US With British Parties

[Gass3268]

I like this how in the South the presence of the USIP actually helps helps the left/Labor in becoming almost an equal force in some states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. I would guess however that Labor would have a higher percentages in the Carolinas and Georgia.

With your next two states, I am guessing that Missouri is a Conservative state with Labor and USIP having good percentages and Illinois is a Labor stronghold even with good Tory strength in the collar counties.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I like this how in the South the presence of the USIP actually helps helps the left/Labor in becoming almost an equal force in some states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. I would guess however that Labor would have a higher percentages in the Carolinas and Georgia.

With your next two states, I am guessing that Missouri is a Conservative state with Labor and USIP having good percentages and Illinois is a Labor stronghold even with good Tory strength in the collar counties.

Correct, although I have yet to do the full analyses of MO and IL, Missouri will most likely be a decent state for the Tories, aside from years like 1945 and 1997, and USIP will most likely be the 3rd party there. IL, on the other hand, will be held by Labor, although not as strongly as the Democrats hold it. The Tories would have most likely held IL throughout all the Thatcher years, however.

While I have raised Labor's % in the Carolinas and Georgia, you have to remember that those states are wealthier than AL, MS, LA and AR, particuarly GA, and would have a stronger Lib Dem base and a weaker Labor one. Also, as I previously explained, in SC, you would have had a large number of Labor voters voting Tory to stop USIP in SC. This is also true to a much lesser extent in NC and GA, where the races weren't as tight.

[Gass3268]

I like this how in the South the presence of the USIP actually helps helps the left/Labor in becoming almost an equal force in some states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. I would guess however that Labor would have a higher percentages in the Carolinas and Georgia.

With your next two states, I am guessing that Missouri is a Conservative state with Labor and USIP having good percentages and Illinois is a Labor stronghold even with good Tory strength in the collar counties.

Correct, although I have yet to do the full analyses of MO and IL, Missouri will most likely be a decent state for the Tories, aside from years like 1945 and 1997, and USIP will most likely be the 3rd party there. IL, on the other hand, will be held by Labor, although not as strongly as the Democrats hold it. The Tories would have most likely held IL throughout all the Thatcher years, however.

While I have raised Labor's % in the Carolinas and Georgia, you have to remember that those states are wealthier than AL, MS, LA and AR, particuarly GA, and would have a stronger Lib Dem base and a weaker Labor one. Also, as I previously explained, in SC, you would have had a large number of Labor voters voting Tory to stop USIP in SC. This is also true to a much lesser extent in NC and GA, where the races weren't as tight.

Makes sense on Illinois, but I would guess this would be a state were Labor's strength has increased since the 90's on in comparison to states like West Virginia, that have been going the other way.

Also your logic makes sense about the Carolinas and Georgia

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Trying to put an old point in a new way, this is a map of Ed Miliband's constituency:



It's made up of lots of small mining towns, some of which are functionally Doncaster suburbs these days. The only part that isn't solidly Labour - Sprotborough - is the only part that was never really a pit community. The essentially anonymous nature of the towns that make it up - not many people outside of South Yorkshire have even so much as heard of Askern Spa, Adwick-le-Street and the rest - add to its generic, almost stereotypical feel; if you wanted to create a fictional constituency for a fictional Labour leader, there's a good chance it would end up looking remarkably like Doncaster North.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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

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

Labour Party [or Labor in the US] (L) - A good chunk of the Democratic Party, particularly their ethnic minority supporters. Jimmy Carter, Eric Holder and Nancy Pelosi would all be Labor politicians.
Conservative (Tory) Party (C) - Would constitute conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Bloomberg, and Mitch Daniels all come to mind).
Liberal Democrats (LD) - Would be a mixed bag, but by and large a Democratic one. The likes of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid would be Lib Dems, as they are known in the UK.
Green (G) - Most likely led by Jill Stein, taking over from Ralph Nader.
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode Jr. and so on)
British National Party (BNP) [American National Party (ANP)] - Caters for KKK members and racists, particularly working class racists, in general. George Wallace would have run as an ANP candidate back in the day.
Plaid Cymru (PC) [Plaid Alaska (PA)] - Alaskan nationalists, led by Sarah Palin. PA would be more conservative than PC, but still run on a separatist platform.
Scottish National Party (SNP) [Texan National Party (TNP)] - Texan nationalists, led by Rick Perry. Like PA, more conservative than their Celtic counterparts.
English Democrats (ED)[Hawaiian Democrats (HD)]  - Hawaiian nationalists, led by Neil Abercrombie. As I have limited knowledge of Hawaiian politics, please inform me if there are any separatist Hawaiian politicians that would make a good HD leader. Unlike PA and TNP (and for that matter, the ED), the Hawaii Democrats are a leftist party.
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - Pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would draw supporters of all ethnicities.
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) [Southwest Unionist Party (SUP)]  - Staunchly pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would mainly draw white supporters, and Jan Brewer would be a likely leader.
Social Democratic and Labo(u)r (SDLP) - Minor socialist party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, with primarily Latino supporters.
Sinn Fein (SF) [Nosotros Mismos (NM)] - Latino party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, calling for the return of these states to Mexico. Like Sinn Fein, Nosotros Mismos members would not take their seats in Congress.
Respect - Would be prominent in some ethnic areas, not sure who their leader would be though. Cynthia McKinney perhaps?

And so, we begin:

Maine

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

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

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

New Hampshire

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

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

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

Vermont

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

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

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

*Edits 4/9/12* Added another politician to the Conservative group and changed all spellings of Labor in the election results sections to the American spelling.
*Edits 28/9/12* Added some more politicians

I'm sorry but some of these things are completely ridiculous.  Hawaii wouldn't have an Independence party and if it did, it wouldn't be led by Neil f***n Abercrombie.  If anything, Abercrombie would be its greatest opponent.  Also there's no reason a Hispanic party would form in the first place since Hispanics are a very diverse group, and they have no reason to oppose the federal government.  To imply that they wouldn't take their seats in Congress is kind of ridiculous.  The Alaska Independence party wouldn't be led by Sarah Palin either.  I think you are really confused if you think that regional differences are the same as differences between nations and ethnicities (which is the case in Britain with Scotland, Ireland and Wales). 
Also, Connecticut wouldn't be a conservative state.  No way, no how.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

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

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

Labour Party [or Labor in the US] (L) - A good chunk of the Democratic Party, particularly their ethnic minority supporters. Jimmy Carter, Eric Holder and Nancy Pelosi would all be Labor politicians.
Conservative (Tory) Party (C) - Would constitute conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Bloomberg, and Mitch Daniels all come to mind).
Liberal Democrats (LD) - Would be a mixed bag, but by and large a Democratic one. The likes of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid would be Lib Dems, as they are known in the UK.
Green (G) - Most likely led by Jill Stein, taking over from Ralph Nader.
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode Jr. and so on)
British National Party (BNP) [American National Party (ANP)] - Caters for KKK members and racists, particularly working class racists, in general. George Wallace would have run as an ANP candidate back in the day.
Plaid Cymru (PC) [Plaid Alaska (PA)] - Alaskan nationalists, led by Sarah Palin. PA would be more conservative than PC, but still run on a separatist platform.
Scottish National Party (SNP) [Texan National Party (TNP)] - Texan nationalists, led by Rick Perry. Like PA, more conservative than their Celtic counterparts.
English Democrats (ED)[Hawaiian Democrats (HD)]  - Hawaiian nationalists, led by Neil Abercrombie. As I have limited knowledge of Hawaiian politics, please inform me if there are any separatist Hawaiian politicians that would make a good HD leader. Unlike PA and TNP (and for that matter, the ED), the Hawaii Democrats are a leftist party.
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - Pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would draw supporters of all ethnicities.
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) [Southwest Unionist Party (SUP)]  - Staunchly pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would mainly draw white supporters, and Jan Brewer would be a likely leader.
Social Democratic and Labo(u)r (SDLP) - Minor socialist party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, with primarily Latino supporters.
Sinn Fein (SF) [Nosotros Mismos (NM)] - Latino party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, calling for the return of these states to Mexico. Like Sinn Fein, Nosotros Mismos members would not take their seats in Congress.
Respect - Would be prominent in some ethnic areas, not sure who their leader would be though. Cynthia McKinney perhaps?

And so, we begin:

Maine

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

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

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

New Hampshire

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

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

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

Vermont

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

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

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

*Edits 4/9/12* Added another politician to the Conservative group and changed all spellings of Labor in the election results sections to the American spelling.
*Edits 28/9/12* Added some more politicians

I'm sorry but some of these things are completely ridiculous.  Hawaii wouldn't have an Independence party and if it did, it wouldn't be led by Neil f***n Abercrombie.  If anything, Abercrombie would be its greatest opponent.  Also there's no reason a Hispanic party would form in the first place since Hispanics are a very diverse group, and they have no reason to oppose the federal government.  To imply that they wouldn't take their seats in Congress is kind of ridiculous.  The Alaska Independence party wouldn't be led by Sarah Palin either.  I think you are really confused if you think that regional differences are the same as differences between nations and ethnicities (which is the case in Britain with Scotland, Ireland and Wales).  
Also, Connecticut wouldn't be a conservative state.  No way, no how.

Regarding the Latino party Nosotros Mismos, along with the other NI equivalent parties (SDLP, DUP and SUP), I felt it was necessary to have an equivalent to Northern Ireland in this scenario, and the first idea that came to me was the border states with Mexico, considering how much of the territory in those states used to be Mexican. The parties does not compete outside the border states, much like how Sinn Fein doesn't compete in the mainland UK, despite there being several Irish communities in the UK, such as Liverpool. In other words, the vast majority of Latinos don't vote for these largely AZ and NM based parties. CA and TX are still dominated by the big 3, plus the TNP in Texas.

Thanks for the information about Abercrombie, I only made him the HD leader as I don't know of any other HI politicians, I even mentioned that I don't think Abercrombie would be in the HD party in an earlier post. Also, Hawaii's ethnic makeup is considerably different to that of the US, and it was the last state to join the union. Plus, I wanted a party like the English Democrats, who will never be a serious player, but might still pick up a semi-decent vote, depending on the situation. In retrospect, maybe the Vermont Democrats, considering how Vermont was an independent republic before joining the US in 1791, would have been a better party. Or possibly the Southern Democrats, considering the South's secessionist attitudes.

While Alaska does have a stronger separatist movement than Hawaii, and would have its own separatist party you're right, Palin probably would not lead it, although again, aside from her and Parnell, I can't name any other Alaskan politicians.

As for Connecticut, it would vote Tory in 2010, as the Conservative Party don't emphasise social issues like the Republicans do, meaning fiscally conservative, socially liberal-moderate voters have a centre-right party to vote for. Combine this with Connecticut's wealth, and you have a swing state. Labor have been gaining traction there since the Blair years though.

[Gass3268]

I could see Connecticut supporting the Conservatives in the right year. Also the growth of the Liberal Democrats probably hurts Labor here more then the Tories.   

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Trying to put an old point in a new way, this is a map of Ed Miliband's constituency:



It's made up of lots of small mining towns, some of which are functionally Doncaster suburbs these days. The only part that isn't solidly Labour - Sprotborough - is the only part that was never really a pit community. The essentially anonymous nature of the towns that make it up - not many people outside of South Yorkshire have even so much as heard of Askern Spa, Adwick-le-Street and the rest - add to its generic, almost stereotypical feel; if you wanted to create a fictional constituency for a fictional Labour leader, there's a good chance it would end up looking remarkably like Doncaster North.

Thanks for that, having been to Doncaster North, specifically Bentley, it definitely wouldn't vote anything else but Labour! As to where a US Donny North would reside, I'm thinking somewhere in PA, OH or WV, regarding the last of those, sometimes congressional results, even those in presidential years, are different to presidential elections, much like how in 2008, McCain won all of WV's 3 districts, yet in the House race, the Democrats won 2 out of 3.

I could see Connecticut supporting the Conservatives in the right year. Also the growth of the Liberal Democrats probably hurts Labor here more then the Tories.  

Correct, although the Lib Dems have gone down since 2010, Connecticut would still have a higher Tory base than it has a Republican base in real life.

[Donerail]

While Alaska does have a stronger separatist movement than Hawaii, and would have its own separatist party you're right, Palin probably would not lead it, although again, aside from her and Parnell, I can't name any other Alaskan politicians.

Joe Miller probably.

[Gass3268]

While Alaska does have a stronger separatist movement than Hawaii, and would have its own separatist party you're right, Palin probably would not lead it, although again, aside from her and Parnell, I can't name any other Alaskan politicians.

Joe Miller probably.

Yeah I could see that, lol

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

While Alaska does have a stronger separatist movement than Hawaii, and would have its own separatist party you're right, Palin probably would not lead it, although again, aside from her and Parnell, I can't name any other Alaskan politicians.

Joe Miller probably.

Yeah I could see that, lol

I officially declare Joe Miller the leader of Plaid Alaska! Sarah Palin will be moved into the USIP group.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Regarding the Latino party Nosotros Mismos, along with the other NI equivalent parties (SDLP, DUP and SUP), I felt it was necessary to have an equivalent to Northern Ireland in this scenario, and the first idea that came to me was the border states with Mexico, considering how much of the territory in those states used to be Mexican. The parties does not compete outside the border states, much like how Sinn Fein doesn't compete in the mainland UK, despite there being several Irish communities in the UK, such as Liverpool. In other words, the vast majority of Latinos don't vote for these largely AZ and NM based parties. CA and TX are still dominated by the big 3, plus the TNP in Texas.

Trust me the Hispanics who have been there before the Anglos have absolutely no problem with the US government.  The ones who moved in recently are obviously in a very different situation than the Irish.  They came to the US themselves, the US didn't come to them.  Native American groups would be a better comparison but they're pretty much powerless and suffering from poverty.  Maybe even some extremist black power group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A better option might be the Pacific Coast states (Oregon, Washington, Northern California).  They are quite different than the rest of the country.  New England is also a bit different.  But if there was such a party in either of these areas it wouldn't be very powerful.

Regarding Hawaii there is a fringe independence movement but the truth is that Native Hawaiians are not very powerful.  They're a very low income group and while many of them don't recognize the US government, they really cannot do much about it as all the money and the political power belongs to the Asian (mostly) and white community.  I guess if you had such a party in Hawaii it would get a tiny percentage of the vote (maybe like 2%) and their leader would be Prince Quentin Kawananakoa who wants to reinstall the Kingdom and become King himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trust me Connecticut wouldn't vote for a party led by the likes Mitt Romney.  They're not a center-right state.  These are not the 80s. 

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Regarding the Latino party Nosotros Mismos, along with the other NI equivalent parties (SDLP, DUP and SUP), I felt it was necessary to have an equivalent to Northern Ireland in this scenario, and the first idea that came to me was the border states with Mexico, considering how much of the territory in those states used to be Mexican. The parties does not compete outside the border states, much like how Sinn Fein doesn't compete in the mainland UK, despite there being several Irish communities in the UK, such as Liverpool. In other words, the vast majority of Latinos don't vote for these largely AZ and NM based parties. CA and TX are still dominated by the big 3, plus the TNP in Texas.

Trust me the Hispanics who have been there before the Anglos have absolutely no problem with the US government.  The ones who moved in recently are obviously in a very different situation than the Irish.  They came to the US themselves, the US didn't come to them.  Native American groups would be a better comparison but they're pretty much powerless and suffering from poverty.  Maybe even some extremist black power group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A better option might be the Pacific Coast states (Oregon, Washington, Northern California).  They are quite different than the rest of the country.  New England is also a bit different.  But if there was such a party in either of these areas it wouldn't be very powerful.

Regarding Hawaii there is a fringe independence movement but the truth is that Native Hawaiians are not very powerful.  They're a very low income group and while many of them don't recognize the US government, they really cannot do much about it as all the money and the political power belongs to the Asian (mostly) and white community.  I guess if you had such a party in Hawaii it would get a tiny percentage of the vote (maybe like 2%) and their leader would be Prince Quentin Kawananakoa who wants to reinstall the Kingdom and become King himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trust me Connecticut wouldn't vote for a party led by the likes Mitt Romney.  They're not a center-right state.  These are not the 80s.

Reply to your 1st point (NI's equivalent in the US):
I did know the differences between Latinos in the US, including those who have lived there for hundreds of years and those who have moved there in my lifetime, but I did not think about an extremist black power group or Native American party when I adapted the parties. Regarding the former, urban black areas tend to support the Respect party significantly, alongside Labor, but not rural ethnic areas, like Alabama's Black Belt, which are Labor strongholds.

As for Native Americans, I could make the Dakotas the NI equivalents, although there's no claims to those states being part of Canada, which makes the thought of making the Dakotas the NI equivalent pointless in my opinion.

I'll leave the AZ and NM parties as they are, for starters, it will make those states interesting, particularly with Jan Brewer leading the Southwest Unionist Party!

Reply to your 2nd point (HI):
I'll leave the Hawaiian Democrats as they are, I never intended them to be a strong force in the first place, not even winning a mayoral election. The English Democrats have won a mayoral election, namely Doncaster's 2009 election.

I have also amended the leadership information to remove Neil Abercrombie as leader, he'd easily fit into either Labor or the Lib Dems.

Reply to your 3rd point (CT):
Which Mitt Romney are you talking about? Because some of his forms would do well in CT, obviously not his faux-Tea Party self though.

Once again, thank you for your feedback, it's great to see all the interest in this! On another note, MO and IL should be done by the middle of the week at the latest.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Missouri

Alcohol, tobacco, Lewis & Clark, Little Dixie, and the Gateway to the West are just some of the products, people and names associated with Missouri. Western exploration often began from Missouri, no county can go “dry”, and slavery was imported here courtesy of Upper Southern migrants in the early to mid 19th century.

St. Louis

Home of the Anheuser-Busch brewery, nine Fortune 500 companies, and many other enterprises, St. Louis itself is one of the most segregated cities in the United States, much like how Bradford is one of the most segregated cities in the UK. Labor win large majorities of the vote in St. Louis, with the Tories a distant second, and the ANP do well amongst a number of whites here, especially in 1992. The NF would have won here in 1964 as well. Respect would also have a base here, although not enough to win a constituency, let alone the city.

St. Louis’ suburbs, which include Lincoln, Warren, Franklin, St. Charles and Jefferson Counties in addition to St. Louis County, would range from strong Tory bastions (St. Charles County, also the Lib Dems’ best county in the region), to Labor-Tory swing counties, the strongest for Labor being St. Louis County itself, which was narrowly won by the Tories in 2010.

Kansas City and Western Missouri

Unlike what the name might suggest, most of Kansas City is located in Missouri, and claims to have the 2nd highest number of fountains in the world, second to Rome. The Heart of America itself, namely Jackson County, is fairly strong for Labor, and along with St. Louis, helps boost Labor’s overall numbers in MO. The remainder of Kansas City’s metropolitan area, namely Cass, Clay and Platte Counties) lean Tory overall, although the first two have been won by Labor in their good years, like 1997. Parts of the Kansas City metropolitan area would also register a significant but small vote for the ANP, again, much like parts of Bradford are home to a small but strong crowd of BNP voters.

The remainder of Western Missouri, mainly a farming region, is largely Tory territory, some counties having Labor as the second party, others having USIP as the second party, mainly the former though.

Springfield and the Ozarks

Like the Arkansas Ozarks, Missouri’s Ozarks are a strong area for USIP, although the Tories would still beat them for first place here. Labor would come in third.

Springfield, on the other hand, would still be fairly good for the Tories, although both Labor and the Lib Dems have challenged here over the years, the Tories winning in 2001 and 2005 thanks to divisions in the left-wing vote.

Columbia, Jefferson City and Mid-Missouri

Columbia itself would be the best city in MO for the Lib Dems, owing to the high percentage of college graduates, education and health workers, and technological jobs. Jefferson City would also have a fairly high LD figure, although the Tories do better there. The remainder of Central MO would be solid Tory.

Southeast Missouri (includes the Bootheel and Lead Belt)

The Lead Belt would have been fairly strong for Labor in the past, helping them win the state in elections like 1964 and October 1974. Since then, voting patterns have largely shifted towards the right, in particular USIP over the past half-decade.

The Bootheel would be another good area for USIP, and would have been a base for some SRL/NF activity prior to the 1980s. USIP would have narrowly won here against the Tories in 2010, with Labor firmly in 3rd.

Northern Missouri

Northern parts of MO consist of more good counties for USIP, although they may only win a few of them, if any at all. The Tories are by and large the major party here, with Labor second in most counties and the Lib Dems not really prevalent here.

Overall, Missouri is generally a Tory-leaning state, and will continue to be so, barring a severe split in the right and/or another Labor landslide.

Here’s how Missouri would have voted from 1945 onwards:

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

Illinois

The fifth most populous state, and considered by many to be a snapshot of the US as a whole, Illinois, a largely rural state, tends to be dominated politically, socially and economically by the metropolis of Chicago, and was considered a bellwether for both social issues and elections alike for many years. Illinois is home to services, agriculture, mining, people of all ethnicities, large cities and small towns, no fewer than 3 US Presidents (Lincoln, Grant and Obama), jazz and blues music, and Chicago’s very own deep dish pizza.

Chicago and suburbs

Cook County, containing Chicago itself and a good number of its suburbs, is a Labor stronghold, as you may have guessed, and home to one of the most powerful Labor Party branches in the US. Respect have a base in some black and Latino neighbourhoods, and may win a constituency in a good year for them. Chicago is quite similar to Birmingham in a few ways, aside from its large population and importance to its country, it also is a stronghold for the left and has a large minority population. Parts of Cook would have a strong Lib Dem vote, namely the northern parts, which are wealthier and gentrified, along with the community around Chicago’s universities, which would also register a good showing for the Green Party. The Tories would not do very well here at all, much like how they struggle in significant parts of London, Birmingham, Manchester and other British cities.

The collar counties, which make up most of the remainder of the Chicago metropolitan area, are affluent and home to large numbers of highly educated, white collar people. While these counties would have been solid Tory as late as the 1992 election, the Lib Dems emerged as a challenger in the 1997 election, and helped contribute to Labor’s 1997 victory. Today they remain Tory-LD contests, the Tories’ best parts around the Golden Corridor, and DuPage County, and the Lib Dems winning Will County, much like how they won Solihull in 2010 in the UK, in a very close contest against the Tories.   

Rockford, the Quad Cities and the remainder of Northern Illinois

Rockford is an old industrial city, famous for furniture, the oldest known Harley-Davidson dealer, and agricultural machinery manufacture. Since the late 20th century, however, the area has become somewhat blighted, and Labor have done well here since the party’s founding in the early 20th century, with the Tories a fairly distant second, coming close to winning in 1959.

Illinois’ section of the Quad Cities area, a historical agricultural hub, including the home of John Deere, would be a swing area, doing very well for Labor in 1997-2005, the Tories throughout their 1979-1997 government, and was barely won by the Tories in 2010.

The remainder of Northern IL is largely agricultural with some manufacturing jobs, and would generally vote Tory as a whole.

Central Illinois, Peoria and Springfield

The Heart of Illinois is largely farmland, and includes numerous lakes, two of them named Shelbyville and Springfield. Agriculture continues to dominate the region’s economy, along with manufacturing, notably, Caterpillar Inc’s headquarters are located in Peoria. Central IL that isn’t Peoria or Springfield is by-and-large rural Tory-voting country, parts of it can go Labor though in good years for the party, such as 1997.

Peoria, the aforementioned home of Caterpillar Inc, and known for the phrase “Will it play in Peoria?”, is still largely manufacturing city has a high Labor vote and a low Lib Dem vote, although the Tories made a decent challenge in 2010 while narrowly losing the city.

Springfield, the state’s capital, and home to Abraham Lincoln for much of his pre-White House life, has a large portion of its workforce employed by the public, healthcare and education sectors, and would be strong for the Lib Dems (and their predecessors the Liberals), particularly in both 1974 elections, 1983, 1987, 2005 and 2010. 2015, with the way the Lib Dems are currently polling, should see this go back into Tory hands, though. Labor don’t tend to do very well here, although they did come second in 1997 and 2001.

East St. Louis and Southern Illinois

Southern Illinois, also known as Little Egypt, is significantly different from the remainder of the state, and is the only part of IL where USIP has any significant presence. Depending on who you talk to, this extension of SE Missouri, NW Kentucky or SW Indiana is the most Tory-leaning part of the state, with Labor far behind, the main exception, barring East. St Louis, is Lib Dem leaning Jackson County, thanks to the University of Southern Illinois.

East St. Louis, an extension of the St. Louis metropolitan area and a main centre in the state, votes Labor, much like St. Louis itself on the other side of the Mississippi River, although the Tories have a higher base in East St. Louis.

Illinois as a whole would have been a Tory-leaning swing state all the way into 1992, but Labor have managed to hold it ever since. This is similar to seats in the UK like Edmonton, and Slough, which are demographically going more towards Labor and the left, Edmonton in particular may never be held by the Tories again.

Here’s how Illinois would have voted from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Conservative, very narrowly though, and from high turnout in the collar counties and rural IL.
October 1974: Labor, again quite narrowly.
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

Indiana and Ohio are up next, but before that, the next post contains the updated map/vote shares, along with something extra.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Here’s the updated map:

Key to states coloured in green:
SC, GA, AL, MS & AR – USIP

Race so far:
Labor: 90
Conservative: 134
Liberal Democrat: 7
USIP: 46

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
New York: 44-35-13
Pennsylvania: 45-41-6
New Jersey: 32-48-16
Delaware: 46-41-11
Maryland: 41-42-13
Washington DC: 72-10-15
West Virginia: 30-46-12-8
Kentucky: 21-51-4-17
Virginia: 24-44-15-14
Tennessee: 18-54-11-14
North Carolina: 14-47-16-18
South Carolina: 15-33-14-34
Georgia: 13-21-18-44
Florida: 16-43-19-18
Alabama: 24-19-2-50-4
Mississippi: 34-12-2-40-11
Louisiana: 29-35-3-27
Arkansas: 31-25-3-37
Missouri: 32-49-7-7
Illinois: 43-34-16

And, as a half-time treat, here's a map of how the 2010 election would look if USIP and the ANP didn't exist or were minor forces:

Most of USIP's vote goes to the Tories, with a small chunk going to Labor and an even smaller one to the Lib Dems. The ANP is more roughly divided, with a lot of its vote evaporating.

EDITS: Corrected Illinois' and Florida's shading in the No USIP map, along with correcting the vote shares for NC, SC, GA and FL (I previously had their old vote shares entered in). Also changed ME's colour to yellow in the No USIP map.

[Knives]

So the conservative win every election pretty much?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think you are reading too much of contemporary US political into the UK.

Anyway, I'm bored and I don't feel like writing papers right now so I did a few maps for the last few UK general elections. I'm not going to go into too much details about my reasoning but I suspect that the Lib Dem vote would actually correspond surprisingly well with Perot's vote (ie. Strongest in New England and the West, very weak in the south). I'm also assuming that racialized voting is weaker in this version of the US than in the RL. But considering that race has always been one of the major reasons why a labour-type party has not emerged in the US, I may be too optimistic (from a Labour POV). I'm not bothered to do percentages.

2010:

Tory 313, Lab 203, Lib Dem 22. The tories finish second in all the states won the Lib Dems though Colorado would be close between all three. Only in Hawaii, MA and RI do the conservatives finish in third.

2005:

I'm a bit ambigious on South Carolina but then again, I know almost nothing about the state.

2001:

Oklahoma, maybe? Not sure about NC, FL or AZ either.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh, and for sh**ts and giggles and also to be held to be completely wrong on everything, here's 1983:

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

So the conservative win every election pretty much?

No, if you look at my past results for states, you'll see that Labor do win on a number of occasions, as you can see from my (incomplete) 1945 and 1997 maps, and from each state's voting history:

While we're waiting for AL and MS, I'll post a few maps of how previous prominent elections would look so far:

1945 (SC, GA, AL & MS = SRL):

1997:

I think you are reading too much of contemporary US political into the UK.

Anyway, I'm bored and I don't feel like writing papers right now so I did a few maps for the last few UK general elections. I'm not going to go into too much details about my reasoning but I suspect that the Lib Dem vote would actually correspond surprisingly well with Perot's vote (ie. Strongest in New England and the West, very weak in the south). I'm also assuming that racialized voting is weaker in this version of the US than in the RL. But considering that race has always been one of the major reasons why a labour-type party has not emerged in the US, I may be too optimistic (from a Labour POV). I'm not bothered to do percentages.

2010:

Tory 313, Lab 203, Lib Dem 22. The tories finish second in all the states won the Lib Dems though Colorado would be close between all three. Only in Hawaii, MA and RI do the conservatives finish in third.

2005:

I'm a bit ambigious on South Carolina but then again, I know almost nothing about the state.

2001:

Oklahoma, maybe? Not sure about NC, FL or AZ either.

Like your Perot-LD analogy, which makes a lot of sense, and the Lib Dems in my map are very weak in my map in the South, aside from wealthier parts of FL and GA, like Tallahassee. And good job overall, have you considered doing one of these projects yourself? Going from your location and avatar, maybe US with Dutch and/or Irish parties? I'd be interested in reading either of those!

EDIT: Amended 1945 & 1997 maps to add states I've done since I first did those maps.

[ottermax]

Maybe you could add Puerto Rico as a state and have a more active separatist party there?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Maybe you could add Puerto Rico as a state and have a more active separatist party there?

Thanks for the suggestion, although Puerto Rico isn't a state right now, I might do it when I've finished all 50 states, especially if Puerto Rico was a state. If I ever get around to doing a House of Commons map, as you could call it, I'll do Puerto Rico as well.

[Gass3268]

When are we going to see Indiana and Ohio? This is one of my favorite things on the site right now!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

When are we going to see Indiana and Ohio? This is one of my favorite things on the site right now!

Indiana I've done, Ohio I'll finish today

UPDATE: Due to negative circumstances, I won't be able to finish Ohio until tomorrow at least. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

To everyone following and reading this project, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Indiana and Ohio will hopefully be done in time for the New Year.

UPDATE: Due to a nasty accident I was involved in a couple of days ago, I'm not sure when I'll be continuing this.

[Jerseyrules]

American PM's:

1. George Washington (cross-bencher): 1789-1797
...
43. George W. Bush (BUF): 2001-2009