Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2014, 04:59:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  International What-ifs (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  US with Australian parties
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: US with Australian parties  (Read 4033 times)
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« on: February 03, 2012, 08:50:40 am »
Ignore

Discuss with maps.

I'd think...

Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2012, 02:38:16 am »
Ignore

Essentially the same as it is in real life; the ALP is as close to the Democratic Party as any party in the world.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2012, 02:01:36 pm »
Ignore

Australian politics are probably the most similar to American of any country; ALP and Liberal-National would be strong in roughly the same places as their American counterparts.  Of course, compulsory voting and IRV might mess things up.
Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2012, 02:07:58 pm »
Ignore

One addendum - Labor would do even worse in coal country than the Dems, given their obsession with carbon taxes.
Logged

morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2012, 06:09:02 pm »
Ignore

Australian politics are probably the most similar to American of any country; ALP and Liberal-National would be strong in roughly the same places as their American counterparts.  Of course, compulsory voting and IRV might mess things up.

Yeah I think you're right (although the Canadian Liberals are probably closer to the American Democrats than the ALP are) - I was tempted to start this thread up earlier, but realised that it would be kinda similar. I doubt the MM would have such an influence with compulsory voting, but IRV would've counted for Sweet FA given that America's a two-party system.

A few notes, however....

* Farming areas would be better for the LNP than it is for the GOP due to agrarian socialism having a true party (the Nationals)
* Dunno if coal country would be so bad for the ALP, while the WA mining areas (think areas like Texas) have moved towards the LNP, Queensland areas still kinda lean ALP.
* Wealthy, moderate suburban areas would be better for the LNP than the GOP. Most of Australian suburbia is run-down and highly ethnic though.
* Greens wouldn't win any states, but would make an impact in areas such as Vermont and Oregon, for example. However, given most preferences flow to the ALP, I'm not sure how relevant this is. The other minor parties have little impact, though I may reassess depending on how well Katter's party does.
* Old people vote Liberal rather than "who gives them the most money" to quote my step-dad.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1000
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2012, 06:27:37 pm »
Ignore

I'd probably lean toward Liberal, although I agree with the National Party's platform as well.

Does any Australian on the boards think the two parties will merge?
Logged

morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2012, 06:33:29 pm »
Ignore

I'd probably lean toward Liberal, although I agree with the National Party's platform as well.

Does any Australian on the boards think the two parties will merge?

Merged in Queensland already and I think they will eventually merge. They are Coalition partners after all.....
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6023
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2012, 06:36:42 pm »
Ignore

I'd probably lean toward Liberal, although I agree with the National Party's platform as well.

Does any Australian on the boards think the two parties will merge?

Party registration is by state, so, for example, there is the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales) Division, the Liberal Party of Australia (Victoria) Division, etc. Each one is technically a separate party, although all are affiliated and pay an annual subscription to the federal division (at least, that's my understanding of how it works). The merger would need to be put to a vote of members in each state division. This has already happened in Queensland, where the parties merged a few years back. I don't think any other states are currently considering this. I believe the LNP is affiliated federally with the Liberals, rather than the Nationals but I could be wrong. MPs and Senators choose (or are allotted?) a party to caucus in federally (although obviously all sit in the joint Coalition Party Room, it's just for the split party room meetings where it matters).
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56615
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2012, 06:40:11 pm »
Ignore

One addendum - Labor would do even worse in coal country than the Dems, given their obsession with carbon taxes.

Ah, so you've not discovered how the Hunter Valley votes yet.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8682
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2012, 06:49:13 pm »
Ignore

Aus election 2010 (basically as close to 50-50 as you're going to get) in the US:


Tony Abbott, if he was American, would be loved by the GOP. He's a bit Bushish, right? And they'd get the whole social conservative, church going (although he's Catholic), faux man of the people, folksy thing.

And they'd hate the athiest, cohabiting, gay marriage supporting (Welsh, ginger) ALP leader who knifed Kev. With a passion. More than they hate BHO. (And could Keneally ruin Ohio for Julia? Wink)


2007 wouldn't have been too different to the US 2008 map:


« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:57:57 pm by There's a lot of reasons not to elect Mitt »Logged

Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8218
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2012, 06:50:30 pm »
Ignore

A Kevin Rudd-Malcolm Turnbull race would be pretty interesting in the U.S.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1000
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2012, 06:51:47 pm »
Ignore

Thanks guys.
Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2012, 07:35:51 pm »
Ignore

One addendum - Labor would do even worse in coal country than the Dems, given their obsession with carbon taxes.

Ah, so you've not discovered how the Hunter Valley votes yet.

Well I was under the impression that it was "American parties being replaced by Australian ones" not "American parties being replaced by Australian ones and Americans being replaced by Australians as well."
Logged

Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56615
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2012, 08:25:24 pm »
Ignore

One addendum - Labor would do even worse in coal country than the Dems, given their obsession with carbon taxes.

Ah, so you've not discovered how the Hunter Valley votes yet.

Well I was under the impression that it was "American parties being replaced by Australian ones" not "American parties being replaced by Australian ones and Americans being replaced by Australians as well."

It's implicit though, isn't it? At least to the point of the general political culture. Otherwise this sort of thing doesn't even work as a time wasting exercise.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6023
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2012, 08:25:49 pm »
Ignore

One addendum - Labor would do even worse in coal country than the Dems, given their obsession with carbon taxes.

Ah, so you've not discovered how the Hunter Valley votes yet.

Perhaps all the mining areas got moved into Flynn, but Capricornia also had (has?) a fair swag of coal mines, too. A few in Dawson, although plenty of farming there to balance it a bit. Still a gain by Labor in 2007 on a big swing. Disregard Mt Isa, since Kennedy is independent-held, and includes plenty of cattle grazing.
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38863
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2012, 02:00:34 am »
Ignore

I'd probably lean toward Liberal, although I agree with the National Party's platform as well.

Does any Australian on the boards think the two parties will merge?

Party registration is by state, so, for example, there is the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales) Division, the Liberal Party of Australia (Victoria) Division, etc. Each one is technically a separate party, although all are affiliated and pay an annual subscription to the federal division (at least, that's my understanding of how it works). The merger would need to be put to a vote of members in each state division. This has already happened in Queensland, where the parties merged a few years back. I don't think any other states are currently considering this. I believe the LNP is affiliated federally with the Liberals, rather than the Nationals but I could be wrong. MPs and Senators choose (or are allotted?) a party to caucus in federally (although obviously all sit in the joint Coalition Party Room, it's just for the split party room meetings where it matters).

It's worth noting that the state parties run candidates in both federal and state elections; this is different than Canada, where provincial parties are separate from federal parties (although they may be affiliated). This confused me for a while.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6023
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2012, 05:39:21 am »
Ignore

I'd probably lean toward Liberal, although I agree with the National Party's platform as well.

Does any Australian on the boards think the two parties will merge?

Party registration is by state, so, for example, there is the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales) Division, the Liberal Party of Australia (Victoria) Division, etc. Each one is technically a separate party, although all are affiliated and pay an annual subscription to the federal division (at least, that's my understanding of how it works). The merger would need to be put to a vote of members in each state division. This has already happened in Queensland, where the parties merged a few years back. I don't think any other states are currently considering this. I believe the LNP is affiliated federally with the Liberals, rather than the Nationals but I could be wrong. MPs and Senators choose (or are allotted?) a party to caucus in federally (although obviously all sit in the joint Coalition Party Room, it's just for the split party room meetings where it matters).

It's worth noting that the state parties run candidates in both federal and state elections; this is different than Canada, where provincial parties are separate from federal parties (although they may be affiliated). This confused me for a while.

Quite right. I should have specified that. You are entirely correct - I hadn't considered the Canadian comparison. Should have, but didn't. You are spot on, though.
Logged
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2012, 07:08:24 am »
Ignore

To take a leaf out of Hasemite/Al's book, I'll post up how I think the 50 states would vote, with an analysis....

Maine: This state votes for person over party, is kinda working-class and rural to some degree, and has contrary political patterns. Probably America’s equivalent of Tasmania. As such, it would lean Labor, but it would still be a swingish-sorta state.

2010: Great result for Labor, winning in most places. Liberal are way behind.
2007: Labor regain the lost ground from 2004, but with a smaller swing than the rest of the nation.
2004: Becomes highly marginal all of a sudden and the Liberals take back some of the areas that they lost in the 90’s.
1998: Labor’s best result in a long time, taking the state despite losing the country.
1996: Returns to Liberal hands, but by a narrow margin.
1983: A rare good result for the LNC, winning here comfortably.
1974: Liberal win, but not a big one. Labor are closer to victory here than any year since the 40’s.

New Hampshire: A solidly LNC state at the local level, in part due to their policies being less “OMG BABYKILLERS” and “OMG THE GAYZ” than the Republicans are irl. But due to a lack of immigrants, plus the state being in New England, it would’ve turned heavily against the LNC during the One Nation/boat people era.

2010: Labor hold, because Abbott would’ve been a poor candidate for this state.
2007: Labor win the state for the first time in like forever.
2004: Similar story to 1998, but it ends up breaking more easily for Howard.
1998: Labor have hopes of taking the state, but they don’t. Howard is just as bad as a candidate for NH as Abbott is. The state would’ve been in some doubt on election night.
1996: Solid Liberal win, but not quite as huge as the rest of the country.
1983: Stays in Liberal hands with a very comfortable margin.
1974: Liberal’s still win comfortably, but with a smaller margin than most elections.

Vermont: Vermont would probably be similar to real life. Once a LNC stronghold, it has taken a heavy shift left, and now almost no Liberal candidate could win here.

2010: Probably Gillard’s best state, winning around 70% of the vote of the 2PP v Liberal vote. Liberal gets relegated to 3rd.
2007: Big Rudd win. Liberal probably finish 3rd here.
2004: Anti-Howard sentiments give Latham over 60% of the vote.
1998: Labor win big here, probably by their largest margin ever.
1996: Stays in Labor’s hands to many people’s surprise, and the turning point for Vermont’s shift left.
1983: Big swing against the Liberals, but not quite enough to put it in Labor’s hands.
1974: Big Liberal win, but Labor’s best result since Federation probably.

Massachusetts: With a high Catholic and minority population, along with liberal yuppies for good balance, this would be a Labor stronghold.

2010: Odd shift towards Abbott, but nowhere near enough to put the state in jeopardy. Big Greens vote nearly allows them to overtake the LNC for 2nd.
2007: A solid win for Rudd, but not a huge one.
2004: Latham’s best state, due to anti-Howard sentiments being stronger here than most other states.
1998: Strong win for Labor, but not as big as other places. Still probably around 60% of the vote though.
1996: Still a comfortable win for Labor, but Liberal do quite well here.
1983: A huge Labor win, winning between 65-70% of the vote.
1974: Big Labor win as usual.

Rhode Island: Working-class Labor stronghold, it would vote for them by heavy margins (they probably get over 70% of the vote in 1998, 1993 and 2007, for example). In the 50’s and the 60’s, the DLP would do pretty good here, perhaps even handing the LNC a win in an election like 1966.

2010: Somewhat large swing against Labor gives the LNC a surprisingly small(er) margin of defeat than usual.
2007: Probably Rudd’s best state, winning over 70% of the vote. The LNC struggles to win many precincts, let alone counties.
2004: Somewhat better for Howard than the rest of New England, but still quite a heavy Latham state.
1998: Beazley wins with over 70% of the vote.
1996: Pretty big Labor win, but a large swing towards the LNC regardless.
1983: See 1974 and most Labor victories up until this point.
1974: Massive Labor win, with over 70% of the vote.

Connecticut: Unlike in the US, wealthy suburbia, even those with a liberalish streak, in Australia votes for the LNC (although in reality there aren’t really many comparisons as suburban Australia is quite poor). Or at least it did. Still, given this is the wealthiest state in America, it would probably be an LNC stronghold. Connecticut would also be good for socially liberal 3rd parties, such as the Democrats and the Greens.

2010: Pretty comfortable win by Abbott, seeing the state return to its traditionally blue status.
2007: Rudd wins this state narrowly, a sign of his new electoral coalition.
2004: Connecticut oddly becomes marginal for the first time since the 80’s, because of a good-sized Greens vote.
1998: Moderate sized Howard victory.
1996: One of Howard’s best states, but it doesn’t go over 60%.
1983: A narrow Liberal win.
1974: Liberal still win here, but it is one of Labor’s best results in quite a long time.

New York: Unlike the other states I have looked at so far, NY isn’t very homogenous. Rather it has one mega-city, parts of its suburbia (although also parts of it is in New Jersey and Connecticut), and quite a lot of rural areas and smaller cities upstate, which is mixed in demographic.

2010: Abbott wouldn’t be a very good fit in areas such as wealthy Manhattan, so Gillard narrowly wins.
2007: Rudd wins pretty heavily, winning between 55-60% of the vote.
2004: Anti-Howard sentiments (he’d be as unpopular as Bush in these states) gives Latham a surprisingly large win.
1998: Narrow Beazley win, about the same margin as he won nationwide.
1996: Narrow Howard win, in part due to big wins in NY suburbia.
1983: Solidly sized Hawke victory.
1974: Pretty big Whitlam victory, winning around 56-57% of the vote.

Pennsylvania: With good parts for both parties (Labor would win in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the Appalachian and rust belt areas of Pennsylvania, whereas the LNC would win everywhere else), this state would be the crucial bellwether/swing state in most/all elections. However, it would also have a shift to the right recently - it'd be more Labor-leaning than the country in normal elections in the older days.

2010: Narrow LNC victory, due to the state Labor government being shat on by the recession/general incompetence.
2007: Comfortable Rudd victory.
2004: Narrow Howard victory.
1998: Narrow Beazley victory, around what he got nationally.
1996: Moderate-sized Howard victory, around what he got nationally.
1983: Solid Hawke victory.
1974: Solid Whitlam victory.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 07:11:32 am by morgieb »Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6023
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2012, 03:49:42 am »
Ignore

I don't know much about Connecticut but it sounds like you're drawing a parallel with Mayo, Ryan or Higgins, perhaps even Kooyong.
Logged
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2012, 05:27:33 pm »
Ignore

I don't know much about Connecticut but it sounds like you're drawing a parallel with Mayo, Ryan or Higgins, perhaps even Kooyong.

More thinking Bennelong, or Wenworth/North Sydney.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6023
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2012, 06:35:29 pm »
Ignore

I don't know much about Connecticut but it sounds like you're drawing a parallel with Mayo, Ryan or Higgins, perhaps even Kooyong.

More thinking Bennelong, or Wenworth/North Sydney.

Yeah, those too.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8682
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2012, 08:46:12 pm »
Ignore

Funnily enough, a President Santorum and a Prime Minister Abbott would've surely got on like a house on fire.
Logged

morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2012, 11:57:33 pm »
Ignore

OK, I'm restarting this. This time, it'll be more in-depth, too.

Maine

This is a strange state. It's the most rural state in New England, and has a strong independent streak.

Greater Portland

Traditionally a fishing, shipping and manufacturing city, it has become more service based in recent years. Although by city standards it is very white, it is also very educated - according to Men's Health magazine it is the 9th most educated city in America. Although it has a small town style feel, it would still be Labor-leaning.

Rural Maine

This has more of a working-class feel, and logging and farming makes up much of Maine's economy in this part of the world. Would probably go Labor mostly.

Overall

Independent and contrarian. Maine seems like America's answer to Tasmania - which would make it Labor-leaning but prone to weird swings and very locally oriented. Independents would gain a lot of momentum here, and the Greens would poll well. So while Liberals wouldn't normally win Maine, it might still be interesting.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Liberal
1984: Liberal
1987: Liberal
1990: Liberal
1993: Labor
1996: Labor
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Labor
Logged
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2012, 05:33:43 pm »
Ignore

New Hampshire

Ah yes, the "live free or die" state. Without the ugly virus called taxation, it already becomes positive for the Liberals. Yet the ALP still has a base here, due to the working-class nature of the state - traditionally the state was largely a farming and agriculture based economy.

Manchester/Boston surburbia

The 2nd least taxed city in all of America. Due to wealthy Bostonites living here to avoid high taxes, you can imagine how this would vote.

Rural NH

Ironically, this area of the country is probably more Labor-leaning than the cities! Well, the more manufacturing areas would vote Labor, however this also has plenty of crusty libertarians on the farm which would make this area a swing region, perhaps more Liberal-leaning.

Overall

Definitely very Liberal voting. Don't believe me? Look at the voting patterns before the Clinton era. With the Liberals having more appeal to suburbanites and to moderates/libertarianish voters, it would make the state a Liberal bastion.

1972: Liberal
1974: Liberal
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Liberal
1984: Liberal
1987: Liberal
1990: Liberal
1993: Liberal
1996: Liberal
1998: Liberal
2001: Liberal
2004: Liberal
2007: Liberal
2010: Liberal
Logged
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5297
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2012, 05:50:14 pm »
Ignore

Comments, critique, etc. is appreciated.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines