• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Max's election maps and assorted others

Reader mode
OGR: Electoral College
  • Index
    • To give an idea of how big these departments are, here's the first post-Stevenson Plan apportionment for the Electoral College.

    hamiltonverse-electors-1900.png

    Under the original system, the number of electors given to each province was based on a regional quota system similar to the OTL Canadian Senate, but the Stevenson Plan changes this so that each department is guaranteed one elector and the rest are distributed by population. The electors are chosen by bloc vote, and unlike the National Assembly, the franchise is still restricted to landowning men. This means the electorate is about half of adult males, disproportionately rural and just about entirely white (though it's not an explicitly racist franchise anymore).

    The way the Electoral College works sort of resembles the sénat conservateur of Imperial France, or at least there's not really a closer OTL analogy. The electors are expected to be on call in New York for most of the year, and when a senator dies or resigns, the electors from his (or her, in very theoretical theory) home department nominate a successor with the advice and consent of the general council. The proposed successor gets voted on by all the electors, requiring a two-thirds majority to be approved, and if this is not reached, a new candidate must be nominated. The process is repeated until a two-thirds majority is found, at which point the candidate approved is seated as a Senator in the subsequent session. There are about a hundred senators at any given time, quite a few of them very old, so electoring is more time-consuming work than you'd expect from a short job description.

    The Supreme Governor is chosen in a similar way, except that instead of being nominated by departmental electors, he's (again, there's nothing explicitly saying a woman can't serve, but hahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh God have you seen the 19th century) nominated by the National Assembly. Any candidate who gets signatures from more than one-fifth of the Assembly is nominated and proceeds to the Electoral College, which, as before, needs to approve a candidate by a two-thirds majority.

    As you can tell, this isn't a very democratic or efficient way to run a government (have I mentioned that senators and the Supreme Governor serve for life?). Which is what happens when you mix Alexander Hamilton's plan of government with state governments fighting tooth-and-nail for what few powers they have left.
     
  • Index
    • Are there plans to redivide départements should some of them grow enormously in population? Looking at Florida pre AC, there.

    Also nice to see the separation of Tidewater and Piedmont districts and the relative lack of panhandles in the splittings.
     
    Redolegna said:
    Are there plans to redivide départements should some of them grow enormously in population? Looking at Florida pre AC, there.
    Click to expand...
    I have written somewhere that the number’s grown from 65 to 71 - I think part of that would be from splitting the Hudson in three (covering very roughly Long Island, New Jersey and the Hudson Valley), but that leaves four new departments if that old scribble is to be followed. Which it probably isn’t.
     
    hamiltonverse-regions.png

    Bit of a doodle showing the generally-accepted regions of the American Republic. These aren't very well-defined, as you can see - some departments (like the Kansas and Potawatomie) can be placed in one region or another, while some (like the Mohawk and the Illinois) are generally seen as geographically divided between two regions (in the latter case, Rock Island is pretty clearly Northwestern, while the hinterlands of St. Louis are thoroughly Midland). There's no formal administrative division above the department level, so each state agency uses its own divisions, which may be radically different from one another both in number and composition. But if you ask a citizen on the street to divide the country into broad regions, this is roughly what that would end up looking like.
     
    Last edited:
    Norway 1973
  • Index
    • Decided less ancient maps are probably going to be more accessible, so with that in mind I'm skipping the Norway series ahead to the point where the SSB start providing percentage results by municipality (which happily coincides with one of the most chaotic periods in their recent political history). This is going up on the DA as soon as I have the time and energy to write it up.

    Storting 1973

    val-no-1973.png
     
  • Index
    • Uhura's Mazda said:
    Obvious question being - what was the story behind Centre's decision to stand in Stockholm?
    Click to expand...
    They technically did stand in 1966, but the only constituency where they got more than about fifty votes was the 7th (which still had a decent amount of farmland in its northern half in 1966).

    Between 1966 and 1973, two big things happened that I’d say changed the dynamic. Firstly, the Liberals flagged quite badly without Ohlin, and the Centre took over their role as the party of sensible centrist non-socialists (in the terminology of the day) who felt a bit scared of the Moderates. Fälldin came to be seen as the natural leader of the non-socialist bloc, and his message of decentralisation and an end to overbearing state bureaucracy was beginning to resonate with urban voters as well.

    Secondly, the municipal reform happened, and while it hardly changed Stockholm’s boundaries, it did change the election cycle from four-year terms with elections held in between parliamentary ones to three-year terms with all levels of government elected on the same day. This had been a Social Democratic demand, because their voters had a (rumoured) tendency to skip local elections and this was thought to have caused the massive losses in 1966. But it also had the obvious side effect of “nationalising” local party systems, which includes the Centre winning seats on urban councils for the first time ever.
     
    Ares96 said:
    They technically did stand in 1966, but the only constituency where they got more than about fifty votes was the 7th (which still had a decent amount of farmland in its northern half in 1966).

    Between 1966 and 1973, two big things happened that I’d say changed the dynamic. Firstly, the Liberals flagged quite badly without Ohlin, and the Centre took over their role as the party of sensible centrist non-socialists (in the terminology of the day) who felt a bit scared of the Moderates. Fälldin came to be seen as the natural leader of the non-socialist bloc, and his message of decentralisation and an end to overbearing state bureaucracy was beginning to resonate with urban voters as well.

    Secondly, the municipal reform happened, and while it hardly changed Stockholm’s boundaries, it did change the election cycle from four-year terms with elections held in between parliamentary ones to three-year terms with all levels of government elected on the same day. This had been a Social Democratic demand, because their voters had a (rumoured) tendency to skip local elections and this was thought to have caused the massive losses in 1966. But it also had the obvious side effect of “nationalising” local party systems, which includes the Centre winning seats on urban councils for the first time ever.
    Click to expand...
    Thanks for this. Interesting to see GE turnout in local elections helping a minor party, when obviously in the UK it has the opposite effect.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top