4-party system

[justfollowingtheelections]

What kind of parties and candidates could produce the following map?

Electoral votes per party:
Red 238
Gray 127
Blue 113
Green 60

[Antonio the Sixth]

What kind of parties and candidates could produce the following map?

Electoral votes per party:
Red 238
Gray 127
Blue 113
Green 60

Grey : Progressive Party ( political matrix E: -5 , S: -7.5 )
Red : Social Democratic Party ( E: -5 , S: -2.5 )
Green : Moderate Party ( E: +5 , S : 0 )
Blue : Conservative Party ( E: +2,5 , S : +7,5 )

[Hash]

What kind of parties and candidates could produce the following map?

Electoral votes per party:
Red 238
Gray 127
Blue 113
Green 60

Grey : Progressive Party ( political matrix E: -5 , S: -7.5 )
Red : Social Democratic Party ( E: -5 , S: -2.5 )
Green : Moderate Party ( E: +5 , S : 0 )
Blue : Conservative Party ( E: +2,5 , S : +7,5 )

Indiana ain't voting for a Progressive Party with a -7.5 social score.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Grey : Progressive Party ( political matrix E: -5 , S: -7.5 )
Red : Social Democratic Party ( E: -5 , S: -2.5 )
Green : Moderate Party ( E: +5 , S : 0 )
Blue : Conservative Party ( E: +2,5 , S : +7,5 )
[/quote]

Indiana ain't voting for a Progressive Party with a -7.5 social score.
[/quote]

Who knows ? Thing change...
However, this map is not easy to legend, and States like Vermont and Indiana or Montana and West Virginia have nothing in common.

Here is my map ( the legen being the same) :

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Grey : Progressive Party ( political matrix E: -5 , S: -7.5 )
Red : Social Democratic Party ( E: -5 , S: -2.5 )
Green : Moderate Party ( E: +5 , S : 0 )
Blue : Conservative Party ( E: +2,5 , S : +7,5 )

Indiana ain't voting for a Progressive Party with a -7.5 social score.
[/quote]

Who knows ? Thing change...[/quote]

Yes. But I thought this was a 2008, current day scenario. If this in 2100, then of course things change.

However, this map is not easy to legend, and States like Vermont and Indiana or Montana and West Virginia have nothing in common.

Here is my map ( the legen being the same) :

West Virginia would be a SDP stronghold. Kentucky is hard to pin down, but there would be some solid SDP strongholds there. The SDP would also poll well in states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and other Southern states, but that's probably dependable on a general moderation on social issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To make it clearer, I'll do the popular vote percentages map.
Here is for SDP :

The legend is the same that for the atlas, minus 30% :
-More than 30%=>Between 0 and 10%
-More than 40%=>More than 10%
-More than 50%=>More than 20%
etc...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now for CP ( same legend ) :

[Antonio the Sixth]

PP :

[Antonio the Sixth]

And MP :

[justfollowingtheelections]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

[Hash]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Your gray states make no sense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

[Hash]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

There is still a marked difference between state and national parties in some areas. Or, alternatively, between local and national voting patterns.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Your gray states make no sense.

Are you incapable of reading or something?

[Hash]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Your gray states make no sense.

Are you incapable of reading or something?

Yay for useless personal attacks.

Anyways, you said "gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain". All your gray states have GOP governors and voted for Obama.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Your gray states make no sense.

Are you incapable of reading or something?

Yay for useless personal attacks.

Anyways, you said "gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain". All your gray states have GOP governors and voted for Obama.

Oh you're right, but you could have pointed that out in the first place instead of being an ass.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

Yes, that's also to note. I'm particularly surprised of Oklahoma and Kansas, but their governors should be DINOs.

[Hash]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

Yes, that's also to note. I'm particularly surprised of Oklahoma and Kansas, but their governors should be DINOs.

Sebelius and Henry.

Oklahoma actually has a large (almost 50% IIRC) Democratic registration advantage. Oklahoma was also a stronghold of the SPA and the SPA's success explains Oklahoma's fascist ballot laws.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

Yes, that's also to note. I'm particularly surprised of Oklahoma and Kansas, but their governors should be DINOs.

Sebelius and Henry.

Oklahoma actually has a large (almost 50% IIRC) Democratic registration advantage. Oklahoma was also a stronghold of the SPA and the SPA's success explains Oklahoma's fascist ballot laws.

So, the question is : why Obama got only 35% in Oklahoma ? If it's a "socialist" state, shouldn't it be attracted by his liberal policies and refuse republican "laisser faire" instead of swinging GOP ?

[Hash]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

Yes, that's also to note. I'm particularly surprised of Oklahoma and Kansas, but their governors should be DINOs.

Sebelius and Henry.

Oklahoma actually has a large (almost 50% IIRC) Democratic registration advantage. Oklahoma was also a stronghold of the SPA and the SPA's success explains Oklahoma's fascist ballot laws.

So, the question is : why Obama got only 35% in Oklahoma ? If it's a "socialist" state, shouldn't it be attracted by his liberal policies and refuse republican "laisser faire" instead of swinging GOP ?

Little Dixie, the SPA stronghold in Oklahoma.

I assume SPA voters weren't social liberals (if such a term existed back then).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting maps Antonio!

In my map, red states have a democratic governor and voted for Obama, gray states have a democratic governor and voted for McCain, blue states have a GOP governor and voted for McCain and green states voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.  And yes I was interested in what kind of parties could produce this map in 2009.

Oh, that's surprising to see how governors of some of the most liberal states ( Vermont, California, Minnesota ) have a republican governor, although they vote for Obama.

I wouldn't call Minnesota one of the most liberal states, but yeah it is surprising.  In some cases the reason some of these liberal states have a republican governor is the appeal of a certain individual (Schwarzenegger) in other its simply the fact that the state party is very different than the national party (Vermont).  What I found most interesting about the map was that pretty much all the states in the Upper South voted for McCain but have a democratic governor.

Yes, that's also to note. I'm particularly surprised of Oklahoma and Kansas, but their governors should be DINOs.

Sebelius and Henry.

Oklahoma actually has a large (almost 50% IIRC) Democratic registration advantage. Oklahoma was also a stronghold of the SPA and the SPA's success explains Oklahoma's fascist ballot laws.

So, the question is : why Obama got only 35% in Oklahoma ? If it's a "socialist" state, shouldn't it be attracted by his liberal policies and refuse republican "laisser faire" instead of swinging GOP ?

Little Dixie, the SPA stronghold in Oklahoma.

I assume SPA voters weren't social liberals (if such a term existed back then).

Yes, I knew that. But the Democratic Party is not only a social liberal party, it's an economical liberal party too. Why social issue should have more importance than economical ones in those states ? And why especially in this election dominated by economical issue Obama got less votes than Kerry ?

[pbrower2a]

A four-party system suggests the simultaneous breakup of two main political parties. Such seems unlikely in a first-past-the-post system such as ours.   

[justfollowingtheelections]

A four-party system suggests the simultaneous breakup of two main political parties. Such seems unlikely in a first-past-the-post system such as ours.   

It could happen, but after an election new alliances would be formed (the two least viable parties would be absorbed by the other two).