Talk Elections

Discuss with maps.

I'd think...

()

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

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.

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

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.

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.....

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).

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

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? ;))


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

A Kevin Rudd-Malcolm Turnbull race would be pretty interesting in the U.S.

Thanks guys.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Comments, critique, etc. is appreciated.

Could the American Democrats nominate someone like Kevin Rudd these days? A pro-life, anti-gay marriage, religious "Big America" politician?

Some good stuff here, please keep it going, although I think New Hampshire would have voted ALP once, maybe twice between 1972-2010, I'm thinking 1983.

Yes, and those rural communities could potentially have provided a baton of support for the Nationals, although begun to move towards the Liberals - similar to Hume or Farrer in NSW. Of course, we need to see what happens in Hume if there's a three-cornered contest next year with Album Schultz's retirement.

Vermont

This has to be the trickiest state in the Union to analyse. Before the 1980's Vermont's voting patterns were largely based on history, sticking to its traditions of Rockefeller Republicanism, but since then being ultra-safe Democrat. In Australian terms, I can't really get a feel on it.

However, right now it would be very solidly Labor, and perhaps the Greens could finish 2nd here. It was the first state to abolish slavery, and elects and likes a socialist. It is the 'healthiest' state in the Union, and has IBM as a heavy manufacturing employer. It also has a yuppie ice-cream store as it's major tourist attraction. Yeah, this state isn't in much doubt.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Labor
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Labor (with the Greens finishing 2nd on 2PP)

Massachusetts

As a whole, Massachusetts would be pretty heavily Labor leaning, although it can be tight in close years and it would have been more competitive in the past. But with the decline of the DLP, any signs of working-class Catholics voting Liberal via preferences is non-existent.

Western Massachusetts

Much of Western Massachusetts has a feeling of a small town. This area although once Liberal voting appears to be shifting left with the rest of New England. However, I'm not really sure how to pin this down.

Greater Boston

With it's history of tensions, a high Irish Catholic population and a manufacturing based economy turning into a more service based one, as well as a reputation for world-class universities, this area would be heavily Labor since Federation most likely. Although a more populist appeal has allowed the Liberals to make some breakthroughs here, it is still heavily Labor.

Southeastern Massachusetts (Cape Cod, etc.)

The main area of Liberal strength in Massachusetts. Quite wealthy and rural, it would prevent Massachusetts from being ultra-ALP.

Overall

Solidly Labor. It has 1. a major manufacturing/industrial base (or at least traditionally did), 2. a yuppie, progressive base, 3. a massive Irish Catholic population and 4. a large number of universities. However, the Liberals could go close in a very good year for them.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Labor
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Labor
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Labor

Rhode Island

This is basically Massachusetts, but even more extrapolated - heavy manufacturing and shipping base, Catholics, progressives, etc.

Providence would be heavily Labor due to the working-class progressive population, heavily industrialised economy, large Hispanic/Portuguese population and high poverty rates. The rest of the state however would still contain some elements of New England traditions, however the Liberals would generally struggle to win any counties, let alone the state.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Labor
1977: Labor
1980: Labor
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Labor
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Labor

May even have elected the DLP in the years before your dates start...

Nah, the DLP never won any seats in federal elections, although maybe they would've handed the Liberals the state on good elections.

Connecticut

Unlike Connecticut's neighbours, Connecticut tends to be more swingy. Traditionally, Connecticut's economy was manufacturing-based, which made the state fairly Labor, but this has declined.

However, Labor still have some strongpoints, in Bridgeport as it still has a strong manufacturing population, New Haven, with Yale helping Labor with the yuppie vote, and Hartford, which has a very high minority population (although the high incomes would keep it tight). Connecticut also has a feel of a small-town. Yet Labor's advantage is wiped out due to the very affluent New York suburbia, which makes the state generally Liberal-leaning. However Labor could easily win it on their good years.

1972: Liberal
1974: Liberal
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Liberal
1993: Liberal
1996: Liberal
1998: Liberal
2001: Liberal
2004: Liberal
2007: Labor
2010: Liberal

Any comments?

I think you're on the right track.

So do I! Looking forward to the rest of the states!

Remember this?

New York

Outer Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties)

Pretty solid Liberal strongholds. Labor do "OK" among the more minority areas, but all of the congressional districts are Liberal-held. (although a couple may flip in a good year)

I also think the DLP would've done very well in the past here.

New York City

Manhattan

Very solid ALP, however as it's a lot more whiter and wealthier than other parts of New York, there is a lot of room for the Greens and (in the past) the Democrats. Greens most likely finished 2nd here in 2010, and the Dems might have done so in 1990.

The Bronx

Most likely the best area for the ALP in the country. Regularly get 80%+ of the vote, and sometimes even 90%+.

Brooklyn (Kings)

Also a very solidly ALP area. Has more whites than The Bronx and a significant Orthodox community however (NY-09 is probably Liberal held though it depends on the candidates), which makes the Liberals slightly better than the Bronx. Yet the ALP would probably gain 70%+ of the vote.

Queens

While Queens isn't quite like Manhattan with reference to their economy, it still has a large diverse economy. Notably, half of its residents were born overseas. It is probably the most ethnically diverse place in NYC. Generally it would vote ALP, however not as extreme as other boroughs.

Staten Island

Less densely populated, more white and more suburban than the other boroughs, it would be the only one that leans Liberal.

New York Suburbs

Pretty Liberal, probably cracking 60%+ on a good year. Labor do however have some strength in more ethnic areas such as Yonkers.

Upstate New York

A swing region, and crucial to Liberals hopes of winning the state. Upstate cities such as Buffalo and Albany, which tend to have more of a manufacturing base are Labor voting. The more rural areas however vote Liberal, and this generally means this area votes Liberal normally.

Overall

There is a noticeable Labor lean, but in a good year for the Liberals they can definitely win here. Footnote: the 2001 results are due to a hypothetical "rally around the flag" in New York (because of you know...9/11 and all that). 2004 I think Latham would have been unappealing to Upstate voters.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Labor
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Liberal
1998: Labor
2001: Liberal
2004: Liberal
2007: Labor
2010: Labor

Looking forward to how the rest of the US will vote, especially the likes of Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida and Alabama to name a few!

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia metro

Very, very solidly Labor city. Not only is it very urban, it had an old manufacturing base, and more importantly a huge black and an emerging Hispanic population. Labor would win 70%+ here, with the Liberals doing OK-ish around the North near Bucks and Montgomery County.

The suburbs are more of a mixed bag. Although the area is very white, it has a large Catholic population, so it's very possible that a strong Labor machine would woo these areas in recent years and maybe back in the 1950's and 60's it would have an important DLP vote. My guess is that the more inner suburbs (Delaware and Montco) would probably lean ALP since the 1980's but the more exurban areas would still be pretty strong Liberal.

Dutch Country

Mostly farmland with some small cities. Although Philadelphia is expanding towards here, there is no real evidence of that changing the region's political demographics, although the Hispanic vote is making it less obvious. Yet it is still staunchly Liberal/National.

Lehigh Valley

Largely a working-class and industrial area largely based on small cities, this area would largely lean ALP but can vote LNP and is trending towards them despite the growth of Philadelphia exurbia.

Scranton-Wilkes Barre

Similar to the Lehigh Valley, but Joe Biden land still supports the ALP by and large.

Central Pennsylvania/The "T"

In general, the area votes LNP, how strongly however depends on the area. The heart of the T, near Dutch Country, is very rural and based on farming, so that would be staunchly LNP, however areas near SWPA, and parts of the Northern "T" have economic roots in manufacturing, so they can vote ALP from time to time.

Erie

Erie itself is largely a working-class city, but the actual district would lean Tory due to the allegiance of the rural areas.

Pittsburgh and surrounds

SWPA is one of the main ALP areas in the country. Why? Well, Pittsburgh is a major industrial city, and the area has a lot of coal mining. Liberals do OK in the suburbs, but not nearly well enough to prevent the ALP winning all three districts around this area 95% of the time.

Overall

Pennsylvania leans ALP, mainly due to the high proportion of Catholics and the appearance of two major cities. Yet due to support in the "T", the state is not entirely out of reach for the LNP. Not a lot politically has changed for a long time - ALP trends in the suburbs has been cancelled out by the decline of industrial areas.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Labor
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Liberal
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Liberal
2007: Labor
2010: Labor

A little mention of prominent 3rd parties is always nice. I.e. " Greens came a strong second in Vermont"

I have alluded to strong third parties in some of my posts (i.e. Greens doing well in urban/left-wing areas, DLP traditionally doing well in suburban Catholic areas, etc.)

Thing is, there aren't a lot of third parties in Australian politics. They rarely seem to win seats or even go particularly close to doing so.

Depends. Probably not these days but if Howard/Costello was dominating they could do it.

Someone like Gillard would be DOA in an American context, whereas Abbott would be loved.

To describe third-parties:

Greens: Would poll best in urban areas, particularly those which are pretty latte liberal and fairly white. Also has appeal with rural hippies.

Democrats: Irrelevant now, and tricky to decide even back in the day, as they did the best in the Senate and a lot of their vote was regional based. I imagine they would do well in traditionally Liberal wealthy areas.

DLP: See what I said about the Democrats, except their main goal was to keep Labor out of power. Their strength would probably be in heavily Catholic suburbs.

One Nation: Would poll best in rural, heavily white and working/lower-class areas during their brief period of relevance.

Any others I may have missed?

What about the Liberty and Democracy Party? I can see them doing well in the mountain/western states. Also, Family First and the Christian Democrats would do well with evangelical Christians.

Keep up the good work!

Dire. I posted up a New Jersey post, but it lost itself. There should be a way to keep the post if somehow you click off the page. Very frustrating if you wrote something big!

A small write-up here as I cbf writing the whole thing out again.

New Jersey

In general, the state leans Liberal. Although Labor do have some strength in minority heavy areas such as the Gateway Region, this is counteracted by Liberal support in wealthy Central Jersey, touristy Jersey Shore and suburban areas. But the ALP's hopes of winning are not impossible. The state has trended ALP recently due to a heavier minority presence.

1972: Liberal
1974: Liberal
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Liberal
1984: Liberal
1987: Liberal
1990: Liberal
1993: Labor
1996: Liberal
1998: Labor
2001: Liberal
2004: Liberal
2007: Labor
2010: Liberal

Delaware

This state is very small - only three counties, making the state fairly homogenised and simple to analyse.

New Castle County

Wilmington, with its large minority population and poverty rates, is staunchly Labor, however the rest of the county is whiter, more suburban and wealthier, therefore more inclined to vote Liberal.

Kent County

This county is smaller than New Castle County, however the county is more homogenous than New Castle and therefore has higher poverty rates and a higher black population. It would be a swing area.

Sussex County

This county has a smaller minority population, is more agrarian than the other two counties and more white. The main Labor support here would be with the small black population.

Overall

Delaware would lean Liberal, but could vote ALP in the right circumstances.

1972: Liberal
1974: Liberal
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Labor
1984: Liberal
1987: Liberal
1990: Liberal
1993: Labor
1996: Liberal
1998: Liberal
2001: Liberal
2004: Liberal
2007: Labor
2010: Liberal

Despite the loss of your original NJ post, this is good stuff. Please keep it going!

It's hard to analyse the LDP's strength. I suppose they would have a vague base (like get around 5%) in the Republican West, however a lot of their support would be with Liberal voters confusing them with the actual Liberal party (which is how they got 9% in the recent Senate election). We don't have a lot of libertarian sweet spots, though in general the LDP are pretty marginal apart from the 2013 NSW Senate election, so I don't know for sure.

Family First and Christian Democrats are tricky too, and which one goes well depends on the state. In our country, the CDP poll best in mine and your states, whereas Family First do best everyone else. A lot of their support appears in Protestant suburbs (i.e. suburbs not dominated by Catholics) and rural areas, and I imagine this would carry on to America too, as long as the suburbs aren't too blue-ribbon. I can see them polling 5-10% in the South/Mormon belt in say 2004, but their support has kinda slumped since then (though they do still have a smallish base).

---

On a similar note, it might be worth analysing a new party which popped up (Dropolich's and Muir's mobs are so marginal that analysing them would be pointless): The Palmer United Party.

It's hard to know where the party would succeed the most. I guess Perot's map in 1996 (1992 was way too strong to analyse where Palmer would poll well) would give us a fair indication, as well as Palmer's home base (where ever that would be). I say Perot as both of them are cut from fairly similar cloths (IIRC) - both are very wealthy men who made their millions from natural resources. Also, both of them leaned towards the right, but ran on somewhat unorthodox platforms. Palmer's support seemed stronger in rural areas and suburbs than inner city areas, so I guess that would carry onto performing in similar regions in America (although Palmer was elected in a regional city [Sunshine Coast, though that's more like a heavily urban region ala Central Coast]).

---

Anyways, will do Maryland and maybe West Virginia later tonight.

Great to see this restarted, and good points about the LDP, Family First, Palmer United and the CDP!

The DLP won Senate seats, but not House seats. It was they're cross bench support for the Coalition that kept them control of both houses for a number of years.

Yes, this is true. But given the Senate works on PR rather than single-member districts, it's not really surprising that a moderately successful party would win there. No minor party would ever win a majority of the vote in a state, at least not since the 30's.

---

Anyway, I'll try to get this back up, but in the meantime:

Let's try to draw some districts for this hypothetical America. A few ground rules, though.

* All "original" states require at least 5 seats regardless of how many seats that state is entitled to. This is tricky, as plenty of states were admitted in between 1788 to 1901, so it's hard to manage this. I'll say that all states must have at least 5 seats.
* Territories on the other hand do get their own individual seats, but they don't follow the "must have 5 seats" rule. So DC and all the other smaller territories will only have one seat.
* As a rule, the House must have double of the seats that the Senate has. So if there are 6 Senators from each state, then the House must have at least 600 seats. In Australia though there's often a few more than that.
* All states must be within 10% of the quota at time of drawing the districts, and within 3.5% of the quota based on projected population over the next 3 years.
* Determination for how many seats a state is entitled to is determined a year after every federal election. If this changes in any state, a redistribution (redistricting) is required.
* No VRA. All districts are drawn by an independent commission (the AEC).
* In general council/municipal (Australian equivalent of what you call counties) aren't that respected, in general they follow "community of interest". For the most part this makes sense, unless there's an area which isn't big enough for its own seat, and it doesn't have much in common with other geographic areas. You also occassionally get the odd dogs breakfast district that doesn't make much sense due to population reasons.
* All states have 12 Senate seats (for the purposes of this though I'll cut it down to 6 as 1200 districts is kinda ridiculous), all territories get 2 Senators.

Anyway, the determinations for how many seats each state has:

California   70
Texas   47
New York   36
Florida   35
Illinois   24
Pennsylvania   24
Ohio   22
Georgia   18
Michigan   19
North Carolina   18
New Jersey   16
Virginia   15
Washington   13
Massachusetts   12
Arizona   12
Indiana   12
Tennessee   12
Missouri   11
Maryland   11
Wisconsin   11
Minnesota   10
Colorado   9
Alabama   9
South Carolina   9
Louisiana   9
Kentucky   8
Oregon   7
Oklahoma   7
Connecticut   7
Iowa   6
Mississippi   6
Arkansas   5
Utah   5
Kansas   5
Nevada   5
New Mexico   5
Nebraska   5
West Virginia   5
Idaho   5
Hawaii   5
Maine   5
New Hampshire   5
Rhode Island   5
Montana   5
Delaware   5
South Dakota   5
Alaska   5
North Dakota   5
Vermont   5
Wyoming   5

All territories barring Putero Rico (which has 7) only have 1 Represenative.

So, fire away, peeps.

Maryland

A very interesting state. I would imagine it would be very schizophrenic, too. Here we go....

Eastern Shore

Much more rural and agricultural than most of Maryland and for that matter most of the Mid-Atlantic region - indeed having the feel of the South, the Eastern Shore would be a bastion of National/Coalition strength. They likely win MD-1 with margins over 60% every election.

Baltimore

In contrast to the Eastern Shore, inner-city Baltimore is heavily black and accordingly as strong for Labor as the Eastern Shore is for the Coalition. The city is gentrifying quite significantly recently, but that likely won't affect the political affiliation of Baltimore for a fair while, apart from maybe an increase to the Greens vote. The surburban areas are quite right-wing and polarised, with strong Liberal support with whites (difference between Australia and America here - large Jewish population, and America's basically the only country in the world where Jews vote left-wing), but Labor still having a base with blacks.

Southern Maryland

A former rural area that has since been hit by surburbanisation, it would be an important swing area in Maryland. Demographically it might lean Labor, but the main industries there seem to be military-based, plus there are still some old rural areas that haven't been completely destroyed by urbanisation.

Capital Region/D.C. suburbs

So this is where it gets interesting. In Australia, the "rich" is relatively monocultural. And yes, most people on the Atlas would claim that only whites are rich. But places like Prince Georges' County are both black and affluent. So this is difficult. I'd imagine that before 1998 this area would be quite Liberal, but since then has trended left due to the Liberals changing from a relatively benign center-right party to more of a populist form of conservatism under Howard and Abbott. In any case, this would swing hard from election to election. Might also depend on what sort of candidate the Liberals have running here.

Western Maryland

Appalachian Maryland, this part of America is based on tourism and agriculture. Labor would poll very badly in most rural areas that aren't dominated by heavy industry, and this part of the world is no exception - another bit of National/Coalition heartland.

Overall

Probably one of the more swingier states in the Union. Before the rise of One Nation, the state would have ordinarily leant Liberal, but that has changed dramtically, and Labor generally won it during the Howard years. But since Labor won back power it has swung back to the Liberals, and the state will likely remain volatile for a while.

1972: Liberal
1974: Liberal
1975: Liberal
1977: Liberal
1980: Liberal
1983: Liberal
1984: Liberal
1987: Liberal
1990: Liberal
1993: Labor
1996: Liberal
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Liberal
2013: Liberal

West Virginia

Perhaps the main state that differs from an American political system to an Australian political system. You can guess the #1 reason why this is.

Wheeling/Northern Panhandle

Part of the big industrial belt between Pittsburgh/Youngstown. Like large parts of West Virginia there is a coalfield here. Would be rather Labor-leaning generally.

Eastern Panhandle

One of the few areas where the Nationals would be on the radar, mainly because this area isn't super dominated by coal unlike the Northern Panhandle and the south, and also due to DC surburban influence in the easternmost parts of the Panhandle. WV-2 might well be Coalition held.

Parkersburg/Mid-West Virginia

Again, Nationals wouldn't poll terribly here, but they wouldn't do that great either. The votes for the Coalition would probably be swamped by other bits of the state.

Charleston

A city with its economy built on industry and mining, as well as significant union strength = strongly ALP.

South West Virginia

The most coal dominated part of West Virginia. ALP generally get over 70% of the vote here, and never look like losing this district.

Overall

Labor has won this state for over 100 years, and it doesn't look like stopping now. Unlike other working-class rural areas there hasn't been much shredding of Labor support, either.

1972: Labor
1974: Labor
1975: Labor
1977: Labor
1980: Labor
1983: Labor
1984: Labor
1987: Labor
1990: Labor
1993: Labor
1996: Labor
1998: Labor
2001: Labor
2004: Labor
2007: Labor
2010: Labor
2013: Labor

Great to see this back! I think MD would have stayed Labor in 2010 though, otherwise good analysis. The rise of One Nation, as you stated, would also be a significant turnoff to quite a few Marylanders.

Also, would the Nationals come 2nd in WV? I think they'd be the main non-Labor party there.

Please keep this going by the way :)

Yes, though I suspect that the Liberals and Nationals would just run one candidate if the system was akin to America but the parties weren't.

I imagine for seats themselves the Nats would be the main party in all of the WV seats barring perhaps the Charleston one.

And thinking about it you're probably right for Maryland 2010, but I'll wait and see what happens after I do all 50 states and see what the EV totals were for both parties.

Sounds good, and speaking of the next states, I'm guessing:

• Washington DC is obviously a Labor stronghold.
• VA will be a Liberal-leaning state, although one Labor would win in good years (1972, 1983, 2007), with a rising Green vote over the past decade.
• KY would mainly vote Labor, although not as strongly as WV.

Kentucky probably won't be for a while fwiw. I'll likely do it with the Midwest rather than the South.

Wait and see for the other two, please :P

For the most part you're not too wrong though

I will, just thought I'd share my predictions, so to speak.

Fair enough :P

Wouldn't West Virginia be a Labour stronghold seeing as how the ALP seems more socially conservative yet economically left than the Democrats?.

This looks awesome though!.

Ummm....I said it was :P

Going from your early posts (pre-2013) in this topic, here's the "2013 map" so far morgieb:

()

Assumptions for 2013:

1. I think ME-2 would go Liberal, while ME-1 would stay Labor.
2. NY would stay Labor, as Abbott wouldn't be the best fit for New Yorkers, city or upstate.
3. PA would narrowly go to the Liberals, and would be one of the tightest contests of the election.

Not too bad. Mine would look similar I'd imagine.

Would states like Delaware and Connecticut be more Malcolm Turnbull Liberals, rather than Abbott fans?

I wonder where PUP would be strongest :D

You could probably say that, yeah. Particularly Connecticut (Delaware's rural areas would be more conservative than the ones in Connecticut).

Not sure where the PUP would be strongest. Gut feel is one of the Southern states.

PUP would not perform well anywhere in a non-compulsory voting system. It appeals most to the voters who only show up to vote in order to not be fined. Next most appeal in electorates with mining (remember, that's where he made his fortune, and they appreciated his anti-Greens stance during the 2013 federal election).

I can vouch for Smid here, I know a few people who have voted for PUP (some of them twice), and most of them would not be registered if it wasn't mandatory to do so.

Valid point which I don't disagree with. But I'm sorta trying to assume how the parties would behave if they kept the same vote share they do here. No doubt that the minor parties would get a lower vote if we actually had an American system.

The Labor Right would be the dominant faction of the ALP in WV.

Yeah, Trump kind of destroyed my argument there...

Palmer's United has a more centrist appeal than Trump does, from my understanding.

As for the topic, an election like 1990 might look like:
()
280: Barack Obama/Ron Wyden(Democratic/Labor) - 39.44%
(Bob Hawke/Paul Keating)*
213: Rob Portman/Elizabeth Dole(Republican/Liberal) - 35.04%
(Andrew Peacock/Peter Keith)**
45: Tom Golisano/Bill Walker(Independent & Reform/Australian Democrats) - 11.26%
(Michael Macklin/Norm Sanders)***
0: Doug Burgum/Walter Jones(Libertarian/Country) - 8.42%
(Charles Blunt/Bruce Lloyd)
Others - 5.85%


*Obama/Hawke=Incumbent Leader; Wyden/Keating=Former Treasurer/Senate Committee thereof
**Portman/Peacock=Former Commerce Minister/Trade Rep.; Dole/Keith=Labor Minister/Sec.
***Golisano/Macklin=From big province/state; Walker/Sanders=from isolated state/province

ALP would do better amongst blue collar white areas and would perform much better in states like Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Minnesota, Iowa and the Rustbelt than the current Democratic party.

Liberals would do better amongst white collar suburbanites and perform much better in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware and probably Colorado and Nevada than the current Republican party.

I'd guess a close election might look a bit like this... ()

The Liberals (despite heading rightward) are still a much more moderate party than the Republicans. The Labor party is much more left-leaning, but Australia, as a much less urbanised nation, also leads the Labor party to be somewhat appealing to regions (much more so than the Dems).

My guess is that New England former Republican states (i.e. Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey) and blue mountain states would be more competitive, and red mountain states and the midwest would be more competitive as well.

Labor Party: Despite being nearly outlawed during the Red Scares & the McCarthy era, this party (which first emerged from obscurity in response to WWI veterans' anger over their loss of jobs, then gained major traction during the Great Depression & the collapse of the Big Two parties) is still going strong. The promise of federal funding to tech industries is helping to maintain support among those voters who aren't among the more traditional workforce.

Liberal Party: The main conservative party, both socially & economically, with a large libertarian faction.

National Party: A christian democracy/social justice party. Due to America's increasingly secular nature, they're not big outside of the Bible Belt, with the exception of Utah. As a result of this, they tend to ally with the Conservatives, often running fusion ballots, sometimes even to the point of being given the VP slot on presidential tickets.

Green Party: Labor's main ally/friendly rival, founded by members of the progressive wings of the former Democratic & Republican parties coming together after their old parties collapsed during the Great Depression. Whereas Labor is primarily focused solely on policies related to ensuring a more prosperous & safer employment environment for all Americans, the Greens have a broad platform of left-wing policies, having long been champions of environmental issues, as well as civil, women's, & LGBT rights.

United America Party: The successor to The Alliance For American Unity, the coalition of various state parties & Democratic & Republican factions which FDR & his allies brought together to help the country through the Depression, the collapse of the two party system, & WWII. By the end of the war, the party had coalesced into its current form, a mostly centrist big tent which has a wide support base, which usually allows it to serve as a kingmaker in Congress & during contingent presidential elections.

How about One Nation (I imagine Bob Katter is a senator for South Carolina or somewhere similar.