Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

[Nanwe]

Yesterday, Andorra held her general election, the 8th since the 1993 constitution legalised political parties and reformed the electoral system and ended the medieval sindics model with a cap del govern elected by the Consell.

The governing Demòcrates d'Andorra (DA), a liberal-conservative party created shortly after the 2009 election through the merger of the parties inside the Reformist Coalition has lost its absolute majority, partly thanks to the coalition at the district level between the Social Democratic Party (PS) and the Liberal Party (PLA), known as 'd'Acord' ('in agreement'). The PLA is a founding member of Demòcrates that later split off re-creating the PLA brand, whereas the PS is one of the oldest parties in Andorra (dating all the way back to late 1990s) and well, its ideology is straightforward.

The other parties are Tercera Via (Third Way), a coalition of the regionalist UL (they want autonomy for the parish of Sant Julià de Lòria) and small Christian democratic parties and Ciutadans Compromesos (CC, Committed Citizens), a small centrist party that only ran in the parish of La Massan where they have been governing since 2015.

Andorra has an unusual electoral system, an odd mix of tradition and modernity. It is a non-compensatory mixed system where each municipality (known as parròquia, lit. parish) elects two deputies regardless of their population (a legacy of the pre-1970s system where each parished elected 4 members regardless of the population), with the two seats being allocated to the most voted list. Then there's a 14-seat national constituency elected via PR with the D'Hont quota and no threshold (in practice, the mathematical threshold is around 7,14% of the vote).

This has usually created a great benefit for the largest party as they gain a large number of seats from the majoritarian side of the electoral system. Hence the importance of 'd'Acord'.

 

[Nanwe]

In a typical 'European ministate election', the 2015 Andorran election was fought between two liberal-conservative parties who mostly agreed on the all the essentials yet thought they other should not govern, even though both parties essentially come from the same original party - Unió Liberal, which governed Andorra between 1997 and 2009.

The left was divided between the PS-led coalition of 'Junts' (Together), which ran joint lists with the Greens and another minor party and then the alternative social democratic party SDP, officially known as Social Democracy and Progress.

 

[Nanwe]

The 2011 election was the first one in which Democrates participated, following the merger of the parties that had formed the Reformist Coalition in the 2009 election. In 2009, the Social Democratic Party obtained a majority but not an absolute one, making it hard to govern and pass legislation and ultimately resulting in them calling an early election in 2011. The election was disastrous for the PS, punished for their inability to govern, and as a result, Democrates obtained a crushing majority (77% of the seats) and 55% of the vote.

 

[Nanwe]

The 2009 Andorran general election is the only one since 1993 in which the left-wing parties, the Partit Socialdemocrata (PS), had a majority (if not absolute) to govern. And yet, it was a highly-unstable legislature, only lasting 2 years. The right-wing, centred around the Unió Liberal formed an electoral coalition known as Coalició Reformista (CR, 'Reformist Coalition') to try and remain in power, which they failed at it. There was also a radical centrist force, Andorra pel Canvi (ApC, 'Andorra for the Change').

 

[Nanwe]

The 1979 election to the Parlamento Foral (Foral Parliament) of Navarra was held simultaneously with the local elections and the elections to the Juntas Generales of the three Basque provinces. This is the only instance in which the mediaeval administrative unit, the merindad, was used as an electoral constituency. Since 1982, the Navarrese Parliament has been elected from a single constituency. This is also the only election since 1936 in which a party espousing a Carlist ideology (even if it was Titoist Carlism) obtained a seat at a regional assembly.

Each merindad was assigned 5 seats regardless of its population, with the remaining seats distributed between merindad according to their demographic weight until having allocated all 70 seats. The city of Pamplona (Iruña in Basque) was separated from the rest of the merindad of Pamplona and acted as its own constituency for all purposes. Other than that, it was a typical Spanish election with closed lists, D'Hont quota and 3% threshold.

The Regional government, the Diputación Foral was elected simultaneously: Each constituency was assigned one member of the Diputación, with the exception of Tudela which was given two on account of its larger population (Pamplona was after all split into two constituencies). The party that obtained the most votes in the legislative election in each constituency was automatically given the merindad's seat in the Diputación. In the case of Tudela, the same procedure applied, but for the two largest parties.

The parties could be divided between Basque nationalists and non-Basque nationalists. And the non-Basque nationalist was further divided between those who favoured a more 'normal' position for Navarra within Spain (PSE-PSOE, UCD) and those who instead advocated for the continuity of its mediaeval privileges, the fueros. (UPN). There was also the left-right axis, although most Basque nationalist groupings were left-wing.

Herri Batasuna (HB) was the political arm of ETAm (ETA militar). It only ran its own list in the two Pamplona constituencies. Otherwise it ran within the Amaiur coalition.
Amaiur was a coalition of Herri Batasuna, Euskadiko Ezkerra (EE, the political branch of ETApm) and the Basque-nationalist communist EMK party, as well as some local independent groups, like AETE (Estella), Orhi Mendi (Sangüesa) and AEPM (Olite). It was also supported by the PNV-EAJ.
Nacionalistas Vascos (NV) was an electoral coalition that only ran in the two Pamplona constituencies formed by the PNV, Euskadiko Ezkerra and ESEI.
UNAI was an electoral coalition formed by the Maoist party ORT (Revolutionary Labour Organisation), that only ran in the Tudela constituency.
IFN was an independents' list formed by Jesús Ezponda Garaicoechea in the Sangüesa constituency. It has a Basque nationalist, foralista ideology.

 

[Nanwe]

From the same Columbia universe I've made stuff for before:

 

[Nanwe]

And some logos (and info):

​

The National Progressive Party, colloquially known as the Nats, is a right-of-centre national political party in Columbia. It was created in 1926 following the merger of the National Party and the Progressive Party. Through the National Party, it traces its origins to the country's independence from the United Kingdom in 1834 and to the Columbian Whig Party during the late colonial period. The party originally opposed the Federal Party and its successor, the People's Party, but since the rise of the labour movement in the late 19th century, the party became the main centre-right party in Columbia opposed to the centre-left Labor Party.

The National Progressive Party is considered one of the most historically-successful parties in the world. Since the National victory in the Federal Rebellion, the NPP held power almost consecutively between 1857 and 1939. In 1926, the party was founded after the right-wing National Party integrated the Progressive Party, the political vehicle of the early 20th century progressive movement. Since 1950, it has held office for nearly 44 years. The National Progressive Party held power continuously between 1962 and 1979 under the premiership of William W. Scranton (1962-1975) and William M. Milliken (1975-1979). Scranton's success and popularity re-defined the National Progressive Party, and he remains a historical and ideological cornerstone for the party today.

The successive premierships of Henry Chafee, Charles Baker and xx (2002-2014) represent the NPP's most recent stint in power. The NPP is broadly considered a "big tent" party, incorporating a broad variety of ideological perspectives. Although it is generally considered to be on the right of the political spectrum, the party de-emphasises major ideological issues, instead embracing Burkean pragmatic conservatism and Scrantonian managerial liberalism, focused on fiscal responsibility, support for economic growth through education and infrastructure investment and a timidly progressive social agenda.

***

​

The Laborers' Party, more commonly known as Labor, is a centre-left national political party in Columbia. Labor has been in power since 2014, with the current party leader, Sherrod Brown, serving as the current First Secretary.

Labor was founded in 1901 in Chicago as the merger of the Columbian Workers' Party and the Social Democratic Party. Labor traces back its origins to the first political associations of left-leaning workers in Columbia during the 1880s. Following its creation, the party grew rapidly, quickly becoming the country's main centre-left party, a position it retains to this day.

Labor became a social democratic party in 1925, after a series of splits of left-leaning members to form the Socialist Labor Party and the Columbian Communist Party in 1919 and 1921 respectively. Previously, the party has been in power between 1939 and 1950, 1954 to 1962 and again between 1982 and 1986, 1988 and 1994 and from 1998 to 2002. Labor has usually governed in coalition or with the support of the Farmers' Union, a western Columbian Christian-left political party. Labor First Secretaries like Gerhard Williams and Humbert Humphrey established the bases and later expanded the modern Columbian welfare state.

During the 1980s and 1970s, following the long spell in opposition, Labor remained deeply divided between the so-called moderniser wing, led by Michael Dukakis and the movement branch, led by First Secretaries like Mario Cuomo and Robert Rae. In this period, the party legalised abortion, granted further autonomy to the provinces and expanded social services. Unlike the NPP, which is closely associated with the Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Congregationalist churches, Labor is a secular party, drawing its support from ethnic-majority areas and from trade unions' members. The party advocates policies like a higher minimum wage, increased income taxes for high-income individuals and larger corporations, LGBT rights, expanded social services or reducing the country's poverty rates.

 

[Nanwe]

As a quick distraction from thesis-writing, I made an electoral map for the Valencian election of 2019 under the electoral model I made back in 2016, with smaller constituencies and seat apportionment based solely on population, thus reducing Castellón/Castelló's overrepresentation. The constituency boundaries were based off the counties of the region and I tried to respect the Valencian-speaking vs Spanish-speaking lines in Valencia/València and Alicante/Alacant.

99 seats:

PSOE-PSPV: 23,87%, 25 seats
PP: 18,88%, 21 seats
Compromis: 16,45%, 18 seats
Ciudadanos: 17,45%, 17 seats
Vox: 10,44%, 11 seats
Podem-EUPV: 7,97%, 7 seats

The left maintains power, like OTL, although the margin is smaller than OTL, as their majority is one seat, 50 seats (down from 52 OTL) to the right's 49 (47 OTL).

For comparison, 2015:

PP: 26,99%, 32 seats
PSOE-PSPV: 20,87%, 23 seats
Compromis: 18,70%, 20 seats
Ciudadanos: 12,66%, 13 seats
Podem: 11,55%, 11 seats

Here, the left held 54 seats, so a 4 seat majority. This is compared to OTL's 55 seats.

 

[Nanwe]

So these are the first two maps of the 1979-1980 Basque election maps. The Vizcaya and Guipuzcoa provincial assemblies' maps, with their odd executive which was reflective of the elected members in each constituency (so, forcibly multi-party). This was the only instance in which this system was used, starting with the 1983 election, the Juntas Generales would work as a regular parliamentary system, with an executive reflective of the parliamentary majority.

I'm separating the various provinces partly because they ran different elections but also because Álava has a completely different electoral system (people voting for local councillors, who in turn elect from among themselves the provincial assembly and the provincial executive). Álava will come later, and so will the 1980 regional election.

Provincial Assembly of Vizcaya (90 seats)
EAJ-PNV: 39.62%, 40 seats -
HB: 19.89%, 19 seats
PSE-PSOE: 15.41%, 14 seats
UCD: 11.18%, 10 seats
PCE-EPK: 5.54%, 3 seats
EE: 5.51%, 4 seats

Diputación Foral (30 seats)
EAJ-PNV: 15 seats
HB: 6 seats
PSE-PSOE: 5 seats
UCD: 4 seats

Provincial Assembly of Guipúzcoa (81 seats)
EAJ-PNV: 35.18%, 33 seats -
HB: 21.49%, 19 seats
PSE-PSOE: 15.21%, 12 seats
EE: 11.44%, 10 seats
CI: 5.51%, 4 seats
PCE-EPK: 3.21%, 0 seats
UCD: 2.95%, 3 seats

Diputación Foral (27 seats)
EAJ-PNV: 12 seats
HB: 6 seats
PSE-PSOE: 4 seats
EE: 4 seats
CI: 1 seat

 

[Nanwe]

These are the last two maps of the Basque series, the Alavese 1979 election to its Junta General and the 1980 Basque Parliament election.

Álava's electoral system was - only in 1979 - completely different from that of the other Basque provinces. Instead of a direct election, it was indirect. The Alavese voters elected their local councillors. The local councillors chose from among themselves in 17 constituencies their representatives in the Juntas Generales. The exception was Vitoria were all local councillors were also members of the Juntas Generales. In turn, the 18 constituencies were grouped into 6 hermandades from which the Diputación Foral was appointed, respecting proportionality, like in the other Basque provinces.

Provincial Assembly of Álava (29/57)
EAJ-PNV: 26 seats
UCD: 14 seats
Independents: 10 seats
PSE-PSOE: 7 seats

Diputación Foral (16)
EAJ-PNV: 10 seats
UCD: 3 seats
Independents: 2 seats
PSE-PSOE: 2 seats

​

This is the map of the first Basque Parliamentary election done after the approval of the 1979 Estatuto, the 1980 election. Each Basque province is awarded an equal amount of seats (20 each in 1980) regardless of the disparity in population. This greatly benefits Álava as the smallest, by far, of all the provinces.

Parlamento Vasco - Eusko Legebiltzarra (31/60)
EAJ-PNV: 38.10%, 25 seats
HB: 16.55%, 11 seats
PSE-PSOE: 14.21%, 9 seats
EE: 9.82%, 6 seats
UCD: 8.52%, 6 seats
AP: 4.77%, 2 seats
PCE-EPK: 4.02%, 1 seat

The resulting government was a minority PNV one, thanks to the abstention of Herri Batasuna in the second investiture vote, where there were 25 votes in favour of Garaikoetxea (the PNV's 25), 24 against (all the opposition parties minus HB) and 11 abstentions.

 

[Nanwe]

These are some local elections' maps from the Second Republic.

So here's Madrid in 1931. These are the old city boundaries before the city tripled in size and doubled in population in the 50s by incorporating a good chunk of surrounding municipalities. The 1931 elections were held under the 1907 electoral law's system, which established a simple SNTV system where the 3-7 most-voted candidates, regardless of party affiliation were elected.

The law prescribed that electoral districts should elect ideally 4 members but the permitted range was from 3 to 7. In Madrid, the 50 members of the City Council were elected in 10 5-member constituencies that matched the city's districts at the time. Voters were could vote for several candidates depending on the size of the district. In the case of Madrid, voters could vote for up to 3 candidates out of the 5 seats.

As a result, in Madrid, the candidatures would only present 3 candidates, usually resulting in a 3:2 division between majority coalition and minority coalition. As is the case in Madrid. There were two coalitions, the anti-monarchist (Republican-Socialist Coalition) and the monarchist one.

The anti-monarchist was a broad coalition: Socialists, left-wing republicans from the PRRS and AR, centrist republicans from the PRR and right-wing republicans from DLR plus some independents.

The monarchist was as well: Ranging from old-school liberal monarchists (Romanonistas), conservative monarchists, ultra-conservative monarchists as well as some independent monarchists, one running as a 'democrat monarchist'.

The election was a great victory for the republicans, with the anti-monarchist bloc gaining 69% of the vote and 60% of the seats. The republicans were strongest in the south of the city, which was - and is - more left-wing. Instead, the monarchists were strongest in the then-district of Bellavista, which today corresponds roughly to the Salamanca and Retiro areas, where the right is near-hegemonic today.

​

In Barcelona, 50 members were also elected from 10 districts corresponding to the city's ten districts under the same system as in Madrid. But here district size varied more, from 3 to 6 members elected depending on the district. The support for the Lliga to this day corresponds well with the areas where the right does better, with the exception of Ciutat Vella, which is now more of a bohemian area, voting for the CUP in regional elections.

Also, unlike Madrid, Barcelona's city boundaries have roughly remained the same since the early 1920s.

In here, there were three blocs - a Republican-Socialist Coalition formed chiefly by the PRR (by far the strongest anti-Catalanist party in Catalonia) due to the weakness of the PSOE in the city and the flirtation with Catalanism of the republican left.

Then there was the Esquerra Catalana (Catalan Left) coalition, formed by ERC, the Catalanist socialists of the USC and some minor parties. At the time ERC was a broad home of people ranging from centre-right republican Catalanism to Marxists, but it was nationalist first and left-liberal second.

Lastly, the Lliga Regionalista (Regionalist League), that had been the strongest party in the city and in Catalonia since the early 1900s, was the main centre-right party. The Lliga was soft-monarchist (aka. didn't give a shit) but more conservative than Esquerra and pissed at no longer being the vehicle for Catalanism in Spanish politics.

Esquerra Catalana obtained 30.74% of the vote and 50% of the seats, the Lliga obtained 21.61% of the vote and 24% of the seats, and the PRR obtained 20.53% of the vote and 24% of the seats. The big losers were the centrists from ACR who obtained over 13% of the vote but no seats.

In most of Spain the 1931 ones were the only local elections held democratically until 1979. Not so in Catalonia where the powers over holding local elections were transferred by the Estatut of 1932. As a result, the Generalitat drafted a new electoral law and organised local elections in 1934. Unlike in 1931, Barcelona was now an at-large constituency.

In the weird, typically Second Republic-style electoral system, the most-voted list of candidates obtained 66% of the seats, the second-most voted, the 66% of the remaining seats and so on. Barcelona's city council was reduced from 50 to 40 members, of which 26 were members of the 'Coalició d'Esquerres' coalition between ERC, USC, the ACR (centrist Catalanists) and the PNRE, a party that broke off from the ERC because it thought the party was too moderate by acquiescing to autonomy.

The main opposition was the 'Lliga Catalana' (the new name of the Llega) which also included a Carlist (Comunión Tradicionalista) among its elected members.

The PRR also obtained four seats.

The Left Coalition obtained 50.2% of the vote and 65% of the seats, the Llega obtained 41.3% of the vote and 25% of the seats, whereas the PRR got 6.5% of the vote but 10% of the seats. The next party, the right-communist BOC obtained less than 1% of the vote.

 

[Nanwe]

Some more local elections, now after the end of the dictatorship. For now just Madrid. The electoral system here is very straightforward: Closed-list PR with a single constituency, 5% threshold.

You will also be able to tell just how much bigger Madrid was. Most of the old city boundaries fit in the UCD-won areas of the city centre.

​

The following one (with 57 instead of 59 council members). Tierno Galván would die mid-legislature being replaced by the deputy mayor, Juan Antonio Barranco.

1987 represented, until 2015, the last local election in Madrid won by the left. Indeed, the entrance of the centrist CDS complicated matters for the mayor, Barranco, who would lose a no-confidence motion in 1989. He would be replaced by Agustín Rodríguez Sahagún, from the CDS thanks to the votes of Alianza Popular.

 

[Nanwe]

Belgian federal election results, 2019
N-VA: 16.03% (-4.23 pp.), 25 seats (-8)
VB: 11.95% (+8.28 pp.), 18 seats (+15)
PS: 9.46% (-2.21 pp.), 20 seats (-3)
CD&V: 8.89% (-2.72 pp.), 12 seats (-6)
PvdA+/PTB: 8.62% (+4.90 pp.), 12 seats (+10)
Open Vld: 8.54% (-1.24 pp.), 12 seats (-2)
MR: 7.56% (-2.08 pp.), 14 seats (-6)
sp.a: 6.71% (-2.12 pp.), 9 seats (-4)
ECOLO: 6.14% (+2.84 pp.), 13 seats (+7)
Groen: 6.10% (+0.78 pp.), 8 seats (+2)
cdH: 3.70% (-1.28 pp.), 5 seats (-4)
DéFI: 2.22% (+0.42 pp.), 2 seats (=)

This time around it will prove hard to form a government in Belgium. The traditional three*2 party coalition does not have a majority, and as such the likelier options are a purple coalition (PS+Liberals+Greens+CD&V), that would have a working parliamentary majority but no majority in Flanders. The other likely option is a Burgundian coalition, like the one in Antwerp (N-VA, PS, sp.a and Liberals), which would have a federal majority, a majority in Flanders and almost a majority in Wallonia. This seems harder to accomplish due to the crossed vetoes between PS and N-VA.

 

[Nanwe]

There's some crazy dual voting going on in West-Vlaanderen. Also Flanders, the land where the four largest parties are all varying shades of right-wing.

N-VA: 24.83% (-7.06 pp.), 35 seats (-8)
VB: 18.50% (+12.58 pp.), 23 seats (+17)
CD&V: 15.40% (-5.08 pp.), 19 seats (-8)
Open Vld: 13.13% (-1.01 pp.), 16 seats (-3)
sp.a: 10.35% (-3.64 pp.), 13 seats (-5)
Groen: 10.11% (+1.41 pp.), 14 seats (+4)
PvdA: 5.32% (+2.80 pp.), 4 seats (+4)
UF: 0.68% (-0.15 pp.), 0 seats (-1)

 

[Nanwe]

PS: 26.17% (-4.73 pp.), 23 seats (-7)
MR: 21.42% (-5.26 pp.), 20 seats (-5)
Ecolo: 14.48% (+5.86 pp.), 12 seats (+8)
PTB: 13.68% (+7.92 pp.), 10 seats (+8)
cdH: 11.00% (-4.17 pp.), 10 seats (-3)

So far, both cdH and PTB have ruled out being in government. PS and Ecolo are currently talking to try and form a government, excluding the liberals. But they wouldn't have a majority combined, so the end result might be a minority coalition government reliant on support from other parties to pass legislation.

 

[Nanwe]

ProDG: 23.33% (+1.13 pp.), 6 seats (=)
CSP: 23.14% (-1.72 pp.), 6 seats (-1)
SP: 14.85% (-1.23 pp.), 4 seats (=)
Vivant: 14.81% (+4.20 pp.), 3 seats (+1)
Ecolo: 12.51% (+2.96 pp.), 3 seats (+1)
PFF: 11.36% (-4.18 pp.), 3 seats (-1)

 

[Nanwe]

I've been thinking that I might re-do the Columbia list of premier with false people, as this gives me way more liberty to play with things. So this is something of a start to the whole thing. The country's independence is in 1833, but I haven't yet decided how I want to show the beginnings of the state.

1844-1850: Francis C. Adams (National)
1844: xx (Federal)
1848: xx (Federal)

The scion of the Adams political dynasty

1850-1856: Charles A. Winthrop (National)
1852: xx (Federal)

When Francis C. Adams resigned the premiership in 1850 mid-legislature, there were signs of the storm to come. Tensions were high in the west and in Congress, successive tariff-raising bills were introduced amidst the National’s plan for forcing local and state governments to invest in developing infrastructure were decried as tyrannical, prompting fits of anger in the backbenches and the occasional duel between members of both parties.
Out west, rumours spread of Federal militias arming against any tax officials or attempts by military forces to reduce the power of the states, the ultimate aim to enforce the Federal programme by force, expanding suffrage and returning power to the individual. In the east however, rumours also spread, but of the pact of the Federals with the English or the Devil – depending on the degree of religious puritanism.

In that atmosphere, ultimately it was a matter of time for things to explode. On 14 June 1853, during a local festival in the – then – small town of Adrian, a standoff between a mob and soldiers stationed there turned into a violent street clash resulting in the expulsion of the troops from the town. In response, military authorities sent a larger detachment to impose peace on the town, which called upon neighbouring towns for succour. The larger detachment was again expelled, but not after killing several men. From there, things spiralled and within two months half the country was in open revolt against Columbus and Winthrop’s authority. The rebels called for universal franchise, lower tariffs and taxes, a stronger response to Indian attacks and an end to the so-called ‘Massachusetts Monarchs’ [1]. The leaders of the Federal Party, like Marcus Morton, seized the opportunity to end their absence from power and enforce their programme, and put themselves at the helm of the revolt.

Historians today point at Winthrop’s dubitative nature as part of the reason for the beginning of the war, by delaying the start of operations in putting down the revolt. Ultimately, Winthrop would find his determination in leading the war effort putting down the Federalist rebellion. Along the way, and taking advantage of the war power, Winthrop recrafted the Columbian state to mirror his party’s ideals of strong government and a strong, protectionist economy.

By 1855, the civil war was over, the west had been pacified and the process of reconstruction was underway. In October of that year, Morton and the other major leaders of the rebellion were publicly executed for treason. At this point, Adams confided in his party that he had no desire to run again, and instead opened the field for the party conference to choose his successor.

1856-1864: Jasper E. Morgan (National)
1856: scattered opposition
1860: Lucius C. French (People’s)

Jasper E. Morgan was narrowly elected party leader by its congressional conference. With the backing of the party’s grandees, Morgan’s election was guaranteed. In the 1856 election there was virtually no opposition. The Federal leaders and other rebel commanders had been exiled, imprisoned, executed or disenfranchised. As a result, the National agenda could pass in a legislature where the party held a commanding majority. Morgan’s tenure was marked by his diplomatic overtures towards Britain and the expansion of the railway westwards.

Domestically, Morgan stood at odds against his own party over immigration, the great political issue of the 1860s. The great famine that struck Ireland drove thousands of Irishmen to move to Columbia. Many National politicians, remembering the support of 1848 revolutionaries to the Federal cause, were very wary of allowing further immigration into the country, particularly of Catholics. Morgan would however place himself in the pro-immigration side of the debate, driving tensions between the party’s liberals and restrictionists.

By 1864, pro-free trade and Western elements had begun to coalescence around a new party. The new leader, Lucius French, was a former Federalist that had remained opposed to the rebellion in his home state of Kankakee. French managed to form a party that accepted the National principles of a strong state but defending the old Federal plank of universal suffrage, free trade, free immigration to the west and harder anti-Indian policies.

1864-1866: Reuben A. Fenton (National)
1864: Eliphalet Banks (Restriction National), Lucius C. French (People’s)

Fenton was elected party leader by the National Party conference thanks to the support of western Nats and other immigration liberals. As a result, many easterners walked out, instead running as ‘Restriction National Independent’, obtaining a great deal of support in New England as especially in the Massachusetts area. In the election, the ‘official’ National candidates won a majority and Fenton began negotiating an Aliens Act in a transversal fashion.

Before it could be passed, Fenton was murdered by a former Federal rebel.

1866-1876: Francis D. Cox (National)
1868: Lucius C. French (People’s), xx (Democratic)
1872: A

With Fenton’s death, the National grandees sought instead to try and

[1] Ironical given that some of the most important leaders of the Federal Party, like Morton, were also part of the Bay Colony’s elites.

 

[Nanwe]

The last hurrah of Dutch pillarisation - the 1967 general election, with its 95% turnout.

 

[Nanwe]

Some more maps:

The Catholic People's Party (KVP) was the largest party in 1967, although much of its vote share was concentrated in the two Catholic-majority provinces of North Brabant and Limburg. The party was founded in 1946 as a successor to the Roman Catholic State Party (RKSP) of the interwar period. By 1967, the KVP had been consistently in government since 1945 in centre-left coalitions with the PvdA (1965-66), in centre-right ones with the ARP, CHU and VVD (1958-65, 1966-67) or in centrist ones with both the PvdA, CHU, ARP and/or VVD (1948-58). Internally by this point, the party was divided between two major wings, one closer to the Christian left and progressivism (that would split off in 1968 to found the PPR) and another more traditionally Christian democratic and closer to conservative positions. The 1967 elections represent the beginning of the decline of the Catholic bloc vote, as the KVP went from 30% to 26% of the vote and lost 8 seats.

 

[Nanwe]

Next up, the PvdA. Unlike other social democratic parties in Western Europe, the Labour Party (PvdA) was a newly-created entity in 1946, resulting from the merger of the SDAP, the interwar social democratic party and the VDB, a left-leaning liberal party. By 1967, the PvdA had been out of power for a decade with the exception of the brief Cals government (April 1965-November 1966). The PvdA Prime Minister, Willem Drees (1948-58) had been a very popular figure who, in coalition with the KVP built the Dutch welfare state. By 1967, the party had been going through some electoral decline and as a way to remedy it, it had begun to move towards New Left position to gain over young and female voters. Ultimately this pissed off the party's old guard that split off in 1970 to found the Democratic Socialists 1970 (DS'70), a new party led by Willem Drees Jr.

The PvdA's result in 1967, when it only obtained 37 seats out of 150 was its worse electoral performance until 1994 when it obtained again 37 seats. To this day it's the party's 7th worse performance.