• 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

Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

OTL: 1921, 1924 & 1927 Hesse elections
So this is my first foray into the world of Weimar Republic elections - the map of the Hessian elections of 1921 and 1924. Simple enough electoral system - a single constituency with closed lists electing all 70 members through D'Hont and without thresholds.

The political system was dominated by the social-democratic SPD, which in both elections obtained over a third of the vote. In comparison to the SPD, the vote share of the Independent Social Democrats (in 1921 only) and the KPD combined never surpassed 6% of the vote.

The centre-to-right-wing vote was very divided owing to the social cleavages of the People's State. Zentrum, the Christian democratic party of Catholics was the second-largest party in the Landtag in both elections, although it only obtained 16-17% of the vote. The party's voters were concentrated on the provinces of Starkerburg (16.3%, 15.1%) and especially Rheinhessen (30.4%, 26.7%) in the southern section of the state while its vote share in the northern province of Oberhessen was much lower (5%, 5.2%).

Rural, Protestant Hessen, and especially Oberhessen voted "overwhelmingly" for the Hessian Farmers' Federation (Hessischer Bauernbund, HBB) which despite its name was not an agrarian party but a right-wing populist party that, like its Saxon equivalents, heavily used anti-Semitic rhetoric and was sociologically and ideologically close to the DNVP. The party's electoral stronghold was the northern province of Oberhessen were it obtained 32.8% and 30.2% of the vote in 1921 and 1924 respectively. Indeed, the DNVP's areas of core support were roughly the same as the HBB's.

By contrast, urban Protestant Hessen was the stronghold of the two liberal parties, the left-liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the right-liberal German People's Party (DVP). Of the two, the DVP was the strongest, and it was particularly strong in the more urban districts of Worms (33.1% and 26.1%) and Darmstadt (31.1% and 23%). But curiously, not Mainz. The party was strongest in the southern provinces of the People's State, and especially in Rhein-Hessen.

The DDP's strongest districts were not the same as the DVP's - although it was stronger in cities overall. Its best-performing districts were Alzey, Bigen and Oppenheim, districts with low population, which I guess would indicate more a rural character, so I don't know what could have caused that result.

In 1924, the then-banned Nazi party, which did not run in 1921, ran as a different entity, known as the National Socialist Freedom Movement (Nationalsozialistische Freiheitsbewegung, NSFB). It obtained 1.36% of the vote and one seat, that it would lose in 1927. It support was quite homogenous across all three provinces.

A6RNxiG.png


And 1924:

Following this election, Zentrum politician, Otto von Brentano di Tremezzo tried to form a 'bourgeois' government composed of Zentrum, DDP, DVP and HBB to replace the Weimar coalition government that had governed the state since 1919. In the investiture vote, von Brentano obtained 34 seats whereas the SPD candidate, the incumbent Carl Ulrich obtained 32 seats. As von Brentano failed to obtained the majority support of the Landtag, he could not form a government.

As a result, after two months of negotiations, Zentrum, DDP and SDP reached a new agreement and formed another Weimar coalition government, led by Ulrich.

mdgjEf0.png
 
Last edited:
I do love a bit of Weimar state-level politics. Not least because the systems and titles were so different from place to place.

Yeah, it's quite a bit of fun. All the Volkstaaten, Freistaaten and Freie Volkstaaten make it sounds very socialistic. And then there was Baden that was just a 'Republik', I guess they didn't mind using French words.

Also, Hessen had recall referenda, and for instance in 1926, the Weimar coalition that governed the state nearly lost the referendum that would dissolve the Landtag and call early elections. Apparently that was also the only way to dissolve the Landtag, the Staatspräsident couldn't do it. It's very "Progressive Era US".

Btw, I cam across the electoral system for interwar Bavaria and it is ridiculous. The description is in German and Google Translate doesn't do a good enough job at translating it imho, but here it is, it's just crazy complicated - four stages, a mix of individual constituencies and PR, weird thresholds, etc.
 
Btw, I cam across the electoral system for interwar Bavaria and it is ridiculous. The description is in German and Google Translate doesn't do a good enough job at translating it imho, but here it is, it's just crazy complicated - four stages, a mix of individual constituencies and PR, weird thresholds, etc.

Of course Bayern would be like this.
 
OTL: 1935 Subcarpathian Ruthenia regional election
Decided to give a go to a potential colour scheme for (some) Czechoslovak parties and also endulge in an easy map. This is the result of the provincial election of 1935 in Subcarpathian Ruthenia. The Provincial Assembly was formed by 18 members, 12 of which were elected in an at-large constituency and one third was appointed by the central government in Prague.

The Agrarians (RSZML) obtained more seats in the elected part of the assembly members than the Communists (the KSČ) because the party ran three separate lists that donated their votes to the largest one in the seat allocation. If they had all ran together from the get-go, the party would have been the largest.

The Czechoslovak parties had a limited presence in the region, with the exception of the Agrarians. The Czechoslovak Social Democrats (ČSDSD) obtained a single elected seat whereas the other main ones (the quasi-fascist National Union, the left-liberal National Socialists and the Catholic People's Party) had limited following.

Two Hungarian parties obtained representation, the Provincial Christian Socialist Party (OKSzP) and the Hungarian National Party (MNS, MNP in Hungarian). As you can imagine, the former was more moderate whereas the latter was more radically nationalistic. Both parties, like the Rusyn autonomist AZS were financed by Budapest.

Lastly, there was the Ruthenian (National) Autonomous Party (RAS), better known as the Fencivoks after the party leader, Štefan Fencik (Фенцик Степан) a far-right Rusyn nationalist who was also anti-Semitic. The party cooperated at the national level with the National Union but ran separately in the provincial election.

The Agrarians, together with the Czechoslovak Social Democratic, National Socialist and People's Parties formed the assembly majority.

The results are taken from here: Moravian Library


Ayx5T0U.png
 
Last edited:
Amazing.

Is that the Communist Party winning a plurality of the vote?

Just updated the info. But basically, yes and no. The Communists were very strong in Ruthenia, a land of abject poverty, quasi-feudal society without any type of middle class to speak of even by the 1910s, with many landless farmers - so the perfect place for rural radicalism. They obtained 25.6% of the vote. The Agrarians' main list obtained 16.3% of the vote, but if you added the other two they ran (as they did for the seat allocation), then the combined three agrarian lists slightly surpassed the commies with 26.6% of the vote.

For the record, the appointed third for the post-1928 provincial assemblies was applied to all provinces, and it could be slightly ridiculous. For instance, Bohemia's assembly had 120 members, 80 elected but 40 appointed.
 
Last edited:
Btw, I cam across the electoral system for interwar Bavaria and it is ridiculous. The description is in German and Google Translate doesn't do a good enough job at translating it imho, but here it is, it's just crazy complicated - four stages, a mix of individual constituencies and PR, weird thresholds, etc.
Well, I tried to translate it. @iainbhx, @ajross, feel free to savage this - but I think it's safe to say it was not the sanest system around, no.

In 1919, the distribution of the 180 total seats on offer took place in four steps. In the first step, 163 seats were distributed between lists (Wahlvorschläge) according to the Hagenbach-Bischoff system. Under this system, the “distribution number” (quota) was first calculated. This is the number of valid votes (1919: 3,409,306) divided by the number of seats given plus one (1919: 164). This number dictates how many votes are required to obtain a seat (1919: 20,788.4). Next, each list obtained the number of seats dictated by the quotient of votes obtained by that list, rounded to a whole number. Seats not distributed this way were distributed to those lists which have the largest number of votes not taken into account (through the rounding to whole numbers and thus seats) during the previous step.

In the second step, the seats already obtained by the individual lists were distributed among the candidates inside each of these lists. For this purpose, a total of 133 voting districts (Stimmkreise) were established. Depending on the size of each district, voters in it could choose either one or two candidates. The voters in the districts with two candidates to be elected, therefore, had two votes. Inside the lists, the seats were given to those candidates that had obtained the most votes on the district level inside the list on which they stood for election. To equalise the vote numbers obtained by candidates who stood in districts with two candidates to be elected, the vote numbers in these districts were halved. As such, there were “half”-votes in calculation, which can also be seen from the tables.

In a third step, a total of 17 seats were distributed according to the Hagenbach-Bischoff system between the lists. For the calculation of the quota here, the number of valid votes was also used. The quota here was nearly ten times as high (189,405.9) as in the first step. The seats so obtained could be distributed by the leaderships of each list concerned between candidates of these lists, that did not obtain seats already in the second step. The holders of seats distributed in the fourth step were called “national representatives” (Landesabgeordnete).

From 1920, the distribution happened first on the level of eight constituencies (Wahlkreise) in total. These constituencies were identical to the Bavarian Regierungsbezirke. In addition, Coburg formed its own constituency in the 1920 and 1924 elections. For the distribution of seats, a part of the total seats on offer (1920: 143 out of 158 in total; 1924: 114 of 129; 1928: 113 of 128; 1932: all 128) between these constituencies according to the proportion of electors voting there. Afterwards, the first two steps of the system used in the 1919 elections were followed, except insofar as the districts were redrawn so that each one only elected one candidate.

Votes for lists that were not turned into seats inside each constituency (Reststimmen) were summed up for all lists connected to one another in all constituencies in the third step. These so-called “joint lists” (Gesamtwahlvorschläge) were again given seats according to the Hagenbach-Bischoff method, as described above. In a fourth step, these seats were distributed between the constituency lists inside each of the joint lists according to the number of Reststimmen in each constituency. At the 1932 elections, the D’Hondt method was used for the calculation of the Reststimmen.

At the 1928 elections, this system of distributing Reststimmen was only carried out for those joint lists that had already obtained at least one seat in a constituency. This meant among other things that the DVP obtained three seats (that is, were able to turn their vote numbers into seats) in the 1928 elections, because they obtained one seat in the Pfalz constituency. However, the DDP and WP obtained nearly as many votes as the DVP but no seats, because they had obtained no seats in any of the individual constituencies. At the election (incomplete sentence)

In 1932, this regulation was slightly changed. Now, the Reststimmen were no longer counted on the national level, but rather inside the constituencies. It also became impossible for a joint list to obtain any more seats than its participating list would have in a constituency equivalent to the one with the lowest electoral quota. This quota varied for each constituency between 22,460 and 31,298. This meant that a joint list had to have received at least 22,460 votes in one of the constituencies to take part in the distribution of Reststimmen. Next, it was calculated how many seats each list had received in the constituency where it had stood. The resulting numbers, rounded into the nearest whole numbers, formed the highest numbers that each list could receive in each constituency by the Reststimmen calculation. The seats reached by the Reststimmen calculation were divided amongst the constituencies according to the number of Reststimmen obtained by the list in each one.

This could result in a situation where, although the D’Hondt method would assign the next seat to a joint list, these were not distributed to a constituency list, because all the constituency lists had already reached the maximum number of seats assignable to them and no part of the joint list in any other constituency had reached the quota for distribution. This happened to the DNVP in 1932. This list had won two seats in two constituencies. In addition, it gained one further seat in each of these through the Reststimmen calculation according to their maximum number of 1 in each of these two constituencies. One more seat assigned to it by the D’Hondt calculation could not be distributed, because it had already reached its maximum number of seats in each of these two constituencies and had not reached the quota anywhere else. Instead of five, the DNVP thus won four seats. The seat not distributed was instead given, according to the next step in the D’Hondt calculation, to the BVP. The combined joint list of the DVP and WP, which would be entitled to at least three seats according to its national vote total, was not given part in the Reststimmen distribution, because it had not reached the quota anywhere, and thus received no seats. The same went for the CSVD, which would have been entitled to one seat.
 
The system, now translated, does resemble the Danish one, as you mentioned. I don't quite get the point of it but it's interesting all the same. I might try to give mapping the constituencies and then put the winner of each of them, although I have to admit that it's quite annoying that it's so hard to find the stimmkreise data - although I suspect it's only natural.
 
The system, now translated, does resemble the Danish one, as you mentioned. I don't quite get the point of it but it's interesting all the same.
I imagine it's a feeble attempt to make PR happen while also allowing members to represent local constituencies in the way people were used to. Can't really say how well it works in practice.
 
I imagine it's a feeble attempt to make PR happen while also allowing members to represent local constituencies in the way people were used to. Can't really say how well it works in practice.

Yeah, probably true, after all the 1919 voting districts are the same as in the 1906 election.
 
As expected, I think I've run out of colours to map all the Czechoslovak parties with some degree of "success".

Missing still are the Hungarian-German Social Democratic Party (MNSDP) and the Party of Smallholders, Cottiers and Entrepreneurs of Czechoslovakia (SMDaZ) a small agrarian splinter party that obtained 0 seats but was the most-voted party in one judicial district within the constituency of Prague.

Captura de pantalla 2019-11-02 a las 17.38.43.png
 
I’d probably just put “others” for the smallest parties left after I’d run out of colours, and then indicate which party won where by symbols.

Yeah I think I’ll try to do that. I was trying to see if I could avoid that but it’s impossible to avoid indeed.
 
Back
Top