US With British Parties
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:01:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  International What-ifs (Moderator: Dereich)
  US With British Parties
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Author Topic: US With British Parties  (Read 41189 times)
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:12:28 PM »
« edited: April 28, 2013, 07:52:36 AM by Reagan and Thatcher's Long Lost Son »

Hello everyone, firstly, I would like to thank Green Mountain Hashemite for the idea, his/her "US with French parties" topic is a very interesting read and even if you don't know too much about French politics, I recommend you read it. I found it so enjoyable, I've decided to create my own variant, using British political parties.

Firstly, I'll list all the parties and abbreviations thereof, for those who are unfamiliar with UK politics. As you can see, I have adapted several party names to US locations, the Americanized name will appear in square brackets:

Major parties:
Labour Party [or Labor in the US] (L) - A good chunk of the Democratic Party, particularly their ethnic minority supporters. Jimmy Carter, Eric Holder and Nancy Pelosi would all be Labor politicians.
Conservative (Tory) Party (C) - Would constitute conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Bloomberg, and Mitch Daniels all come to mind).
Liberal Democrats (LD) - Would be a mixed bag, but by and large a Democratic one. The likes of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid would be Lib Dems, as they are known in the UK.
Green (G) - Most likely led by Jill Stein, taking over from Ralph Nader. Bernie Sanders would likely fit in here too
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode Jr. and so on)

Ethnic and separtist parties:
British National Party (BNP) [American National Party (ANP)] - Caters for KKK members and racists, particularly working class racists, in general. George Wallace would have run as an ANP candidate back in the day.
Plaid Cymru (PC) [Plaid Alaska (PA)] - Alaskan nationalists, led by Sarah Palin Joe Miller. PA would be more conservative than PC, but still run on a separatist platform.
Scottish National Party (SNP) [Texan National Party (TNP)] - Texan nationalists, led by Rick Perry. Like PA, more conservative than their Celtic counterparts.
English Democrats (ED)[Hawaiian Democrats (HD)]  - Hawaiian nationalists, led by Neil Abercrombie Prince Quentin Kawananakoa. As I have limited knowledge of Hawaiian politics, please inform me if there are any separatist Hawaiian politicians that would make a good HD leader. A very small party, the Hawaiian Democrats call for the restoration of the old monarchy of Hawaii. Also, unlike PA and TNP (and for that matter, the ED), the Hawaii Democrats are a leftist party.
Respect - Would be prominent in some ethnic areas, not sure who their leader would be though. Cynthia McKinney perhaps?

Southwestern Parties (Main parties in AZ and NM):
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - Pro-American, conservative minor party in Arizona and New Mexico. Would draw supporters of all ethnicities.
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) [Southwest Unionist Party (SUP)]  - Staunchly pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would mainly draw white supporters, and Jan Brewer would be a likely leader.
Social Democratic and Labo(u)r (SDLP) - Left-wing party in Arizona and New Mexico, with primarily Latino supporters.
Sinn Fein (SF) [Nosotros Mismos (NM)] - Latino party in Arizona and New Mexico, calling for the return of these states to Mexico. Like Sinn Fein, Nosotros Mismos members would not take their seats in Congress.

And so, we begin:

Maine

A Conservative stronghold until the 1980s, both the LDs and Labor have made more of a presence here since then, particularly the former. Portland would have been a swinging Tory-Labor town in the past, although the transition to a service economy has boosted LD support. Augusta would also have a high LD vote. The northern border counties of the state would be a rural Labor area, in part due to the French influence. The remainder of the state would vote Conservative, although not as strongly as in years gone by. Minor parties would have next-to-no support here.

Here's how Maine would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Conservative
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Conservative
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Conservative
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Liberal Democrat, Labour 2nd.
2010: Liberal Democrat, Conservative 2nd. Labor's support would have plummeted significantly to both the LDs and Tories here.

New Hampshire

Owing to its long-time independent streak, New Hampshire would have a higher USIP vote than other New England states. Manchester would have been strong for Labor at the height of the textile history, but this would have declined over the past quarter of a century. Concord, with its large numbers of public servants, would be home to many Labor and LD voters, while rural NH would by and large be a Tory and USIP area.

Here's how New Hampshire would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Conservative
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Conservative
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Liberal (predecessor to the LDs)
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative

Vermont

Like Maine, Vermont would have been a Tory stronghold in years gone by. Like New Hampshire, Vermont has a history of an independent streak, although this isn't as prominent in modern Vermont. With the influx of progressives from further south, seeking a different lifestyle, Vermont has seen a spike in Labor, LD and Green support beginning in the Thatcher years (1979-1990), particularly the latter two over the past decade. USIP would have a sizeable vote here, not as big as in New Hampshire though. With a Cameron-style Tory, however Vermont is still vulnerable.

Here's how Vermont would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Liberal
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Liberal
October 1974: Liberal
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Liberal Democrat
2010: Liberal Democrat

*Edits 4/9/12* Added another politician to the Conservative group and changed all spellings of Labor in the election results sections to the American spelling.
*Edits 28/9/12* Added some more politicians
*Edits 9/12/12* Edited parties for states that I have not yet done, also introduced groupings for parties. No information for states that are already done has been altered.
*Edit 19/2/13* - Removed CA and TX from Southwestern parties list, as they aren't that Southwestern.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2012, 10:27:02 PM »

That's quite interesting and seems credible. Keep it going. Smiley
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2012, 10:34:46 PM »

Uh, I think you may be overstating the "leftism" of Jimmy Carter. Certainly, he became a lot more leftist after leaving office, but he wasn't the far-left socialist that some people think of him as. Carter had a moderate streak. He resisted the call from some quarters to push for a big healthcare bill (unlike Obama) and also deregulated the airlines and energy industry (something Obama would have never considered).
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2012, 12:35:03 AM »

Uh, I think you may be overstating the "leftism" of Jimmy Carter. Certainly, he became a lot more leftist after leaving office, but he wasn't the far-left socialist that some people think of him as. Carter had a moderate streak. He resisted the call from some quarters to push for a big healthcare bill (unlike Obama) and also deregulated the airlines and energy industry (something Obama would have never considered).

Thanks for that, I didn't know that. I still think Carter would be a better fit in the Labor party than the Lib Dems though, especially given his appeal to black voters. Which party would you have Carter in?
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2012, 01:23:45 AM »

USIP wouldn't do well in New England. They aren't very conservative up there Tongue

Otherwise gun stuff.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2012, 01:41:29 AM »
« Edited: June 10, 2013, 08:22:27 PM by Reagan and Thatcher's Long Lost Son »

Massachusetts

Central Boston and Springfield would be Labor strongholds, particularly the minority populations. Old manufacturing areas would be Labor bastions too. The gay community in Springfield would be home to sizeable LD and Green support. Suburbs of both cities, especially wealthier ones, would have been strong Tory bastions in years gone by, although both Labor and the Lib Dems would have made ground in recent years, the former when New Labor came in under Bill Clinton, the latter particularly in 2005. Rural Massachusetts would be primarily Tory, although the heavy Labor votes in Boston and Springfield outweigh rural Tory votes, except in high watermark years like 1983.

Here's how Massachusetts would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor, although the Lib Dems would have challenged considerably.
2010: Labor

And here's a map update, showing results of the 2010 election so far:



Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

EDIT: Revised 1970 result to Labor from Tory.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2012, 01:43:09 AM »

USIP wouldn't do well in New England. They aren't very conservative up there Tongue

Otherwise gun stuff.

As I mentioned earlier, New Hampshire would have a sizeable USIP vote, and Vermont would have trace elements of USIP here and there, but otherwise, USIP would not do very well in New England at all.

And thanks for the feedback, glad to hear you're enjoying it!
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2012, 02:36:55 AM »
« Edited: September 04, 2012, 02:43:36 AM by 後援会 »

Thanks for that, I didn't know that. I still think Carter would be a better fit in the Labor party than the Lib Dems though, especially given his appeal to black voters. Which party would you have Carter in?

Carter didn't really appeal to black voters better than really the generic Democrat. He captured a good 83% of the black vote. Which was actually less than Walter Mondale's 90%. He also captured 47% of white voters, quite possibly the best performance for any modern Democrat besides LBJ in 1964. He also captured 47% of Southern Whites, something completely unmatched.

Keep in mind Carter swept the South because campaigning as a born-again Christian, he swept evangelical voters by promising a religious salve to America's wounds. Really, Carter may have ran the second most religiously-charged campaign in American history (easily putting GWB to shame), with the possible exception of another progressive Christian evangelical, William Jennings Bryan.

If we're looking for someone who governed more from the left and has a tremendous appeal to black voters how about uh...Barack Obama?

I'm uncertain about the USIP appeal in New Hampshire. After all, keep in mind every campaign except for the Romney and Huntsman campaigns were basically dead going into New Hampshire in 2012. Perry and Bachmann probably carried less than 1% of the Republican primary vote.

Also, rural New Hampshire isn't actually more right-wing than the state at large. In fact, the most heavily Democratic area in the state is actually the mostly rural Upper Valley. The strength of the Republican Party is actually in the relatively urban (suburban) areas of Manchester/Nashua and its surrounding areas. Which I don't think makes it that different from Massachusetts (where mostly rural Western Massachusetts is extremely left-wing, and Republicans compete in the suburbs).

Also, I'm definitely enjoying this!
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2012, 02:51:11 AM »

Thanks for that, I didn't know that. I still think Carter would be a better fit in the Labor party than the Lib Dems though, especially given his appeal to black voters. Which party would you have Carter in?

Carter didn't really appeal to black voters better than really the generic Democrat. He captured a good 83% of the black vote. Which was actually less than Walter Mondale's 90%. He also captured 47% of white voters, quite possibly the best performance for any modern Democrat besides LBJ in 1964. He also captured 47% of Southern Whites, something completely unmatched.

Keep in mind Carter swept the South because campaigning as a born-again Christian, he swept evangelical voters by promising a religious salve to America's wounds. Really, Carter may have ran the second most religiously-charged campaign in American history (easily putting GWB to shame), with the possible exception of another progressive Christian evangelical, William Jennings Bryan.

If we're looking for someone who governed more from the left and has a tremendous appeal to black voters how about uh...Barack Obama?

I'm uncertain about the USIP appeal in New Hampshire. After all, keep in mind every campaign except for the Romney and Huntsman campaigns were basically dead going into New Hampshire in 2012. Perry and Bachmann probably carried less than 1% of the Republican primary vote.

Also, rural New Hampshire isn't actually more right-wing than the state at large. In fact, the most heavily Democratic area in the state is actually the mostly rural Upper Valley. The strength of the Republican Party is actually in the relatively urban (suburban) areas of Manchester/Nashua and its surrounding areas. Which I don't think makes it that different from Massachusetts (where mostly rural Western Massachusetts is extremely left-wing, and Republicans compete in the suburbs).

Also, I'm definitely enjoying this!

Thanks for your feedback, and my reason for a decent USIP vote in New Hampshire is that Ron Paul attracted a  fair amount of support in the 2012 presidential primary. This comes from a large portion of New Hampshirites' fiscal conservatism, which also explains the higher Tory vote than in the rest of New England. As for the Bachmann wing of USIP, no, they would not be popular in NH at all.

Glad to hear you're enjoying this as well! Smiley I'll do RI and CT next.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2012, 03:26:13 AM »

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2012, 05:10:08 AM »

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2012, 03:31:22 PM »

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.

I disagree that California would be a strong Lib Dem stronghold. For one, the core base of support for the California Democratic Party is the public sector unions, namely the California Teacher's Association, the Prison Guard unions, and the SIEU. In primaries, the union-backed primary always wins, even if the other candidate is more "progressive" on liberal social issues. If anything, the social liberal-environmentalist vote is more up for grabs than the rest of the California Democratic Party - as seen by the Arnold S.'s gubernatorial victories.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2012, 03:54:25 PM »

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.

I disagree that California would be a strong Lib Dem stronghold. For one, the core base of support for the California Democratic Party is the public sector unions, namely the California Teacher's Association, the Prison Guard unions, and the SIEU. In primaries, the union-backed primary always wins, even if the other candidate is more "progressive" on liberal social issues. If anything, the social liberal-environmentalist vote is more up for grabs than the rest of the California Democratic Party - as seen by the Arnold S.'s gubernatorial victories.

I wasn't saying that California would be won by the Lib Dems. Quite the opposite; the party could not mobilise in a state with some 38 million people. If anything California would probably reflect the mood of the nation as a whole and would, at least since the 1970's/1980's back the party that won the who nation. I'd have the Conservatives winning there in 2010.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2012, 05:59:41 PM »

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.

I disagree that California would be a strong Lib Dem stronghold. For one, the core base of support for the California Democratic Party is the public sector unions, namely the California Teacher's Association, the Prison Guard unions, and the SIEU. In primaries, the union-backed primary always wins, even if the other candidate is more "progressive" on liberal social issues. If anything, the social liberal-environmentalist vote is more up for grabs than the rest of the California Democratic Party - as seen by the Arnold S.'s gubernatorial victories.

I wasn't saying that California would be won by the Lib Dems. Quite the opposite; the party could not mobilise in a state with some 38 million people. If anything California would probably reflect the mood of the nation as a whole and would, at least since the 1970's/1980's back the party that won the who nation. I'd have the Conservatives winning there in 2010.

I was hardly suggesting that I was going to give California to the LDs, merely that California will be hard to pick a winner full stop, and that I could to individual constituencies in each state to highlight pockets of party support not otherwise seen at a statewide level. There would, however, be at least a few LD constituencies in California.
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2012, 06:05:54 PM »

If anything California would probably reflect the mood of the nation as a whole and would, at least since the 1970's/1980's back the party that won the who nation. I'd have the Conservatives winning there in 2010.

I am unsure about that last part. Also keep in mind that in 2010, which saw a record Republican landslide in the majority of the country, the Democrats held onto every congressional seat, took control of every statewide office, and expanded their already huge majorities in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

If anything, California votes like Northeast England.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2012, 06:11:44 PM »

Nice work. Smiley Pretty cool thread and I look forward to seeing the finished map.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2012, 08:58:59 PM »

If anything, California votes like Northeast England.

lolno
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2012, 10:48:37 PM »

Rhode Island

Rhode Islanders have a history of being independent and progressive, being the 2nd state to abolish the death penalty, abolishing segregation in schools in 1866, and was the 3rd state to permit medicinal marijuana. Rhode Island also has a large number of government employees, and a relatively high number of ethnic minorities, particularly in Providence and its suburbs, some of which are part of the dual-state (with Massachusetts) Greater Boston area. Economically, Rhode Island was dominated by the textile industry, signifying a large working class population.

All of this indicates that Rhode Island is a solid Labor state, with the LDs, Tories and Greens far behind, and other parties virtually non-existent. The Tories would do well in some wealthy areas though.

Here's how Rhode Island would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Labor
1959: Labor
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Labor
1983: Conservative (courtesy of vote splitting from the Alliance, the 1980s form of the LDs)
1987: Labor
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

Connecticut

A large portion of Connecticut, namely western parts of the state, is part of the Greater NYC area, and is quite wealthy and Tory-voting, sometimes voting LD.  Rural areas, what is left of them, would most likely vote Tory as well. Connecticut as a whole is quite wealthy, although parts of Hartford and Bridgeport are quite impoverished. Hartford and Bridgeport, especially their inner sections with their manufacturing pasts and high number of people below the poverty line, would be Labor voting. A large Latino population in both cities is also a base for the Respect party. All in all, these factors make Connecticut a swing state, and I think it would be a bellwether.

Here's how Connecticut would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Conservative, although only by a fraction, much like Broxtowe or Hendon in the UK 2010 election.

And here's an updated map, complete with estimated vote shares for each party, along with an update on the electoral vote count:


Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

Race so far:
Labor: 15
Conservative: 11
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2012, 11:08:29 PM »

Good work. Smiley
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2012, 12:45:55 PM »
« Edited: September 05, 2012, 12:50:19 PM by IDS Legislator SJoyceFla »

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on)

You sure on this one? Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich, sure, but Paul doesn't really attract the same kind of supporters nor appeal to the same demographics politically (I don't really see anyone who can be described as libertarian supporting censorship, as Bachmann/Santorum do). Other than that, it's great.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2012, 01:16:07 PM »
« Edited: September 05, 2012, 01:19:41 PM by Supersonic »

I'm liking this so far!

Although I've raised a few eyebrows over some state voting history.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on)

You sure on this one? Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich, sure, but Paul doesn't really attract the same kind of supporters nor appeal to the same demographics politically (I don't really see anyone who can be described as libertarian supporting censorship, as Bachmann/Santorum do). Other than that, it's great.

The problem is Paul, and libertarianism in general, is not sponsored by any British political party. He could barely fit in the fringe of the Conservative Party, see Dan Hannan, but otherwise there is no home for Paulites. (Although there is an abundance of Ron Paul fans at the Tory grassroots level)
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2012, 02:00:36 PM »

I'm liking this so far!

Although I've raised a few eyebrows over some state voting history.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on)

You sure on this one? Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich, sure, but Paul doesn't really attract the same kind of supporters nor appeal to the same demographics politically (I don't really see anyone who can be described as libertarian supporting censorship, as Bachmann/Santorum do). Other than that, it's great.

The problem is Paul, and libertarianism in general, is not sponsored by any British political party. He could barely fit in the fringe of the Conservative Party, see Dan Hannan, but otherwise there is no home for Paulites. (Although there is an abundance of Ron Paul fans at the Tory grassroots level)

From what I know of British politics, he'd either be in the Conservative Party fringes, or in the UKIP (but he wouldn't really share a space with a Bachmann/Santorum), or in the Lib Dems (like myself).
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2012, 02:31:38 PM »

I'm liking this so far!

Although I've raised a few eyebrows over some state voting history.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on)

You sure on this one? Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich, sure, but Paul doesn't really attract the same kind of supporters nor appeal to the same demographics politically (I don't really see anyone who can be described as libertarian supporting censorship, as Bachmann/Santorum do). Other than that, it's great.

The problem is Paul, and libertarianism in general, is not sponsored by any British political party. He could barely fit in the fringe of the Conservative Party, see Dan Hannan, but otherwise there is no home for Paulites. (Although there is an abundance of Ron Paul fans at the Tory grassroots level)

From what I know of British politics, he'd either be in the Conservative Party fringes, or in the UKIP (but he wouldn't really share a space with a Bachmann/Santorum), or in the Lib Dems (like myself).

Yeah. Paul is a bit of dilemma. While on issues such as ID cards, civil liberties and some economic fronts he could fit in UKIP, on foreign policy, defence and immigration, he is way off the mark. UKIP want 40% more of the budget spent on the military and a five year immigration freeze for instance.

The Conservative Party could accommodate Paul's economic views, on its fringes, though that's it. On social issues, defence, foreign policy, immigration, everything other than the economy, he is off the Conservative Party radar. While you can get right-libertarians at the base level they usually differ with Paul in that they're very neo-conservative on foreign policy.

Paul would never fit in the Liberal Democrats. The only issue I can see them seeing eye to eye on are civil liberties and defence, everything else is a no-no. The Lib Dems have a 'left-libertarian' faction, though this is more a case of drug legalization, privacy, internet freedom mixed with an increased role for the government in economic policy.
I went to a speech by Lembit Opik (former Liberal MP) and he proudly proclaimed he was a libertarian, all pro-drugs, anti-war etc, then slated the coalition for 'cutting spending on social services'. I lol'd. Tongue

He would fit in a treat with the Libertarian Party (UK).

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2012, 02:34:04 PM »

It's a mistake to try to fit existing politicians into a hypothetical party structure. Some might still be politically active, some might even still be successful, but a lot wouldn't. Equally, a lot of people who are not politicians in real life would be.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2012, 03:13:34 PM »

It's a mistake to try to fit existing politicians into a hypothetical party structure. Some might still be politically active, some might even still be successful, but a lot wouldn't. Equally, a lot of people who are not politicians in real life would be.

That's true, of course. However, for this kind of scenarios (as well as for stuff like alternate history), you have to work with existing politicians. Some can be more or less successful than IRL, some can also have slightly different views than IRL, but overall, keeping the same cast prevents you from engaging in completely baseless speculation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 13 queries.