US with Australian parties
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:42:37 PM
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 Australian parties
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: US with Australian parties  (Read 17422 times)
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2013, 05:00:36 PM »

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.
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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2014, 06:28:03 AM »

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.
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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2014, 06:31:32 AM »

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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2014, 07:24:17 AM »

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
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2014, 07:55:55 AM »

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
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 #55 on: November 11, 2014, 08:52:19 AM »
« Edited: November 11, 2014, 09:12:28 AM by Anton Kreitzer »

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 Smiley
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 11, 2014, 05:49:48 PM »

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 Smiley
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.
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 #57 on: November 11, 2014, 06:42:55 PM »

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 Smiley
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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2014, 07:15:25 PM »

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 Smiley
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 Tongue

For the most part you're not too wrong though
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 #59 on: November 11, 2014, 07:43:27 PM »

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 Smiley
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 Tongue

For the most part you're not too wrong though

I will, just thought I'd share my predictions, so to speak.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2014, 07:59:41 PM »

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 Smiley
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 Tongue

For the most part you're not too wrong though

I will, just thought I'd share my predictions, so to speak.
Fair enough Tongue
Logged
Wolverines34
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2014, 03:19:40 PM »

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!.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2014, 06:16:09 PM »

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 Tongue
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 #63 on: December 05, 2014, 09:21:56 AM »

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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2014, 08:06:03 PM »

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.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2014, 06:57:13 AM »

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

I wonder where PUP would be strongest Cheesy
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2014, 07:22:51 AM »

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

I wonder where PUP would be strongest Cheesy
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.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2014, 04:33:50 AM »

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).
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 #68 on: December 28, 2014, 04:59:46 AM »

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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2014, 05:41:41 AM »

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).
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.
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,274
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: December 28, 2014, 05:55:51 PM »

The Labor Right would be the dominant faction of the ALP in WV.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 28, 2016, 04:14:11 AM »

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).
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.

Yeah, Trump kind of destroyed my argument there...
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: June 28, 2016, 05:50:37 PM »

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
Logged
Wazza [INACTIVE]
Wazza1901
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,927
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2019, 02:59:42 AM »

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...
Logged
Zharques
Rookie
**
Posts: 20


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 21, 2019, 04:55:26 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« 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 0.077 seconds with 13 queries.