Your political views become centrist for your country.

[Boston Bread]

Considering how often I've flipped between Liberal and NDP in the past, I'd suppose every election in New Canadaland would be a close race between the two. The NDP would have to move to the left for there to be meaningful debates; right now they are too close to each other. The sharpest differences between the two parties would be on nationalization (Lib: no, NDP: yes) and free trade (Lib: yes, NDP: no).

The Conservatives would be a minor party seen as extremist unless they become red tories in which case a Lib-PC coalition might become possible, the Greens would be stronger but still not competitive, and the Bloc would stay as is but less xenophobic.

In terms of policy, there would certainly be a carbon tax, legal and taxed marijuana, repeal of C-51 and C-24, no more military intervention in the Middle East, higher taxes on the wealthy, more infrastructure investment, public housing for the homeless, and a more generous child care program. Equal amount of immigration, but with more effort to integrate them. Also elections would use MPP with a 5% threshold (per province so the Bloc doesn't get screwed).

A typical election:
Liberal 35%
NDP 35%
Conservative 10%
Green 10%
Bloc 5%
Other 5%

With the Conservatives becoming PC's (Newfoundland style):
NDP 35%
Liberal 25%
PC 25%
Green 10%
Bloc 5%

[Leftbehind]

Probably a social democratic split* from - and quickly propelled - into chief opposition to a Marxist Labour party, with left-liberals like Corbyn at the helm.  Liberals & Tories marginalised also-rans crucified by the electoral system into Green/UKIP-like oblivion.

*on a platform of state interventionism, nuclear disarmament but favouring remaining inside the EU and strict immigration & tempered social conservatism.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well both parties would suck. The Republicans would become like Moderate Hero Democrats and the Democrats would become a coalition ranging from Sanders cultists  (not his more rational supporters) to annoying as f[inks] True Leftists.

[Mercenary]

The 1990s part 2.

[Crumpets]

Hmm... I'm pretty much in the middle of the Democratic party, so the center-left party would consist of left-wing Democrats, and maybe a few socialists (let's call them the Social Democrats). The center-right party would be about where the current party split is, and would be composed of people like John Huntsman, Joe Manchin, Lisa Murkowski, and Colin Powell (this will be the Liberal Party). Since I believe in a Bundestag-style electoral system, there would probably also be a stronger Green Party and a strong Libertarian Party, while most of the current Republican views would be pushed into a far-right nationalist party (American Heritage Party?), with very little national representation, but maybe some stronger support regionally.

On the issues, gay marriage would be legal nation-wide and accepted by practically all but a fringe group in the American Heritage Party. Abortion would be legal on-demand nationwide, although the amount which states and the federal government are allowed to regulate late-term abortions would be a hotly contested issue in Liberal Party politics. A large majority of the country would identify as "feminist." Guns would be legal, although they would not be protected constitutionally. The Greens and the left wing of the Social Democratic party would be advocating an outright ban on all guns, while centrists would be looking at limiting ammunition purchases and banning all semi-automatic weapons for non-military use. The death penalty would be hotly debated nation-wide.

Foreign aid would be dramatically increased, and the military much smaller. The Social Democratic party would be largely pacifist, but would still generally support authorization of force resolutions if they had the support of the UN. The Liberal Party would be more hawkish. A large portion of the Social Democrats would be looking to distance the US from Israel and support Palestine, but it would be difficult to get any but the most watered-down bill through. A sizeable faction of the Social Democrats would be looking to establish an EU-style North American Union or even full integration with Canada, while most of Congress would be pushing for a Schengen Area-style treaty for the US and Canada.

The US would have minimal restrictions on immigration, and no national language. The left-wing would be pushing for a fully open border policy.

Here's the legislature:


The Green Left - Pacifist, ultra-environmentalist, pro-social justice, Trotskyist, anti-gun, supports open border policy and integration with Canada
The Social Democrats - Feminism, environmentalism, egalitarianism, pro-social justice, dovish, pro-union supports Schengen Area-style treaty with Canada, anti-death penalty, pro-fair trade
          The Progressive Caucus Pro-Palestine, anti-gun, supports elimination of all nuclear weapons and the establishment of a North American Union
Libertarians - Support individual autonomy, devolution of government to regional authorities, privatization, capitalism
Liberal Party - Keynesian capitalists, foreign policy realists, moderately hawkish, pro-Israel, against integration with Canada, supports modest regulations on abortion and subsidizing private industry to promote alternate energies and new technologies, pro-death penalty, pro-free trade
American Heritage Party - Protectionist, conservative, anti-union, religious, anti-egalitarianism

[Goldwater]

The results probably wouldn't be very good. In order for the Republicans to be to right of me on both economics and foreign policy they would probably have to become some weird mixture of Ron Paul and literal imperialism. Meanwhile, the Democrats would be full of people like Andrew Cuomo.

[SWE]

I guess the Republicans would become Leninists and Democrats would become anarchists? That'd be fun.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Liberals might actually move to Canada for real!

[Boston Bread]

Liberals might actually move to Canada for real!

If every Bernie Sanders supporter moved here, we could have both of our dream election results.

[mvd10]

Well, I probably stand in the right wing of the VVD (people's party for freedom and democracy) here so the Netherlands would make a pretty big move to the right on economic issues. Here is a  picture of where the average Dutch person stands (and I am to the right of the VVD on economic issues and about the same on social issues I believe) :

http://static1.trouw.nl/static/photo/2012/1/14/4/20120911112045/media_xl_1349134.jpg

VNL and the Libertarian party probably would fill in the gap to the right of the VVD (VNL wasn't included in the picture since it didn't exist in 2012 and the Libertarian party just was too small). Rutte probably still would be prime minister (or maybe someone from the more conservative wing of the VVD like Zijlstra or van Baalen), but instead of governing with Labour and selling out quite a lot of his platform he would be governing with 1 or 2 out of CDA, D66 or VNL. VVD-CDA-D66 actually is the dream of a lot of right wingers here but if my views were centrist for Dutch standards VVD-CDA-D66 with Rutte as VVD leader and prime minister would be a rather left wing government (Rutte is pretty progressive for a VVD member and CDA and D66 would be the mainstream left wing parties if my views were centrist for Dutch standards).

A lot of the income redistribution probably would not have happened, the coalition would have focused even more on cutting spending instead of raising taxes, and I think the comprehensive tax reform the coalition wanted would have succeeded, but probably not in the way they initially proposed it with raising sales taxes to lower income/payroll taxes.

On social policy not much would change actually, perhaps abortion will become slightly more of an issue, but nothing will change on gay marriage and euthanasia (both are currently allowed) and perhaps punishments will be slightly harsher.

I don't know how the foreign policy will change, but the Netherlands doesn't really have a lot of influence anyways. TTIP and CETA would become a lot more popular though. ISDS and the 'chlorine chicken' still wouldn't be popular but the opposition against TTIP and CETA based on economic views would be a lot smaller.

[Orser67]

It would be a lot like the post-war era, except without the conservative Southern Democrats. So the Democratic Party would be liberal and believe in an activist government, while the Republican Party would be more centrist and would seek to moderate may of the proposals of the Democrats.

We'd have universal healthcare, a top tax bracket set at 60%, a carbon tax, and much stronger anti-trust provisions.

[PJ]

A pacifist and somewhat elitist green party versus some populist orthodox marxists is the most interesting scenario I can think of with my own views at the center.

[Kingpoleon]

Presumably Jim Webb or someone similar would jump right back in, and Kasich, Rubio, and Pataki surge nationwide.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The GOP goes completely off the deep end and becomes a quasi-anarchy party or Dixiecrat lite.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The GOP goes completely off the deep end and becomes a quasi-anarchy party or Dixiecrat lite.

That's already happened.

[Murica!]

 I know that the right would be a mixture of mutualists and luxemburgists, but I have no idea what's to my left.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Your average Democrat would be John Boehner.  George Pataki would be so far out of the mainstream in politics that he would be some radical leftist (because he supports (limited) abortion).  Maybe Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would be centrists, and I don't even know who would be considered right-wing.  Libertarians wouldn't be a thing, nor would gay marriage, abortion, or drugs.  Maybe the right would be people who wanted to ban alcohol and one-night stands entirely.

[Clark Kent]

Maybe something like this for a Presidents list starting in 1968:

1969-1977: Ronald W. Reagan (Republican)
1968: def. Hubert Humphrey (Democratic), George Wallace (American Independent)
1972: def. George Wallace (Democratic)
1977-1981: Gerald Ford (Republican)
1976: def. Edward M. Kennedy (Democratic)
1981-1989: Zell Miller (Democratic)
1980: def. Gerald Ford (Republican)
1984: def. Edward Brooke (Republican)
1989-1997: Jack Kemp (Republican)
1988: def. Larry McDonald (Democratic)
1992: def. Bill Clinton (Democratic)
1997-2005: Newt Gingrich (Republican)
1996: def. John Gregg (Democratic)
2000: def. Rick Perry (Democratic)
2005-2013: Richard Shelby (Democratic)
2004: def. Lincoln Chafee (Republican)
2008: def. Hillary Rodham (Republican)
2013-        : Colin Powell (Republican)
2012: def. Alan Keyes (Democratic/Constitution), Rand Paul (Liberal)

The Democrats are collapsing, with many of their socially liberal members abandoning the sinking, increasingly far-right ship for the new, libertarian-leaning Liberal Party.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The GOP goes completely off the deep end and becomes a quasi-anarchy party or Dixiecrat lite.

That's already happened.

How can someone as smart and awesome and enlightened as you associate yourself with such a party, especially in VA??

[Hnv1]

If my view would become centrist my country (State)will cease to exist

[TJ in Oregon]

The Democrats would effectively become a conservative populist party, probably with agrarian views as well. I'm thinking of somewhere along the lines of Dan Lipinski or whoever else remains from the old ethnic Catholic conservaDem machines. The GOP, in order to balance things out and leave me in the center would probably have to go full-out distributist. Both parties' economic platforms would be a bit too extreme but it would leave me in the middle.

Truthfully Poland isn't that far off, though PO (who would be the Republicans in this scenario) would need to rediscover their socon roots.

No way any of that would ever happen though.

[TNF]

Politics in the United Soviet States of America

The November Revolution of 2015 swept away all vestiges of the old system. It seemed as if overnight the world had been turned on its head - America was now in the hands of bearded coffee-shop types, mad-as-hell blue collar workers, and the few middle class pricks that saw the writing on the wall and chose the right side (for means of self-preservation, of course!). After the initial Red Terror ebbed and the enemies of the people were safely under the heel, politics began to take a 'normal' course once more, with the dominant party splitting in response to political differences among the varied socialist sects that had briefly united to bring the revolution to fruition. It did, however, manage to execute a series of policies that could reasonably described as 'orthodox Trotskyism', setting the political center in a society with a nationalized, democratically-planned (by workers' councils) economy, the abolition of the standing army in favor of the armed people, world revolution as foreign policy priority number one, free love, legal drugs, and, of course, 1930s chic for all.

At the far-left of the political spectrum stands the Internationalist Communist League, a left-communist outfit that is ready to paint the world red. Libertine in its social sentiments, uncompromisingly Marxist in its political outlook, and skeptical of every alliance or temporary agreement with any capitalist power, the Internationalists are basically ready to start World War III tomorrow if it would mean the victory of the revolution. In a word, they're basically every neoconservative stereotype that exists on the paleoconservative right and liberal-left today, but hardcore anti-market and extreme libertines ready to wipe out civilization to destroy capitalism.

To the right of the Internationalists stands the Communist Party, but not by much. The Communists are the party of the November Revolution, and are basically on the same page with the Internationalists on policy, but are in practice far less willing to risk the eradication of life on earth to get there. The Communists are more willing to take a tempered approach at social revolution at home as well, gradually phasing in more radically libertine policies rather than implementing them full-stop in a matter of minutes, or whatever the Internationalists have in mind as far as communal living and all that goes.

The Labor Party occupies a position slightly to the right of the Communists. Initially set up by the Communists during the pre-revolutionary period, when the Communists split after the revolution, the Labor Party continued on as it's own entity. The Labor Party is essentially a kind of mish-mash of Stalinists (although they don't call themselves such), left-social democrats, and others who are committed to the centralized economy and the building of socialism, but aren't as keen on the idea of world revolution, preferring a 'realist' foreign policy. The Labor Party has a very economistic line, and is skeptical about the libertine policies of the Internationalists and the Communists, preferring to retain the 'progressive' features of the old society where possible.

Standing even further on the right than the Communist Party and the Labor Party is the Socialist Workers Party. Skeptical of centralized planning and of world revolution as a foreign policy initiative, the Socialist Workers Party is more or less a hodgepodge of Cliffites, 'libertarian' Marxists, left-leaning ecologists, Maoists, and others marginalized on account of their not supporting the dominant vision of what socialism should (or could) be. This group is united only by a shared dislike of the dominant parties, who return the favor by ruthlessly pillorying it at every they get.

The most right-wing party on the political spectrum is itself a descendant of the old parties under the American Ancien Regime, the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party is a merger of the old bourgeois parties, some members of whom wised up and decided to back the winning horse in the revolution. These days the Democratic-Republicans are the party of classical bourgeois ideology, promoting things like co-operatives (as opposed to planning), the utilization of markets, free love, free trade, and a peaceful foreign policy. Basically, it's a party somewhere between Henry George and Ron Paul, with some decidedly mutualist tendencies.

Other, smaller parties exist, but have little currency among the population. With the state officially hostile to religion (having removed all references to God from American currency, converted churches into sex clubs, and instituted a stringent anti-religious educational system), some religious reactionaries¹ have organized under the banner of the Matthew 25 club, but have been effectively shut out by the media and are treated as something of a curiosity by the public.


¹This doesn't mean reactionary in the sense that you and I understand it. The Matthew 25 group is largely supportive of the post-revolutionary changes to the economic system and to some extent some of the social changes (i.e. liberation of women, etc). It's essentially a liberal Christian outfit that wants to be able to proselytize, which is illegal under the USSA constitution. It's key leader, Rev. Scott Sunday, was recently arrested on charges of counterrevolutionary conspiracy to oust the workers' government, and is awaiting trial as we speak.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Following the overthrow all of the tyrannical Windsor regime, the UK is quickly renamed after its revolutionary leader as the Unbelievable KrabKake regime, or "UK" for short. The fact that the initials remain the same is evidence of the fiscal prudency of the new regime, which forms around several factions all claiming control of the personality cult based party A Crablike Future. Although president CrabCake (elected via witenagemot) officially disdains personality cults, at the same time is easily flattered so allows it to carry on. All factions argue that their way is the true implementation of The CranCakian agenda, they never realise that the President merely gets confused and deviates around the political spectrum for no real reason.

Faction 1 - the Democratic And Peaceful Future - the most powerful grouping is a broadly socially democratic union, with a moderate stance on foreign policy mainly focused on multilateral disarmament. Has an mutualistic stance on economic affairs, but more tolerant to the so-called "authoritarian many state" than the rest

Faction 2 - Nothing - Dedicated to being very electorally unpopular, this faction advocates a geolibertarian philosophy and the eventual abolition of all border controls.

Faction 3 - Greenwards, an oddly utopian bunch of Ecologists and pacifists who are OKay with GM crops.

Faction 4 - British Socialism, a branch of patriotic leftists that are based around rural mutuals and fear of the internationalist outlook common to all parties. Strongly allied with regionalists and localists.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Politics in the United Soviet States of America

The November Revolution of 2015 swept away all vestiges of the old system. It seemed as if overnight the world had been turned on its head - America was now in the hands of bearded coffee-shop types, mad-as-hell blue collar workers, and the few middle class pricks that saw the writing on the wall and chose the right side (for means of self-preservation, of course!). After the initial Red Terror ebbed and the enemies of the people were safely under the heel, politics began to take a 'normal' course once more, with the dominant party splitting in response to political differences among the varied socialist sects that had briefly united to bring the revolution to fruition. It did, however, manage to execute a series of policies that could reasonably described as 'orthodox Trotskyism', setting the political center in a society with a nationalized, democratically-planned (by workers' councils) economy, the abolition of the standing army in favor of the armed people, world revolution as foreign policy priority number one, free love, legal drugs, and, of course, 1930s chic for all.

At the far-left of the political spectrum stands the Internationalist Communist League, a left-communist outfit that is ready to paint the world red. Libertine in its social sentiments, uncompromisingly Marxist in its political outlook, and skeptical of every alliance or temporary agreement with any capitalist power, the Internationalists are basically ready to start World War III tomorrow if it would mean the victory of the revolution. In a word, they're basically every neoconservative stereotype that exists on the paleoconservative right and liberal-left today, but hardcore anti-market and extreme libertines ready to wipe out civilization to destroy capitalism.

To the right of the Internationalists stands the Communist Party, but not by much. The Communists are the party of the November Revolution, and are basically on the same page with the Internationalists on policy, but are in practice far less willing to risk the eradication of life on earth to get there. The Communists are more willing to take a tempered approach at social revolution at home as well, gradually phasing in more radically libertine policies rather than implementing them full-stop in a matter of minutes, or whatever the Internationalists have in mind as far as communal living and all that goes.

The Labor Party occupies a position slightly to the right of the Communists. Initially set up by the Communists during the pre-revolutionary period, when the Communists split after the revolution, the Labor Party continued on as it's own entity. The Labor Party is essentially a kind of mish-mash of Stalinists (although they don't call themselves such), left-social democrats, and others who are committed to the centralized economy and the building of socialism, but aren't as keen on the idea of world revolution, preferring a 'realist' foreign policy. The Labor Party has a very economistic line, and is skeptical about the libertine policies of the Internationalists and the Communists, preferring to retain the 'progressive' features of the old society where possible.

Standing even further on the right than the Communist Party and the Labor Party is the Socialist Workers Party. Skeptical of centralized planning and of world revolution as a foreign policy initiative, the Socialist Workers Party is more or less a hodgepodge of Cliffites, 'libertarian' Marxists, left-leaning ecologists, Maoists, and others marginalized on account of their not supporting the dominant vision of what socialism should (or could) be. This group is united only by a shared dislike of the dominant parties, who return the favor by ruthlessly pillorying it at every they get.

The most right-wing party on the political spectrum is itself a descendant of the old parties under the American Ancien Regime, the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party is a merger of the old bourgeois parties, some members of whom wised up and decided to back the winning horse in the revolution. These days the Democratic-Republicans are the party of classical bourgeois ideology, promoting things like co-operatives (as opposed to planning), the utilization of markets, free love, free trade, and a peaceful foreign policy. Basically, it's a party somewhere between Henry George and Ron Paul, with some decidedly mutualist tendencies.

Other, smaller parties exist, but have little currency among the population. With the state officially hostile to religion (having removed all references to God from American currency, converted churches into sex clubs, and instituted a stringent anti-religious educational system), some religious reactionaries¹ have organized under the banner of the Matthew 25 club, but have been effectively shut out by the media and are treated as something of a curiosity by the public.


¹This doesn't mean reactionary in the sense that you and I understand it. The Matthew 25 group is largely supportive of the post-revolutionary changes to the economic system and to some extent some of the social changes (i.e. liberation of women, etc). It's essentially a liberal Christian outfit that wants to be able to proselytize, which is illegal under the USSA constitution. It's key leader, Rev. Scott Sunday, was recently arrested on charges of counterrevolutionary conspiracy to oust the workers' government, and is awaiting trial as we speak.

It'd be interesting to see a timeline around this world.

[Intell]

Politics in the United Soviet States of America

The November Revolution of 2015 swept away all vestiges of the old system. It seemed as if overnight the world had been turned on its head - America was now in the hands of bearded coffee-shop types, mad-as-hell blue collar workers, and the few middle class pricks that saw the writing on the wall and chose the right side (for means of self-preservation, of course!). After the initial Red Terror ebbed and the enemies of the people were safely under the heel, politics began to take a 'normal' course once more, with the dominant party splitting in response to political differences among the varied socialist sects that had briefly united to bring the revolution to fruition. It did, however, manage to execute a series of policies that could reasonably described as 'orthodox Trotskyism', setting the political center in a society with a nationalized, democratically-planned (by workers' councils) economy, the abolition of the standing army in favor of the armed people, world revolution as foreign policy priority number one, free love, legal drugs, and, of course, 1930s chic for all.

At the far-left of the political spectrum stands the Internationalist Communist League, a left-communist outfit that is ready to paint the world red. Libertine in its social sentiments, uncompromisingly Marxist in its political outlook, and skeptical of every alliance or temporary agreement with any capitalist power, the Internationalists are basically ready to start World War III tomorrow if it would mean the victory of the revolution. In a word, they're basically every neoconservative stereotype that exists on the paleoconservative right and liberal-left today, but hardcore anti-market and extreme libertines ready to wipe out civilization to destroy capitalism.

To the right of the Internationalists stands the Communist Party, but not by much. The Communists are the party of the November Revolution, and are basically on the same page with the Internationalists on policy, but are in practice far less willing to risk the eradication of life on earth to get there. The Communists are more willing to take a tempered approach at social revolution at home as well, gradually phasing in more radically libertine policies rather than implementing them full-stop in a matter of minutes, or whatever the Internationalists have in mind as far as communal living and all that goes.

The Labor Party occupies a position slightly to the right of the Communists. Initially set up by the Communists during the pre-revolutionary period, when the Communists split after the revolution, the Labor Party continued on as it's own entity. The Labor Party is essentially a kind of mish-mash of Stalinists (although they don't call themselves such), left-social democrats, and others who are committed to the centralized economy and the building of socialism, but aren't as keen on the idea of world revolution, preferring a 'realist' foreign policy. The Labor Party has a very economistic line, and is skeptical about the libertine policies of the Internationalists and the Communists, preferring to retain the 'progressive' features of the old society where possible.

Standing even further on the right than the Communist Party and the Labor Party is the Socialist Workers Party. Skeptical of centralized planning and of world revolution as a foreign policy initiative, the Socialist Workers Party is more or less a hodgepodge of Cliffites, 'libertarian' Marxists, left-leaning ecologists, Maoists, and others marginalized on account of their not supporting the dominant vision of what socialism should (or could) be. This group is united only by a shared dislike of the dominant parties, who return the favor by ruthlessly pillorying it at every they get.

The most right-wing party on the political spectrum is itself a descendant of the old parties under the American Ancien Regime, the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party is a merger of the old bourgeois parties, some members of whom wised up and decided to back the winning horse in the revolution. These days the Democratic-Republicans are the party of classical bourgeois ideology, promoting things like co-operatives (as opposed to planning), the utilization of markets, free love, free trade, and a peaceful foreign policy. Basically, it's a party somewhere between Henry George and Ron Paul, with some decidedly mutualist tendencies.

Other, smaller parties exist, but have little currency among the population. With the state officially hostile to religion (having removed all references to God from American currency, converted churches into sex clubs, and instituted a stringent anti-religious educational system), some religious reactionaries¹ have organized under the banner of the Matthew 25 club, but have been effectively shut out by the media and are treated as something of a curiosity by the public.


¹This doesn't mean reactionary in the sense that you and I understand it. The Matthew 25 group is largely supportive of the post-revolutionary changes to the economic system and to some extent some of the social changes (i.e. liberation of women, etc). It's essentially a liberal Christian outfit that wants to be able to proselytize, which is illegal under the USSA constitution. It's key leader, Rev. Scott Sunday, was recently arrested on charges of counterrevolutionary conspiracy to oust the workers' government, and is awaiting trial as we speak.

Yuck, I'd be Matheww 25, unless there is another left-wing party that does not espow hatred towards religion and is fine with religion. Without the influence of religion, I probably would be in the labour party.