

There we have it, folks. For the first time since I have collected data, my alternate State map would actually change the outcome of a Presidential election (you can count 1968 as a changed outcome, since the election would have been thrown to the House, but as we discussed it's likely that Nixon would still have prevailed there). In an alternate reality where these are the United States of America, Hillary Clinton is currently serving as their 45th President. The election would have been one of the closest in the country's history, certainly the closest of the 15 I've covered. Just like the RL election of 2000, it all comes down to one State: this time, Michigan instead of Florida. In reality, T***p won it by slightly over 10k votes. However, take away the Upper Peninsula, and the result flips: now Hillary wins the State by 16k - or, in other words, 0.35 points. This is what pushes Hilary just barely over the top - had Michigan's 16 electors remained in the GOP column, the outcome would have been exactly opposite, with T***p at 277 and Hillary at 261. Remember all those years ago, when I said that the MI/WI reshuffle would have been virtually inconsequential? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102228.msg2525398#msg2525398) Yeah, fun how things turn out sometimes (although still, it's only a 0.5 point shift that just happens to be decisive).

Of course, IRL, flipping Michigan wouldn't have been enough to deliver the victory for Hillary - she would still have been 22 EVs short instead of 7 ahead. So what accounts for the other 30ish she gained? Mostly, the fact that almost all the State splits work out in her favor. T***p's path to victory consisted in winning all the populous swing (or even Dem-leaning, like the aforementioned Michigan) States, most of them by narrow margins. With these States now split in two, Hillary is usually able to hold onto the traditionally Democratic part of these States. This is true, in particular, with three key components of T***p's victory: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. In all three cases, Hillary is able to turn what was a disadvantage for Obama into an advantage for her. If Ohio, Allegheny and North Florida cut into the former's EV margin, Erie, Pennsylvania and South Florida bolster hers. She nets 40 EVs in total (and costs T***p 34) in these 3 States alone. T***p partially makes up for it by comfortably winning Illinois, and especially by flipping Adirondack (the only new Obama-T***p State that this new map created), but Hillary's win in Rio Grande is enough to offset most of these losses. Finally, the nail in T***p's coffin comes from the existence, unlike IRL, of an actual Romney-Clinton State, in the form of California. Unlike what some valiant but premature efforts by Evergreen had showed, Hillary in fact comfortably won the State by 2.34 points (almost identical to the margin she carried Nevada by).

As much as this what-if scenario might rightfully make Democrats (myself included) rage in frustration, it's always worth remembering a couple things. First, resource allocation by both candidates would almost certainly have been drastically different under these circumstances. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida being split into largely uncompetitive States (although ER and SF were close, it's hard to imagine them getting any closer), money and stump speeches would probably flow elsewhere. Maybe T***p would have campaigned in California and actually flipped the State (especially since it would probably have a pretty cheap media market), or maybe he would have put in that extra effort to flip Michigan or nearby Minnesota. Alternatively, maybe Hillary could actually have bothered to show up in Wisconsin, or visited her own backyard of Adirondack. Either way, there are a lot of unknowns (and unknowables) involved. In addition, such a razor-edge Electoral College victory, coupled with equally dismal results in Congressional and State elections, probably wouldn't bode well for the Democrats' future. Given his attitude before the election, it's obvious that T***p would have a field day whining about massive fraud, and "mainstream" Republicans would almost certainly join him to delegitimize Hillary's presidency. Lacking both a clear mandate and congressional majorities, she'd be a lame duck from her first day in office, and I am doubtful that McConnell would even let her appoint Merrick Garland to the Court. To say nothing of what a disaster the 2018 midterms would shape up to be. I for one am honestly not sure if I'd really prefer to live in such a dire alternate reality.

PVI map:
()

Donald J. T***p: 286 (-33)
Hillary Clinton: 252 (+33)

I've used the previous two PVI maps to talk about how polarized this alternate map is, but boy oh boy I hadn't seen anything yet. This map is brutal. The vast central expanse of Titanium-R States has grown even vaster, now engulfing even the historically swingy Lower Midwest. The Titanium-D column sees only two additions, but they are important and symbolic ones: California Del Sur and Massachusetts. There are, in fairness, some States that became more competitive, all to Democrats' detriment: AD, MI, ER, NE and SF. Still, this does little to change the picture of an increasingly fractured country. Once again, this map is not quite as bad as the RL PVI map, thanks to Democrats holding to their "pieces" of the split big-EV swing States (PA, ER, SF - although the closeness of ER, an ancestral Democratic stronghold, ought to scare the party sh*tless). They also simultaneously stop being hurt by the California split (thanks to Hillary winning the new CA by more than she won nationwide) and start drawing net benefits from the Texas split (with RG moving straight from lean-R to likely-D). All in all, still a poor map for Democrats, but with a couple more bright spots than IRL.

Swing/trend map:
()

Like last time, this trend map isn't very different from the RL ones. All of the States that were split have still swung and trended in the same direction, with the one exception of Chicago and Illinois - the former experiencing a robust Democratic trend, the latter a powerful Republican one. In a few cases, there are still noticeable nuances: Adirondack, Allegheny and Erie were far more sensitive to T***p's appeal than New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio respectively (the first two are easy enough to understand, but the concentration of Obama-T***p voters in Erie remains stunning to me). Conversely, while all the States carved out of RL California trended toward Hillary, California del Sur was the epicenter of this trend, with Pacific experiencing a robust shift as well, and the new California barely budging in comparison (although this slight D trend still proved decisive to Hillary's victory). In Texas and Florida, Hillary and T***p's gains, respectively, appear strikingly uniform (although it's worth noting that NF's trend is almost flat). So, overall, not too much to see here.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +48.20)
- Most Republican: West Virginia (PVI -43.77)
- Closest: Michigan (margin +0.35)
- Bellwether: California (PVI +0.25)
- Tipping point: Michigan (PVI -1.74), after MN
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Utah (trend +31.76)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Iowa (trend -13.45)
- Most Stable (absolute): Maryland (swing -0.28)
- Most Stable (relative): North Florida (trend -0.04)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 01, 2018, 06:02:08 AM
Welp, guess this came in too late to be of any interest. Sorry folks. :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong on August 01, 2018, 09:50:20 AM
No I am super interested!!! this is the coolest thing and I was so into it that I forgot to leave a devoted comment at the end


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 01, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
No I am super interested!!! this is the coolest thing and I was so into it that I forgot to leave a devoted comment at the end

Thanks! :) Great sig, btw.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JG on August 01, 2018, 08:17:04 PM
Wow. I've just spent the entire evening reading all of this. This thread is amazing and so detailed. Congrats on the great work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 01, 2018, 09:39:43 PM
Wow. I've just spent the entire evening reading all of this. This thread is amazing and so detailed. Congrats on the great work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Calthrina950 on August 02, 2018, 03:10:02 AM
Wow. I've just spent the entire evening reading all of this. This thread is amazing and so detailed. Congrats on the great work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 02, 2018, 05:39:58 AM
Oh wow, thanks! :D I'm really glad this project is reaching new people.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OBD on August 02, 2018, 02:21:20 PM
Wow. I've just spent the entire evening reading all of this. This thread is amazing and so detailed. Congrats on the great work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Independents for... RFK Jr? God help us all on August 02, 2018, 03:52:57 PM

2016 snip

()

Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

I'm incredibly glad you decided to come back and bump this thread with the 2016 results. After reading through all your posts over the past few years for the other elections this was a fitting conclusion and raises a lot of interesting questions about whether, in your world, the "suburban"-type states like inland California would have completed the Romney-Clinton swing and changed the election or whether Trump would have brought his campaign there like he focused on swing states IRL. All in all an interesting conclusion to a hyuge undertaking, glad you came back for it.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 03, 2018, 08:18:54 AM

2016 snip

()

Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

I'm incredibly glad you decided to come back and bump this thread with the 2016 results. After reading through all your posts over the past few years for the other elections this was a fitting conclusion and raises a lot of interesting questions about whether, in your world, the "suburban"-type states like inland California would have completed the Romney-Clinton swing and changed the election or whether Trump would have brought his campaign there like he focused on swing states IRL. All in all an interesting conclusion to a hyuge undertaking, glad you came back for it.

Thank you very much!

Yeah, campaign strategy is the big question lurking behind all this, and it's even harder in an election as crazy as 2016. On the one hand, T***p has been a lot better at targeting swing States in general, which Hillary neglected mostly because she thought she had them in the bag and wanted to reach for longer shots like Arizona. On the other hand, (new) California is more like Arizona demographically and culturally than like, say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, and it's a State Obama lost last time around, so it's not crazy to think Hillary would want to spend time and money there. Nevada is probably the best comparison here, and it's one of the few States Hillary did carry. Also, 2 points is a pretty solid margin and I don't think T***p campaigning marginally more there would move the needle all that much (although I guess this plus the possibility of a competitive Senate race just might). So, overall, yeah, I'd say Hillary probably would narrowly edge it out under this map.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: nerd73 on August 03, 2018, 11:09:10 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: JG on August 03, 2018, 12:36:32 PM

2016 snip

()

Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

I'm incredibly glad you decided to come back and bump this thread with the 2016 results. After reading through all your posts over the past few years for the other elections this was a fitting conclusion and raises a lot of interesting questions about whether, in your world, the "suburban"-type states like inland California would have completed the Romney-Clinton swing and changed the election or whether Trump would have brought his campaign there like he focused on swing states IRL. All in all an interesting conclusion to a hyuge undertaking, glad you came back for it.

Thank you very much!

Yeah, campaign strategy is the big question lurking behind all this, and it's even harder in an election as crazy as 2016. On the one hand, T***p has been a lot better at targeting swing States in general, which Hillary neglected mostly because she thought she had them in the bag and wanted to reach for longer shots like Arizona. On the other hand, (new) California is more like Arizona demographically and culturally than like, say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, and it's a State Obama lost last time around, so it's not crazy to think Hillary would want to spend time and money there. Nevada is probably the best comparison here, and it's one of the few States Hillary did carry. Also, 2 points is a pretty solid margin and I don't think T***p campaigning marginally more there would move the needle all that much (although I guess this plus the possibility of a competitive Senate race just might). So, overall, yeah, I'd say Hillary probably would narrowly edge it out under this map.

To be honest, Hillary didn't neglect states she thought she had in the bag to reach for longer shots. She neglected them for typical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida but her efforts there didn't pan out. The investment in Georgia and Arizona were marginal and came very late into the campaign.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 05, 2018, 08:32:29 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Calthrina950 on August 05, 2018, 04:25:34 PM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 06, 2018, 06:17:12 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on August 06, 2018, 06:43:44 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.
Did Trump win Erie minus Cuyahoga County?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 06, 2018, 08:01:09 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.
Did Trump win Erie minus Cuyahoga County?

Easily, yeah. Hillary won Erie by 117K votes but she won Cuyahoga by 214K.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Calthrina950 on August 06, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

I see. What about Adirondack? I had read somewhere that Clinton won New York by just 10,000 votes if you took out New York City. Obviously, your state of New York includes the adjacent suburbs, and removing those gives Trump the remainder.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MR DARK BRANDON on August 06, 2018, 05:55:23 PM
Why is Trump’s name bleeped our?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OBD on August 06, 2018, 08:53:04 PM
Extreme dislike I guess


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2018, 07:29:24 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

I see. What about Adirondack? I had read somewhere that Clinton won New York by just 10,000 votes if you took out New York City. Obviously, your state of New York includes the adjacent suburbs, and removing those gives Trump the remainder.

Yup:

Hillary 45.69%
T***p 47.92%
Johnson 3.77%
Others 2.62%

T***p won it by about 60K votes. Meanwhile, Hillary carried almost 2/3 of the vote in the new New York State.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Calthrina950 on August 07, 2018, 11:51:54 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

I see. What about Adirondack? I had read somewhere that Clinton won New York by just 10,000 votes if you took out New York City. Obviously, your state of New York includes the adjacent suburbs, and removing those gives Trump the remainder.

Yup:

Hillary 45.69%
T***p 47.92%
Johnson 3.77%
Others 2.62%

T***p won it by about 60K votes. Meanwhile, Hillary carried almost 2/3 of the vote in the new New York State.

So there was a kind of native-son effect that took place in New York back in 2016, even though the extent of it was obscured by Clinton's 22 point margin of victory. Without New York City (but including the suburbs around it), New York would have been the closest state in the election.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2018, 06:33:22 PM
NYC suburbs were a mixed bag in terms of trends. Hillary improved in the inner ring of suburbs (Westchester, Rockland, Nassau) but lost ground in the outer ring, especially Suffolk.

()

I'm guessing if Hillary had a home-state advantage, it makes sense that Manhattanites and Westchesterites would be the most sensitive to it, while T***p, himself a Queens guy, did better there and around Long and Staten Islands.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on August 08, 2018, 06:36:01 PM
You were wrong about Feingold.

But seriously, what do 2016 Senate and Gubernatorial look like?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 10, 2018, 06:34:31 PM

I mean, I wasn't wrong. My predictions reflected the consensus of the time, and the consensus of the time showed Feingold as a modest favorite. The fact that things turned out differently doesn't mean that it was the wrong call at the time.

Anyway, here's for gubernatorial elections.


2016 Gubernatorial Elections

()

Democrats: 3
Republicans: 5

Just like IRL, Republicans pick up MO and Democrats pick up NC by a hair. In Indiana, Holcomb wins even more comfortably. Finally, in NE, Hassan would have no reason to retire, but with the strong Republican trend this region had IRL I figured she'd still lose narrowly, let's say to Phil Scott since he seems like the strongest Republican from the region. RIP CLIMBIN' MAGGIE, FF.


Governorship Control in 2017:

Democrats: 16 (+1)
Republicans: 34 (=)
Independents: 1 (=)


Senate results coming hopefully tomorrow.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Politician on August 10, 2018, 06:35:38 PM
Quote
Finally, in NE, Hassan would have no reason to retire, but with the strong Republican trend this region had IRL I figured she'd still lose narrowly, let's say to Phil Scott since he seems like the strongest Republican from the region. RIP CLIMBIN' MAGGIE, FF.

Somewhere, MT Treasurer shed a tear for what could have been.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 11, 2018, 10:43:08 AM
Quote
Finally, in NE, Hassan would have no reason to retire, but with the strong Republican trend this region had IRL I figured she'd still lose narrowly, let's say to Phil Scott since he seems like the strongest Republican from the region. RIP CLIMBIN' MAGGIE, FF.

Somewhere, MT Treasurer shed a tear for what could have been.

Calm VT men beat out angry NH women. :D


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 11, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
2016

()

Democrats: 12 (=)
Republicans: 22 (=)

In keeping with RL results, I had the Senate map match the Presidential map perfectly - and just like IRL, this leads to a pickup of two seats for Democrats. The easiest pickup for Dems is Rio Grande, where an already old and stale Cornyn is unable to resist a high-turnout, increasingly Hispanic electorate. There's really only one logical choice for who would beat him, and that's obviously our friend Beto O'Rourke (even if he loses statewide, I fully expect him to beat Cruz by double digits in the parts of RL Texas that make up Rio Grande). The nailbiter of this cycle (equivalent to RL NH) would be California, where I could see a decent Democratic challenger narrowly edge it out. Maybe Ami Bera, since he's used to squeaking by in semi-unfriendly territory? Let me know if you have better suggestions. Apart from that, it's mostly just incumbents getting reelected (including Murray in WA, Portman in OH, Miller in NF, Reed in AD, Abbott in JF, Rodgers in OR, and, unlike RL but unsurprisingly given the new makeup of the State, Kirk in IL). All in all a disappointing year for Democrats but by no means a terrible one.


The 115th Senate (2017-2019)

()

Democrats: 46 (-2)
Republicans: 56 (+4)

The particularly unfavorable makeup of the other two classes compared to IRL for Democrats (especially, ironically, the 2012 one) means that Republicans maintain a comfortable 10-seat majority, far more daunting than their RL one of just 4 at this point in time. Flipping Jeff Sessions' Alabama seat later in the year would only marginally reduce it to 8, meaning that Republicans would still have little trouble pushing forward their agenda. Of course, this would be far less consequential without a President T***p to actually sign the bills that come out of such a GOP-dominated Congress - but then again, that would be a double-edged sword for Democrats' electoral prospects going into 2018.

This is where we hit the limits of projects like these when it comes to actually predicting alternate election outcomes: once it changes who actually wins the Presidency, the repercussions far exceed the simple role of geographic redrawings. Having a different President in office means different issues, different events both at home and abroad, and a different political climate. If this map was
actually in place, Democrats would be facing obliteration in 2018, with 5 seats all but gone and 6 others in serious danger. Republicans would almost certainly emerge from it with a filibuster-proof majority, ready to enact draconian policy changes as soon as the White House would fall to them (which, let's face it, would be very likely in 2020). Again, kind of terrifying tbh.

Of course, since this thread is about alternate election results rather than an alternate timeline as such, I will be covering 2018 results based on the actual political climate we are seeing IRL. So don't worry, you should still expect a lot of read on the 2018 maps. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: nerd73 on September 10, 2018, 07:47:00 AM
Preliminary guesses (not really ranked in order of competitiveness between states in the same category):

Pacific: Safe D, almost certain to be D vs D if OTL California primary system is kept
Chicago: Safe D
Maryland: Safe D
New York: Safe D
Massachusetts: Safe D
Washington: Safe D
Pennsylvania: Safe D
New England: Safe D
Rio Grande: Safe D, if it was a Clinton midterm it would be more interesting
Michigan: Safe D/Likely D, pretty much the same as OTL
Wisconsin: Likely D, pretty much the same as OTL
California: Lean D/Tilt D, as long as Democrats can keep their gains from 2016
Nevada: Tilt D/Tossup, pretty much the same as OTL
Lincoln: Tossup, could move to Lean D or Lean R depending on the candidate
South Florida: Tossup, I have no idea how this one will go.
North Florida: Tossup, Bill Nelson could be in serious trouble here, but generally he does pretty well with Dixiecrats
Indiana: Tossup/Tilt R, the lack of Gary in the north pushes Indiana somewhat to the right, making re-election harder for Donnelly. Still winnable for Democrats though.
Allegheny: Lean R/Likely R, Rick Santorum is pretty far-right and a Conor Lamb-style Democrat could make this race close, but Allegheny's partisan lean probably allows Republicans to pull it out in the end
Ohio: Likely R, can't really see Democrats flipping this seat, but they held it as late as 2013, and they can't be completely counted out.
Texas: Likely R/Safe R, again, can't really see Democrats flipping this, seems significantly more Republican than OTL texas.
Jefferson: Safe R, nothing to see here.

States that are the same as OTL were not included in these ratings. Tell me if I missed anything.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: nerd73 on November 13, 2018, 08:40:02 AM
My guess for the results:

()

Indiana: Donnelly is toast.
Lincoln: Given Tester only narrowly hanged on with the OTL map and how badly Heitkamp lost, it seems reasonable to think that Lincoln's Class 1 seat flips.
North Florida: Given that Scott is leading with the OTL map with South Florida, can't see the Republicans losing North Florida.
South Florida: Although Republicans overperformed here, Scott's very narrow margin statewide (and the Republican win in North Florida) probably means this seat flips blue.
California: This is difficult to guess given that there was no D-R election in OTL California, but I'd guess Democrats would narrowly pick it up.
Allegheny: RicK Santorum wins re-election probably by high single digits/low double digits.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong on November 13, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
Beautiful!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS on November 13, 2018, 07:26:15 PM
Early 2020 predictions:

Republican incumbents lose easily in New England and Colorado.

Arizona special election could possibly give Democrats a gain, as could Illinois, Iowa, and North Carolina.

Alabama is the only vulnerable Democratic seat.

Reach targets for Democrats in Allegheny, Georgia, Kansas, and Alaska.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on November 13, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
My guess for the results:

()

Indiana: Donnelly is toast.
Lincoln: Given Tester only narrowly hanged on with the OTL map and how badly Heitkamp lost, it seems reasonable to think that Lincoln's Class 1 seat flips.
North Florida: Given that Scott is leading with the OTL map with South Florida, can't see the Republicans losing North Florida.
South Florida: Although Republicans overperformed here, Scott's very narrow margin statewide (and the Republican win in North Florida) probably means this seat flips blue.
California: This is difficult to guess given that there was no D-R election in OTL California, but I'd guess Democrats would narrowly pick it up.
Pennsylvania: RicK Santorum wins re-election probably by high single digits/low double digits.


This I would assume would be in a world where Trump won like in ours. In a Clinton midterm I actually thing that de Leon's overpreformance OTL shows signs of the GOP holding on in California.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Politician on November 18, 2018, 07:37:26 PM
My guess for the 2018 Gubernatorial elections:

Phil Scott wins with close to 60% in New England.
Republicans narrowly hold Adriondack.
Allegheny flips due to Corbett's unpopularity (I think Wolf narrowly carried this part of IRL Pennsylvania).
LaTourette gets crushed in Erie.
Republicans hold Illinois.
Walker still loses in Wisconsin-adding the upper peninsula would just make it even closer.
California narrowly flips.
Rio Grande flips by double digits.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: E-Dawg 🇺🇦🇦🇲 on November 25, 2020, 02:36:10 PM
I am greatly interested in seeing a 2020 election update once all states are certified. I'm particularly curious to see if Trump wins South Florida and/or Rio Grande. Both seem like plausible Clinton-Trump states in this sencerio.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS on November 25, 2020, 02:50:43 PM
I am greatly interested in seeing a 2020 election update once all states are certified. I'm particularly curious to see if Trump wins South Florida and/or Rio Grande. Both seem like plausible Clinton-Trump states in this sencerio.
I calculated South Florida here already myself before, and it narrowly went to Biden.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: E-Dawg 🇺🇦🇦🇲 on November 25, 2020, 03:03:54 PM
I am greatly interested in seeing a 2020 election update once all states are certified. I'm particularly curious to see if Trump wins South Florida and/or Rio Grande. Both seem like plausible Clinton-Trump states in this sencerio.
I calculated South Florida here already myself before, and it narrowly went to Biden.
Do you have the percentages?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Mr. Smith on November 27, 2020, 02:08:18 PM
Will Ohio [or is that called Erie in this map] still be Biden, now that is a good question.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS on November 27, 2020, 11:36:15 PM
()
Source: States official election results.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MillennialModerate on November 28, 2020, 12:01:07 PM
I think this makes the population split more reasonable while keeping the senates rural state by state (GOP favoring) lean in place.  So it’s not too much of a slant to one party. It also makes the electoral vote split more reasonable.


1. North Dakota and South Dakota = Dakota (est 4 ev) -2
2. Vermont and New Hampshire = New Hampshire (est 5 ev) -2
3. Massachusetts and Rhode Island = Massachusetts (est 13 ev) -2
4. Puerto Rico Territory = Puerto Rico (est 7 ev)
5. West Virginia and Virginia = Virginia (est 17 ev) -1
6. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana = Midahoming (est 7 ev) -4
7. Maryland and Delaware = Maryland (est 12 ev) -1
8. California divided into 2 = North Calif & South Calif (est 20/25 ev)

Brings the total states to 45 states.

GOP loses 6 Senate Seats total in (1) and (6)
Democrats lose 6 Senate seats in (2) (3) and (7)
Democrats gain 4 Senate seats in (4) and (8)
(5) becomes a straight tossup state.

So Democrats likely gain 4 Senate seats without (though PR isn’t Safe Dem but Likely) and Virginia becomes a tossup so they could lose 2 to make the gains 2 or win both to make it +6. I don’t like DC becoming a state. (I like a constitutional amendment to give DC 1 Senate seat and 2 House seats). So these changes make the Senate still with a slight lean to the state by state (GOP favored) model as opposed to the population (Dem favored) model which keep the Senate as unique and diffrent from the House. But at the same time it’s at least reasonable - where now it’s a ridiculous slant.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: MillennialModerate on November 29, 2020, 10:32:32 AM
^
Could someone make maps and show recent election results with those parameters?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: TwinGeeks99 on November 30, 2020, 01:41:03 AM
When do you think you can make a map of the 2020 election using those state boundaries?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: E-Dawg 🇺🇦🇦🇲 on December 14, 2020, 12:09:21 AM
Are you going to make a 2020 map anytime soon?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2020, 11:17:20 PM
When do you think you can make a map of the 2020 election using those state boundaries?
Are you going to make a 2020 map anytime soon?

Appreciate the interest! A full set of maps and analysis will be forthcoming, but probably not for another couple months because 1. I'm pretty busy right now and will be for a while and 2. I do want to wait until the results are 100% definitive.

In the meantime, if someone wants to calculate preliminary results, you're obviously welcome to do so.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2020, 11:24:07 PM
()
Source: States official election results.

Yeesh.

If this is true, it'd be a 1.8-point swing to the right from 2016. And the first time in the entire series (so going back to at least 1960, but more likely actually to 1936) that Erie had a Republican PVI. Pretty devastating.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: E-Dawg 🇺🇦🇦🇲 on February 13, 2021, 01:54:25 AM
Has anyone calculated percentages for Rio Grande?


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 23, 2021, 12:48:47 PM
Okay, I know I've waited so long that the hype is probably long dead now, but here is at long last the 2020 update!


2020

()

Joe Biden: 315 (+9)
Donald J. T***p: 223 (-9)

Biden wins with a slightly larger share of the Electoral College. By and large, the changes made to the map cancel each other out. The splits tend to favor Biden, as he nets a lot of EVs out of Rio Grande, South Florida and Erie (even though his margin of victory in all these states is underwhelming compared to previous Dems in recent elections). He of course loses Allegheny and Illinois, also in line with the previous few maps. Hilariously enough, the shifting of the Upper Peninsula from MI to WI, which was so critical in flipping the result for Hillary in 2016, ends up working against Biden this time around: he still wins Michigan fairly comfortably, but ends up losing Wisconsin by just a tenth of a point. As a result, all of Biden's Rust Belt flips IRL are nullified by this map: PA, AY, MI and WI all voted the same way in 2020 as in 2016. Whereas Biden was acclaimed IRL for bringing Democrats back into the Midwest, this map appears to put more emphasis on the Sun Belt component of his victory. GA and AZ, which are unaffected by the redrawing, still barely flip to the Democrats. The third and final flip of this map (which is otherwise a perfect clone of 2016) is Adirondack, where Biden's solid appeal among White working-class Northeasterners seems to have proved decisive. Still, overall, there's far more continuity with 2016 than change here.

PVI map:
()

Donald J. T***p: 322 (+11)
Joe Biden: 216 (-11)

While the topline map looks pretty good for Biden, looking below the surface to state PVIs reveals a far bleaker picture. Even bleaker, in fact, than even the RL map. Nearly 60% of the Electoral College under this scenario would be drawn from a state with a Republican PVI, which almost all the swing states leaning to the right. Minnesota is the lone Dem-leaning swing state, with a D+3 PVI. On the other end, though, there are a full 9 states (totaling 109 EVs) with a PVI between 0 and R+5. This is a striking reversal from even just 2016, where you could see plenty of pink on that map. What happened? Many states that used to be slightly Dem-leaning saw unfavorable trends this cycle, largely having to do with their losses with Hispanics (which cost them SF, NV and CA) or further erosion with the Midwestern working class (costing them ER). There are also some states like AZ and GA which have trended Democratic, but not enough to flip their PVI. Overall, one interesting pattern is that a lot of states that used to be split between a clearly D one and a clearly R one see that difference erode: SF and ER are both striking in that regard. On the other hand, you have California reverting to a Republican PVI, and thus making the 3-way split of RL California matter again. It will be interesting to see where things go from there in that regard. While the breadth of Republican structural dominance is enhanced compared to the RL map, it is worth noting that its depth is significantly lessened. While IRL, the tipping point state (WI/PA had a R+3.5 PVI), under this map, it would be Nevada at a much more reasonable R+2. So Biden's victory would have looked far more comfortable and safe from the outset, compared to the nailbiters in PA/WI/AZ/GA that defined the election night IRL.

Swing/trend map:
()

The swing map is actually pretty informative, especially in isolating the places where Biden underperformed. We clearly see the Republican gains in large Northern city-states like NY and CH (as well as Erie, with its WWC electorate and its flagging Black turnout). We also see Biden's underperformance with Hispanic voters, especially Cubans in SF but also Mexicans in RG and CS. That aside, the swing map is a sea of pink, showing a fairly uniform swing to the left compared to 2016. The trend map largely confirms this picture, although it muddies it somewhat with the whole weirdness that we saw even in the RL trend map. Still, a few notable patterns arise. Most pleasantly, AD's Democratic trend contrasts with NY's Republican one, and creates a nice continuity with the New England states. RG also continues to stand out from the rest of RL Texas. Generally speaking, though, this map is pretty similar to the one we can see on Atlas.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +45.80)
- Most Republican: West Virginia (PVI -43.38)
- Closest: Wisconsin (margin -0.11)
- Bellwether: California (PVI -0.06)
- Tipping point: Nevada (PVI -1.97), after CA, AD, ER and MI
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Colorado (trend +6.24)
- Strongest Republican Trend: South Florida (trend -7.37)
- Most Stable (absolute): Pacific (swing -0.05)
- Most Stable (relative): North Carolina (trend -0.05)


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on September 23, 2021, 03:52:03 PM
Fascinating as always, Antonio. Somehow this ends up being both tantalizing and chilling.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 23, 2021, 11:28:10 PM
Fascinating as always, Antonio. Somehow this ends up being both tantalizing and chilling.

Thanks!! :) And yeah, I keep wondering if this map would be better or worse than IRL. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on September 23, 2021, 11:31:20 PM
Good work.


Title: Re: Alternate US States - It's back !
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on September 24, 2021, 11:01:00 AM
Absolutely loved reading through this years ago. To (hopefully) help and to satisfy my own curiosity I've calculated the reapportionment for the 2020 census under these alternate states.

State2010 Population2020 Population% Change'10 CDs'20 CDsChange
California del Sur21,146,84722,123,016+4.62%3029−1
New York13,038,82613,863,559+6.33%1818
South Florida11,039,03512,452,991+12.81%1616
Georgia9,687,65310,711,908+10.57%1414
North Carolina9,535,48310,439,388+9.48%1314+1
Jefferson8,796,33910,180,914+15.74%1213+1
Texas8,599,8279,953,278+15.74%1213+1
Chicago9,686,0219,838,421+1.57%1413−1
Michigan9,572,2799,775,723+2.13%1413−1
Washington8,573,4329,731,383+13.51%1213+1
Pacific8,906,5049,610,480+7.90%1313
New Jersey8,791,8949,288,994+5.65%1212
North Florida7,762,2759,085,196+17.04%1112+1
Rio Grande7,749,3959,011,313+16.28%1112+1
Virginia8,001,0248,631,393+7.88%1111
Massachusetts7,600,1968,127,296+6.94%1111
Pennsylvania7,773,4518,105,693+4.27%1111
Maryland7,273,2097,856,717+8.02%1010
California7,166,6827,771,312+8.44%1010
Arizona6,392,0177,151,502+11.88%99
Ohio6,852,2017,137,023+4.16%109−1
Tennessee6,346,1056,910,840+8.90%99
Adirondack6,339,2766,337,690−0.03%98−1
Missouri5,988,9276,154,913+2.77%88
Wisconsin5,831,9216,026,175+3.33%88
Indiana5,664,2655,954,448+5.12%88
Colorado5,029,1965,773,714+14.80%78+1
Minnesota5,303,9255,706,494+7.59%78+1
South Carolina4,625,3645,118,425+10.66%77
Alabama4,779,7365,024,279+5.12%77
Allegheny4,928,9284,897,007−0.65%77
Erie4,684,3034,662,425−0.47%76−1
Louisiana4,533,3724,657,757+2.74%66
Kentucky4,339,3674,505,836+3.84%66
Oregon3,549,7644,050,260+14.10%55
Illinois4,130,5743,974,318−3.78%65−1
Oklahoma3,751,3513,959,353+5.54%55
Connecticut3,574,0973,605,944+0.89%55
New England3,270,5723,382,965+3.44%55
Lincoln3,039,8123,326,837+9.44%44
Utah2,763,8853,271,616+18.37%44
Iowa3,046,3553,190,369+4.73%44
Nevada2,734,4743,138,029+14.76%44
Arkansas2,915,9183,011,524+3.28%44
Mississipi2,967,2972,961,279−0.20%44
Kansas2,853,1182,937,880+2.97%44
New Mexico2,059,1792,117,522+2.83%33
Nebraska1,826,3411,961,504+7.40%33
West Virginia1,852,9941,793,716−3.20%32−1
Hawaii1,360,3011,455,271+6.98%22
Alaska710,231733,391+3.26%11


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 24, 2021, 12:22:19 PM
Absolutely loved reading through this years ago. To (hopefully) help and to satisfy my own curiosity I've calculated the reapportionment for the 2020 census under these alternate states.

State2010 Population2020 Population% Change'10 CDs'20 CDsChange
California del Sur21,146,84722,123,016+4.62%3029−1
New York13,038,82613,863,559+6.33%1818
South Florida11,039,03512,452,991+12.81%1616
Georgia9,687,65310,711,908+10.57%1414
North Carolina9,535,48310,439,388+9.48%1314+1
Jefferson8,796,33910,180,914+15.74%1213+1
Texas8,599,8279,953,278+15.74%1213+1
Chicago9,686,0219,838,421+1.57%1413−1
Michigan9,572,2799,775,723+2.13%1413−1
Washington8,573,4329,731,383+13.51%1213+1
Pacific8,906,5049,610,480+7.90%1313
New Jersey8,791,8949,288,994+5.65%1212
North Florida7,762,2759,085,196+17.04%1112+1
Rio Grande7,749,3959,011,313+16.28%1112+1
Virginia8,001,0248,631,393+7.88%1111
Massachusetts7,600,1968,127,296+6.94%1111
Pennsylvania7,773,4518,105,693+4.27%1111
Maryland7,273,2097,856,717+8.02%1010
California7,166,6827,771,312+8.44%1010
Arizona6,392,0177,151,502+11.88%99
Ohio6,852,2017,137,023+4.16%109−1
Tennessee6,346,1056,910,840+8.90%99
Adirondack6,339,2766,337,690−0.03%98−1
Missouri5,988,9276,154,913+2.77%88
Wisconsin5,831,9216,026,175+3.33%88
Indiana5,664,2655,954,448+5.12%88
Colorado5,029,1965,773,714+14.80%78+1
Minnesota5,303,9255,706,494+7.59%78+1
South Carolina4,625,3645,118,425+10.66%77
Alabama4,779,7365,024,279+5.12%77
Allegheny4,928,9284,897,007−0.65%77
Erie4,684,3034,662,425−0.47%76−1
Louisiana4,533,3724,657,757+2.74%66
Kentucky4,339,3674,505,836+3.84%66
Oregon3,549,7644,050,260+14.10%55
Illinois4,130,5743,974,318−3.78%65−1
Oklahoma3,751,3513,959,353+5.54%55
Connecticut3,574,0973,605,944+0.89%55
New England3,270,5723,382,965+3.44%55
Lincoln3,039,8123,326,837+9.44%44
Utah2,763,8853,271,616+18.37%44
Iowa3,046,3553,190,369+4.73%44
Nevada2,734,4743,138,029+14.76%44
Arkansas2,915,9183,011,524+3.28%44
Mississipi2,967,2972,961,279−0.20%44
Kansas2,853,1182,937,880+2.97%44
New Mexico2,059,1792,117,522+2.83%33
Nebraska1,826,3411,961,504+7.40%33
West Virginia1,852,9941,793,716−3.20%32−1
Hawaii1,360,3011,455,271+6.98%22
Alaska710,231733,391+3.26%11

Oh, that's really cool, thanks! :D

I would have made the calculations eventually, but knowing me it would probably have taken way too long. :P


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 27, 2021, 08:35:09 AM
Washington8,573,4329,731,383+13.51%1213+1
Oregon3,549,7644,050,260+14.10%55

Okay, I ended up running my own calculations after all. They track yours everywhere except here, because I have WA at 9,729,077 and OR at 4,052,566. So there are 2306 people you put in WA that I put in OR. Not sure where those come from since there's no single county with that population, but maybe there was a switcheroo somewhere.

Still, great work!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Joseph Cao on September 28, 2021, 01:42:46 AM
Ooooh boy, it's back!


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on September 29, 2021, 06:35:19 AM
As I already had all the data compiled in a spreadsheet, thought it might be interesting to run a very rough prediction of the 2030 reapportionment. This is assuming every state grows at exactly the same rate they grew through the 2010s, so it won't be accurate but it gives a rough idea of what'll probably happen.

Closest Priority Values:
432. Indiana 8th
433. Wisconsin 8th
434. Pacific 13th
435. Massachusetts 11th
436. Minnesota 8th (lol)
437. Washington 14th
438. Georgia 15th
439. Alabama 7th
440. Lincoln 5th
441. Connecticut 5th

State'20 CDs'30 CDsChange
California del Sur2928−1
New York1818
South Florida1617+1
Georgia1414
Jefferson1314+1
Texas1314+1
North Carolina1414
Washington1313
North Florida1213+1
Rio Grande1213+1
Pacific1313
Chicago1312−1
Michigan1312−1
New Jersey1212
Virginia1111
Massachusetts1111
Maryland1010
Pennsylvania1110−1
California1010
Arizona910+1
Tennessee99
Ohio99
Colorado88
Adirondack88
Missouri88
Indiana88
Wisconsin88
Minnesota88
South Carolina77
Alabama76−1
Allegheny76−1
Louisiana66
Kentucky66
Erie66
Oregon56+1
Oklahoma55
Utah45+1
Illinois55
Lincoln44
Connecticut54−1
Nevada44
New England54−1
Iowa44
Arkansas44
Kansas44
Mississipi44
New Mexico33
Nebraska33
West Virginia22
Hawaii22
Alaska11


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: President of the civil service full of trans activists on September 29, 2021, 06:28:08 PM
Fairer map to people whose tax dollars are sent to far-right failed states:
()
I don't think this is a generic thread for other people's alternate US states. I think this is just for Antonio's alternate US states.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom on September 29, 2021, 06:29:39 PM
Fairer map to people whose tax dollars are sent to far-right failed states:
()
I don't think this is a generic thread for other people's alternate US states. I think this is just for Antonio's alternate US states.

Ah.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OBD on September 29, 2021, 07:00:55 PM
()

Here's some potential congressional districts for the states of Erie and Ohio. Some analysis for this redraw:

Erie

In 2010, a (albeit reduced) Democratic trifecta redrew the lines in Erie once again, creating six safe seats for their representatives while drawing a sink for lone GOP representative Jim Renacci. And, despite extremely unfavorable trends over the decade, the Erie Democrats managed to hold most of these seats (with Tim Ryan's narrow 2-point loss in 2020 the sole). However, redistricting in Erie is now in the hands of an independent commission for the first time in the state's history. The map it drew is significantly less favorable to the Democrats - 5 of 6 districts now lean to the right of the nation. In particular, Tim Ryan (D-Youngstown) has been placed into an extremely bad situation for a comeback, now representing a Trump+11 seat. With the retirement of Dennis Kucinich (D-Lakewood) of the 3rd District, the Erie Democrats have dodged the bullet of a double-incumbent primary, but must now defend three incumbents in marginal seats.

Ohio
Once again, the Republicans are in firm control of redistricting in the Buckeye State. In 2010, they drew a ruthless gerrymander leaving Joyce Beatty of Cleveland as the sole Democratic representative. This year, they refined this gerrymander, adjusting for the lost seat and the retirement of Steve Stivers (R-Upper Arlington). Every non-Columbus seat is now at least Trump+15, with Democratic trends tampered through cracking with Ohio's extremely Republican rural areas. Barring the sudden acceleration of said trends, a 8-1 delegation appears extremely likely to hold for the decade.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on September 29, 2021, 10:03:55 PM
I also drew some maps for Erie and Ohio, although mine are less realistic because they are fair.

Erie 2012-2020 (https://davesredistricting.org/join/12197f75-ec30-4be6-910a-e53cba87175e) 6D-1R holds until 2020, when ER-1 flips to the GOP. ER-6 was almost also lost that same year.

Erie for 2022 (https://davesredistricting.org/join/b65b4649-c2ac-4d1a-aac9-d27ecae59530) 2 D districts, 2 R districts, and 2 swing districts.

Ohio 2012-2020 (https://davesredistricting.org/join/06d45d9f-8647-428c-9aab-e34bd0ddd05b) More fairly drawn Ohio with a blue OH-1 for Cincy. OH-6 was held by a Democrat briefly after 2012, but was won by the GOP in 2014 and has been held since. OH-9 was flipped by Democrats in 2018 due to Trends and held in 2020.

Ohio for 2022 (https://davesredistricting.org/join/1e5c85dd-ef95-4854-bf13-cc102985c188) Redistricting benefits the GOP. While it's the old OH-3 that ends up cut by the commission, the new OH-3 (successor to OH-6) is more GOP. Republicans get a big chance to retake the outer Columbus seat which now includes Springfield and has been renumbered from 9 to 7.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2021, 04:00:21 AM

Fascinating! Thank you both for your contributions. :)

OBD is right that Republicans in OH would probably go for the hard gerrymander, but I love seeing fair maps too.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: OBD on September 30, 2021, 02:29:41 PM

Fascinating! Thank you both for your contributions. :)

OBD is right that Republicans in OH would probably go for the hard gerrymander, but I love seeing fair maps too.
Thanks!

Is there a county map somewhere? Interested in trying Rio Grande but I'm not sure what the exact district lines are.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2021, 02:46:38 PM

Fascinating! Thank you both for your contributions. :)

OBD is right that Republicans in OH would probably go for the hard gerrymander, but I love seeing fair maps too.
Thanks!

Is there a county map somewhere? Interested in trying Rio Grande but I'm not sure what the exact district lines are.

Here's the map that I posted to illustrate its politics back in the day (2012 Presidential vote):

()


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on October 01, 2021, 02:31:14 PM
While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2021, 08:28:22 AM
While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9

Wow, the 5-seat one doesn't even look gerrymandered. I guess downstate IL is just that Republican nowadays... :(


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: bagelman on October 06, 2021, 09:18:24 AM
While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9

Wow, the 5-seat one doesn't even look gerrymandered. I guess downstate IL is just that Republican nowadays... :(

Yep. Here's (https://davesredistricting.org/join/8aedc612-1583-46dd-a161-f3ba8bfd260f) a Dem friendly map to illustrate this.


Title: Re: Alternate US States
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2021, 10:26:40 AM
While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9

Wow, the 5-seat one doesn't even look gerrymandered. I guess downstate IL is just that Republican nowadays... :(

Yep. Here's (https://davesredistricting.org/join/8aedc612-1583-46dd-a161-f3ba8bfd260f) a Dem friendly map to illustrate this.

Yeesh, wow. One D+3 PVI district is all and one R+7 one all you can scrounge up for Dems. That's quite a fall from even just 2008 when Obama won outright.