If the US were the 5th British region, would it be a blue region?

[Conservatopia]

Based on the current coalitions and the lack of a party to the right of the Tories I think the Conservative Party would win the American Colonies pretty overwhelmingly.

[Del Tachi]

If the U.S. was a constituent country of the United Kingdom, would the UK even be British anymore?

[S019]

I think the Lib Dems would do quite well here, America is a quite polarized country, the Tories are probably too left wing for the conservatives here, and Labour is probably too left wing for the Liberals. The Lib Dems would probably win most of the Democratic areas, while some new US regional party probably wins most of the Republican areas. Now of course there are exceptions, for instance I think the Tories would do quite well in rich Romney/Clinton areas like Northern Virginia or Orange County, but like I doubt they'd be a good fit for say Wyoming or Idaho or Tennessee, and they'd have to likely tack well right of where they'd want to be to win in the UK to do so. For instance, they'd likely need to be openly pro-gun, openly anti-abortion, and take on a lot of other such culture war positions that would probably be toxic in the UK. People who do not live here truly underestimate how extreme the Republican Party truly is. As for Labour, I don't think their brand of unions and social democracy would play well here most social-democrats here tend to college-style progressives, and there are absolutely not enough of them for Labour to be viable on a national level. Much of the union vote in America has gone to the right due to the above mentioned culture wars, and most of them were not social democrats to begin with.

[CumbrianLefty]

This is *much* sillier than the reverse question (which is also pretty silly, of course)

[EastwoodS]

I think the Lib Dems would do quite well here, America is a quite polarized country, the Tories are probably too right wing for the conservatives here, and Labour is probably too left wing for the Liberals. The Lib Dems would probably win most of the Democratic areas, while some new US regional party probably wins most of the Republican areas. Now of course there are exceptions, for instance I think the Tories would do quite well in rich Romney/Clinton areas like Northern Virginia or Orange County, but like I doubt they'd be a good fit for say Wyoming or Idaho or Tennessee, and they'd have to likely tack well right of where they'd want to be to win in the UK to do so. For instance, they'd likely need to be openly pro-gun, openly anti-abortion, and take on a lot of other such culture war positions that would probably be toxic in the UK. People who do not live here truly underestimate how extreme the Republican Party truly is. As for Labour, I don't think their brand of unions and social democracy would play well here most social-democrats here tend to college-style progressives, and there are absolutely not enough of them for Labour to be viable on a national level. Much of the union vote in America has gone to the right due to the above mentioned culture wars, and most of them were not social democrats to begin with.

what?

[GeneralMacArthur]

None of the above, we'd have the American National Party that got like 80% of the vote in every election.

[S019]

I think the Lib Dems would do quite well here, America is a quite polarized country, the Tories are probably too right wing for the conservatives here, and Labour is probably too left wing for the Liberals. The Lib Dems would probably win most of the Democratic areas, while some new US regional party probably wins most of the Republican areas. Now of course there are exceptions, for instance I think the Tories would do quite well in rich Romney/Clinton areas like Northern Virginia or Orange County, but like I doubt they'd be a good fit for say Wyoming or Idaho or Tennessee, and they'd have to likely tack well right of where they'd want to be to win in the UK to do so. For instance, they'd likely need to be openly pro-gun, openly anti-abortion, and take on a lot of other such culture war positions that would probably be toxic in the UK. People who do not live here truly underestimate how extreme the Republican Party truly is. As for Labour, I don't think their brand of unions and social democracy would play well here most social-democrats here tend to college-style progressives, and there are absolutely not enough of them for Labour to be viable on a national level. Much of the union vote in America has gone to the right due to the above mentioned culture wars, and most of them were not social democrats to begin with.

what?

It's an obvious typo, if you read on it's clear that I meant to say "the American right wing base is too conservative for the Tories"

[EastwoodS]

I think the Lib Dems would do quite well here, America is a quite polarized country, the Tories are probably too right wing for the conservatives here, and Labour is probably too left wing for the Liberals. The Lib Dems would probably win most of the Democratic areas, while some new US regional party probably wins most of the Republican areas. Now of course there are exceptions, for instance I think the Tories would do quite well in rich Romney/Clinton areas like Northern Virginia or Orange County, but like I doubt they'd be a good fit for say Wyoming or Idaho or Tennessee, and they'd have to likely tack well right of where they'd want to be to win in the UK to do so. For instance, they'd likely need to be openly pro-gun, openly anti-abortion, and take on a lot of other such culture war positions that would probably be toxic in the UK. People who do not live here truly underestimate how extreme the Republican Party truly is. As for Labour, I don't think their brand of unions and social democracy would play well here most social-democrats here tend to college-style progressives, and there are absolutely not enough of them for Labour to be viable on a national level. Much of the union vote in America has gone to the right due to the above mentioned culture wars, and most of them were not social democrats to begin with.

what?

It's an obvious typo, if you read on it's clear that I meant to say "the American right wing base is too conservative for the Tories"

That’s what I assumed

[Former President tack50]

Well, for fun I decided to take the UK 2019 results (minus Northern Ireland) and try and shoehorn them into the US House of Representatives constituencies.

There result is a bit dumb but it's not like the premise of this thread can ever be simulated accurately so here it goes



(click to enlarge)

Believe it or not, there is actually a concrete methodology I used for this. Whether it was the best methodology or not is up for debate of course:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

1. Take the 3 most Hispanic Districts in California, give them to the Plaid Cymru equivalent

2. Take 3 random "border" districts in Texas, give them to the Conservative Party

3. Take the wealthiest district in Texas, and the El Paso district (to try and simulate the LD strentgh in the "highlands"). Give them to the Lib Dems

4. Give the SNP equivalent every other district in Texas

5. Order the remaining US Congressional districts by household income. Give any Dem-held districts that are among the 218 poorest districts in the US to the Labour Party

6. The Labour party is still 73 seats short of what they "should" have. Give the Labour Party the 36 poorest Republican held seats, and the 37 next poorest Democratic held seats (even if these Dem seats are richer than the US average)

7. Give every remaining district to the Conservative Party

[If my soul was made of stone]

(click to enlarge)

Is Hal Rogers losing his seat to Labour this timeline's reverse-equivalent of Bolsover in 2019?

[Former President tack50]

(click to enlarge)

Is Hal Rogers losing his seat to Labour this timeline's reverse-equivalent of Bolsover in 2019?

Well, presumably Hal Rogers seat would have been titanium Labour since WW2 because it's megapoor and what not.

A Bolsover equivalent might be something like idk, MI-01 maybe?

[Alben Barkley]

US Democrats would be split between the Lib Dems and Labour. Most of the "progressive" and "Democratic Socialist" wing (Bernie, AOC, etc.) would go to Labour while most of the "establishment" wing would go to the Lib Dems. Some even to the Conservatives perhaps, especially remaining Blue Dog types.

Republicans would be split between the relative moderates who accept the Tories and the rest (including most of the Trump fanatics) who think all UK political parties are "socialist" and would start their own "New Tea Party" insisting on independence. Only way to stop that perhaps would be if the Tories jolt to the right, especially on issues like guns. At the very least they would need to pledge that they would keep the status quo on such things in the American region, even if they don't change their positions on them in the other regions.

[Alcibiades]

Well, for fun I decided to take the UK 2019 results (minus Northern Ireland) and try and shoehorn them into the US House of Representatives constituencies.

There result is a bit dumb but it's not like the premise of this thread can ever be simulated accurately so here it goes



(click to enlarge)

Believe it or not, there is actually a concrete methodology I used for this. Whether it was the best methodology or not is up for debate of course:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

1. Take the 3 most Hispanic Districts in California, give them to the Plaid Cymru equivalent

2. Take 3 random "border" districts in Texas, give them to the Conservative Party

3. Take the wealthiest district in Texas, and the El Paso district (to try and simulate the LD strentgh in the "highlands"). Give them to the Lib Dems

4. Give the SNP equivalent every other district in Texas

5. Order the remaining US Congressional districts by household income. Give any Dem-held districts that are among the 218 poorest districts in the US to the Labour Party

6. The Labour party is still 73 seats short of what they "should" have. Give the Labour Party the 36 poorest Republican held seats, and the 37 next poorest Democratic held seats (even if these Dem seats are richer than the US average)

7. Give every remaining district to the Conservative Party

Tory San Francisco, Boston, Portland and Seattle 🤔

[Former President tack50]

Tory San Francisco, Boston, Portland and Seattle 🤔

Don't forget about Tory Denver and DC

Tbh this is an effect of me using household income to try and estimate the fact that Labour tends to win in higher deprivation level/poorer constituencies. Which in a US context ends up meaning that much of the normally Titanium R rural South ends up as Labour (since it is a poor area of the US after all!), while most US big cities (which aren't necessarily wealthy, but do have high incomes because of the high CoL)

Indeed, if I use such a similar methodology for the UK, I'd end up with lots of wealthy constituencies in London that are held by Labour and that by my methodology should be "Tory" because they have high incomes.

Some of these constituencies that ""should"" be Tory based on income but are held by Labour include Battersea, Putney, Westminster North or Hampstead & Kilburn; the latter 2 of which weren't even marginal seats in 2019

On a similar but reversed situation, a bunch of poor Tory constituencies that my methodology would have assigned to Labour would include Blackpool South, Great Yarmouth, Walsall North or Stoke-on-Trent Central; again with 2 constituencies here not even being competitive.

[Alcibiades]

Tory San Francisco, Boston, Portland and Seattle

Don't forget about Tory Denver and DC

Tbh this is an effect of me using household income to try and estimate the fact that Labour tends to win in higher deprivation level/poorer constituencies. Which in a US context ends up meaning that much of the normally Titanium R rural South ends up as Labour (since it is a poor area of the US after all!), while most US big cities (which aren't necessarily wealthy, but do have high incomes because of the high CoL)

Indeed, if I use such a similar methodology for the UK, I'd end up with lots of wealthy constituencies in London that are held by Labour and that by my methodology should be "Tory" because they have high incomes.

Some of these constituencies that ""should"" be Tory based on income but are held by Labour include Battersea, Putney, Westminster North or Hampstead & Kilburn; the latter 2 of which weren't even marginal seats in 2019

On a similar but reversed situation, a bunch of poor Tory constituencies that my methodology would have assigned to Labour would include Blackpool South, Great Yarmouth, Walsall North or Stoke-on-Trent Central; again with 2 constituencies here not even being competitive.

Something to note is that Labour win very few rural constituencies, poor or not, and those that they do/did generally had mining or heavy industry. But in general, there is nowhere near as much rural poverty in the UK as the US.

(Side note: Alabama is also very disturbing to me. The northernmost seat (the 5th district) would probably be the most Labour after the VRA 7th district, due to its TVA and union heritage.)

[beesley]

Part of me wants to make a map like tack50 did, but the better part of me knows that is a futile exercise, but I may anyway. What I will say is that a lot of seats that exist in the UK don't exist in the US, and vice versa.

For example:
-There are no seats like AL-7 that are rural ethnic minorities - I guess you could say seats like Dwyfor Meirionydd fulfill the same role, but it's not as if Welsh Speakers are integral to party coalitions.
-Because of the vast population disparities seats that are only based on a single settlement are inherently different e.g. FL-14, NM-01 vs Gosport. When viewed in relative to other places they aren't so dissimilar, but not really worth comparing. Even in seats like AL-01, Mobile is fairly close, whereas Gosport has Labour pockets but is not close.
-Again, population disparities mean that some seats are affected by what would be minor factors in the US. Canterbury, with its two universities of different levels, is an example, though Labour also have strength in that seat's second town of Whitstable - on the flipside, there aren't many seats centred solely on particular industries in the UK given our lesser agricultural/manufacturing output. The obvious example of one is Banff and Buchan, but even then it's not safe and the fishing community isn't uniform.
-No equivalent of SNP or Plaid, that should be obvious.

[If my soul was made of stone]

(Side note: Alabama is also very disturbing to me. The northernmost seat (the 5th district) would probably be the most Labour after the VRA 7th district, due to its TVA and union heritage.

Some of those TVA counties voted for presidential Democrats as late as Gore, and Democratic movement in Huntsville has been strong, so it should be flipped with the district to its south, which is almost uniformly white and rural and was one of the more unionist areas of the Deep South during the Civil War.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

A while back (the end of 2018, looking at my notes), I put some thought into how the US would vote with British parties and what areas would be roughly equivalent.

Texas is Scotland
New England is Wales
Washington and Oregon are Northern Ireland (Seattle is Belfast)

23rd District is the Lib Dem equivalent to Shetland and Orkney FS note: not sure what state this was for, but maybe Texas

Bernie is the leader of Plaid Cymru
     Cape Cod and Islands this along with VT-At Large and ME-02 are PC seats
     ME-2

“Speaker” is someone in the Midwest, maybe Chuck Hagel of NE-2?

Democrats - main right - Tories
Progressives - main left - Labour
Republicans - kinda center - Lib Dems
Greens - left                          - Greens
Texas National - Texas        - SNP
Alliance - PNW center         - Alliance
Democratic Unionist - PNW right - DUP
Xxxx      - PNW hardcore left - Sinn Fein
Xxxx      - PNW mod left - SDLP
Xxxx      - New England left nats - Plaid Cymru
Reform - NAFTA exit party - Brexit

Trump is equivalent to Nigel Farage
Matt Gonzalez is the Green rep from San Fran
Pelosi is the other rep from San Fran


Start with the 1992 General Election
Reform Party created to fight NAFTA

Start with the 1992 General Election
Reform Party created to fight NAFTA

For elections after 2020, ~479,000 per seat

Famous O’Rourke vs Cruz debate
Beto is the leader of the FS note: Texan Branch of theRepublican Party, while Ted Cruz is a Texan Nationalist

Didn’t finish coming up with names, but putting a bit more thought into it, I think that the SF equivalent could be the NDP/CCF of Canada (given that Sinn Fein operates in both UK and Ireland)

I think that my thought was to increase the number of seats from 435 to 650-700ish.

Looking at tack50’s map

Well, for fun I decided to take the UK 2019 results (minus Northern Ireland) and try and shoehorn them into the US House of Representatives constituencies.

There result is a bit dumb but it's not like the premise of this thread can ever be simulated accurately so here it goes



(click to enlarge)

Believe it or not, there is actually a concrete methodology I used for this. Whether it was the best methodology or not is up for debate of course:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

1. Take the 3 most Hispanic Districts in California, give them to the Plaid Cymru equivalent

2. Take 3 random "border" districts in Texas, give them to the Conservative Party

3. Take the wealthiest district in Texas, and the El Paso district (to try and simulate the LD strentgh in the "highlands"). Give them to the Lib Dems

4. Give the SNP equivalent every other district in Texas

5. Order the remaining US Congressional districts by household income. Give any Dem-held districts that are among the 218 poorest districts in the US to the Labour Party

6. The Labour party is still 73 seats short of what they "should" have. Give the Labour Party the 36 poorest Republican held seats, and the 37 next poorest Democratic held seats (even if these Dem seats are richer than the US average)

7. Give every remaining district to the Conservative Party

I would make some of the more educated suburbs (CA-07 for example) Lib Dems; NOVA is a good call to be a Lib Dem area now.

I would add a Green seat in somewhere (my notes mention Matt Gonzalez), but overall pretty good. I admit that some of my equivalencies (Wales/New England and Northern Ireland/Cascadia) are a bit of a stretch. Hispanics taking the position of Plaid Cymru is definitely an interesting idea.

I’ve linked another recent post of mine below, because I think I might make a thread for this scenario and the scenario presented below, though maybe they’ll just go in the random maps thread.

Not to digress too far, but I always thought it was funny that they FS note:Gibraltar voted in the Brexit/EU elections, but not even a single member for Westminster. I could see a combined MP for the South Atlantic territories (St Helena, Ascension, Tristan Da Cunha, and the Falklands); it would still be smallish, but at least they’d get representation in Westminster.

At some point, I want to do the thought experiment of how various overseas territories and crown dependencies would vote in a Westminster election.

[H. Ross Peron]

I think the Lib Dems would do quite well here, America is a quite polarized country, the Tories are probably too left wing for the conservatives here, and Labour is probably too left wing for the Liberals. The Lib Dems would probably win most of the Democratic areas, while some new US regional party probably wins most of the Republican areas. Now of course there are exceptions, for instance I think the Tories would do quite well in rich Romney/Clinton areas like Northern Virginia or Orange County, but like I doubt they'd be a good fit for say Wyoming or Idaho or Tennessee, and they'd have to likely tack well right of where they'd want to be to win in the UK to do so. For instance, they'd likely need to be openly pro-gun, openly anti-abortion, and take on a lot of other such culture war positions that would probably be toxic in the UK. People who do not live here truly underestimate how extreme the Republican Party truly is. As for Labour, I don't think their brand of unions and social democracy would play well here most social-democrats here tend to college-style progressives, and there are absolutely not enough of them for Labour to be viable on a national level. Much of the union vote in America has gone to the right due to the above mentioned culture wars, and most of them were not social democrats to begin with.

Ignorant, masturbatory post based off of your own fantasies of how what your "ideal" political coalitions should be. You seem to be ignoring that a huge proportion of Democratic voters are working class blacks and Latinos as well as some remaining WWC voters and public employees-all of whom constitute natural constituencies for the Labour Party. The Labour Party is *not* dominated by Corbynites and the experience of Blair suggests that even moderate voters can find a comfortable home there. Lib Dems, by contrast, would have limited appeal even among students (given how left-wing they are becoming) and will be squeezed between the more socially moderate orientation of the Tories as well as the moderate wing of Labour. It will do well in high income suburbs such as Marin County, CA or Fairfield County, CT but will almost certainly be smaller than either Tories or Labour.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

US Democrats would be split between the Lib Dems and Labour. Most of the "progressive" and "Democratic Socialist" wing (Bernie, AOC, etc.) would go to Labour while most of the "establishment" wing would go to the Lib Dems. Some even to the Conservatives perhaps, especially remaining Blue Dog types.

Republicans would be split between the relative moderates who accept the Tories and the rest (including most of the Trump fanatics) who think all UK political parties are "socialist" and would start their own "New Tea Party" insisting on independence. Only way to stop that perhaps would be if the Tories jolt to the right, especially on issues like guns. At the very least they would need to pledge that they would keep the status quo on such things in the American region, even if they don't change their positions on them in the other regions.

The Trump fanatics would easily vote for a Brexit Party or similar Farage-backed party.

I mean, Farage actually endorsed Trump. BoJo (to my knowledge) never did, and he supported Obama in 2008 even.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, since there's already a map for the largest Torie victory, a 1997 map would be cool if anyone wants to make one.