Yet Another Participatory Election Series...1796

[SPC]

I used ElectionGuy's series in order to calibrate this. Ground rules:
1. Continuity is preserved with the results of the previous election.
2. Whenever possible, the IRL nominees are used.
3. Partisan totals are calibrated as follows:

Federalist nominees: Multiply by 3/2
Democratic-Republican nominees: Multiply by 7/8
Whig nominees: Multiply by 1 (or 8/3 if an antislavery candidate is running)
Democratic nominees (pre-1856): Multiply by 6/5 (or 10 if an antislavery candidate is running)
Anti-slavery candidates: Multiply by 1/20
Republican nominees (until 1896): Multiply by 3/4 (or 4 if a greenback/populist candidate is running)
Democratic nominees (1856-1892): Multiply by 9/4 (or 4/3 if a greenback/populist candidate is running)
Greenback/populist/socialist candidates: Multiply by 1/10
Republican nominees (post 1896): Multiply by 8/5
Democratic nominees (1896-1932): Multiply by 5
Democratic nominees (post 1932): Multiply by 5/4

4. Four days for each round, followed by a map roughly reflecting the swing between game results and IRL results.

[tpfkaw]

Your multipliers are not quite calibrated right; you're going to have Lincoln getting 2% of the vote in 1860 and then Bryan getting 85% in his elections.

[SPC]

Your multipliers are not quite calibrated right; you're going to have Lincoln getting 2% of the vote in 1860 and then Bryan getting 85% in his elections.

The Republican multiplier replaces the antislavery multiplier come 1856. As for Bryan, it is difficult to make a muliplier that both prevents a Bryan landslide and an anti-Wilson backlash thereafter.

[tpfkaw]

Use 3 multipliers, one for Bryan, another for Parker and Smith, and a third for Wilson, Cox, and Davis.

[SPC]

Use 3 multipliers, one for Bryan, another for Parker and Smith, and a third for Wilson, Cox, and Davis.

Then the multipliers become 2, 3/2, and 10, respectively. I suppose that works better in sum, trading the possibility for weird results in 1896, 1900, and 1908 for a likely weird result in 1920.

[ElectionsGuy]

Jefferson

[tpfkaw]

To give myself a mild pat on the back, TBH, under the principle of KISS, I think the original formulas that I came up with make the most sense. (I slightly modified the definitions to make more sense). Multipliers are combined when appropriate; for example the Free Soil Party, and Frémont's Radical Democracy Party, would both have a multiplier of 1/12, since they are both anti-slavery parties and left-wing third parties. Keep in mind that simply having the multipliers also effects the vote totals (put a disclaimer in the poll question and list the multiplier next to each candidate), so they don't necessarily have to be huge.

N*1/4: Anti-slavery/pro-Reconstruction political parties/independents
N*1/3: Left-wing (defined, even if it doesn't favor leftist economics, as being clearly to the left of the mainstream party most popular in New England) third parties (were not among top two by adjusted vote total in previous election)/non-incumbent independents
N*1/1.5: Non-left-wing third parties/non-incumbent independents
N*1/1.5: Mainstream left-wing parties (defined as favoring some form of socialism, wealth redistribution incl. greenbacker/free silver policies, or welfare state expansion)

[SPC]

To give myself a mild pat on the back, TBH, under the principle of KISS, I think the original formulas that I came up with make the most sense. (I slightly modified the definitions to make more sense). Multipliers are combined when appropriate; for example the Free Soil Party, and Frémont's Radical Democracy Party, would both have a multiplier of 1/12, since they are both anti-slavery parties and left-wing third parties. Keep in mind that simply having the multipliers also effects the vote totals (put a disclaimer in the poll question and list the multiplier next to each candidate), so they don't necessarily have to be huge.

N*1/4: Anti-slavery/pro-Reconstruction political parties/independents
N*1/3: Left-wing (defined, even if it doesn't favor leftist economics, as being clearly to the left of the mainstream party most popular in New England) third parties (were not among top two by adjusted vote total in previous election)/non-incumbent independents
N*1/1.5: Non-left-wing third parties/non-incumbent independents
N*1/1.5: Mainstream left-wing parties (defined as favoring some form of socialism, wealth redistribution incl. greenbacker/free silver policies, or welfare state expansion)

So you have done a series such as this before?

[tpfkaw]

Started it but didn't finish; TNF also used my multipliers for a series or two with fairly reasonable results. I might add a multiplier of 1/3 for Thomas Jefferson vs. a Federalist and 1/2 for other Democratic-Republicans facing a Federalist.

[Mr. Smith]

Not sure of the point of this again, but since I joined the last run towards the end, I'll do this again just to see the course this time around from beginning (here) to the end (when 2012 is posted)

[Goldwater]

Hopefully this one doesn't end up being unfinished. Adams.

[TNF]

Thomas Jefferson.

[Supersonic]

Adams, but nine times out of ten Jefferson wins this match up.

[SWE]

Jefferson (likes free speech)

[Lambsbread]

TJeff.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Adams, but nine times out of ten Jefferson wins this match up.

This, but I'm OK with Jefferson.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Adams

[PPT Spiral]

Jefferson, of course.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Jefferson, although I'd be happy with Adams.

[SPC]

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 70
Vice-President John Adams 68
Minister Thomas Pinckney 58