GriffGraph: Presidential Preference by Region + Balance of Power Post-Elections

[Adam Griffin]

Lots of political shifts going on in the Mideast right now - will wait until next weekly count to reflect changes for the following map:

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I like this, but I must note that the Northeast does possess a CJO and recent ex-candidate for Senate by the name of Belgiansocialist.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Senator Ben has switched parties (MCPR).

[Adam Griffin]

I like this, but I must note that the Northeast does possess a CJO and recent ex-candidate for Senate by the name of Belgiansocialist.

Updated.

Senator Ben has switched parties (MCPR).

EDIT: Seeing all the individuals in the Mideast joining MCPR after the fact and in order to keep consistency, I am going to hold off on changing the result until the next weekly count.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are the background colors meant to indicate voter registration? If so, what happened to the Pacific's Laborite plurality?

(As Chairman I do declare that 'Laborite' is my preferred demonym for members of the Party.)

ETA: Oh, I see. Would it be possible to have either the backgrounds or something else just reflect registration, since not every party runs candidates in every region every election?

[Napoleon]

There were a few surprises. An underwhelming performance in the IDS was offset by putting up decent numbers in the Mideast. Tweed support was higher than I expected in the Northeast and lower than I expected in the Pacific.

[Adam Griffin]

Are the background colors meant to indicate voter registration? If so, what happened to the Pacific's Laborite plurality?

(As Chairman I do declare that 'Laborite' is my preferred demonym for members of the Party.)

The background color is reflective of the majority or plurality party control shown below: an average of registration, legislative makeup and "other" elected makeup. In the Pacific's case, you get:

Registration (36.36%)
Legislature (36.36%)
Non-Legislature (0%)
---------------------------
Labor: 24.24%

Registration (27.27%)
Legislature (27.27%)
Non-Legislature (50.00%)
---------------------------
Liberal: 34.84%

The lack of Labor officeholders in the Pacific is what gives the Liberal Party an advantage here.

[Adam Griffin]

There were a few surprises. An underwhelming performance in the IDS was offset by putting up decent numbers in the Mideast. Tweed support was higher than I expected in the Northeast and lower than I expected in the Pacific.

I was really surprised at how well Tweed did in the NE, and Oakvale as well for that matter; there was a rather great oldie turnout. I would have expected Tweed to do better in the Midwest, too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd still like to ask that a measure of simple voter registration be included in your graphs. Other than that, they're excellent visual summaries of where things stand, and I think can become a very useful tool for party leaders and interested citizens in tracking trends in relative strengths and benches for higher offices.

[Adam Griffin]

I'd still like to ask that a measure of simple voter registration be included in your graphs. Other than that, they're excellent visual summaries of where things stand, and I think can become a very useful tool for party leaders and interested citizens in tracking trends in relative strengths and benches for higher offices.

Well, the one above does take that into account, along with other variables. In fact, in the Pacific and the Midwest, census/voter registration is counted twice since there are universal legislatures there. If you're wanting a map that solely shows party affiliation, then this would be what you're looking for:

This one uses the most updated Census post for every region except the Mideast, which includes the new MCPR flips.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you. I knew which parties were dominant in which reasons but I hadn't calculated the percentages.