• 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

  • Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.

Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

Did the map of the 1910 election to get a feeling of the new map for the post-1898 situation (plus various boundary changes in Seville, Huelva, Barcelona and the Canary Islands). Coincidentally, 1910 was probably the last time the Restauración party system was stable, as the ousting of Maura and the murder of Canalajeas destroyed party unity in both parties for the next decade.

1910 was also the first election in which Maura's 1907 electoral law applied - the new law made it harder for elections to be rigged, but significantly made it harder to stand for office and provided for the automatic proclamation of deputies without an election where there were no opposing candidates (regularly one-quarter of all seats saw no election). It also eliminated the special colleges given they had been quite a failure in terms of delivering 'organic representation'.

After the 1909 Semana trágica in Barcelona, republicans got a major electoral boost, reaching their best-ever result - with 41 seats combining the CRS, the Catalanist UFNR of Valles i Ribot as well as Blasco Ibáñez's PURA party in Valencia. 1910 also represents the first time a Socialist was elected to the Spanish Parliament.


9Dt1UDm.png
 
Did the map of the 1910 election to get a feeling of the new map for the post-1898 situation (plus various boundary changes in Seville, Huelva, Barcelona and the Canary Islands). Coincidentally, 1910 was probably the last time the Restauración party system was stable, as the ousting of Maura and the murder of Canalajeas destroyed party unity in both parties for the next decade.

1910 was also the first election in which Maura's 1907 electoral law applied - the new law made it harder for elections to be rigged, but significantly made it harder to stand for office and provided for the automatic proclamation of deputies without an election where there were no opposing candidates (regularly one-quarter of all seats saw no election). It also eliminated the special colleges given they had been quite a failure in terms of delivering 'organic representation'.

After the 1909 Semana trágica in Barcelona, republicans got a major electoral boost, reaching their best-ever result - with 41 seats combining the CRS, the Catalanist UFNR of Valles i Ribot as well as Blasco Ibáñez's PURA party in Valencia. 1910 also represents the first time a Socialist was elected to the Spanish Parliament.


9Dt1UDm.png

And now for the Senate (which given it's a more complex image, I have some doubts about the positioning of the legend and the various special colleges

0d2R5jd.png
 
While I keep on working on Spanish elections, I think I'll map 1919 French legislative elections, mostly because the electoral system was peculiar. So usually, in the collective mindset, the electoral system used was proportional representation for the first time in France's history, right? Wrong.

In 1919, multi-member constituencies were re-introduced and a weird mixed majoritarian-proportional system was introduced with small constituencies.

In each constituency, lists were expected to be formed containing as many candidates as seats were up for election. Voters would be able to cast as many votes as seats were up for election, across party lists.

Those candidates who obtained over 50% of all cast votes were automatically elected.

Whatever seats were left unelected because candidates hadn't crossed the threshold were then apportioned across all lists in accordance with the largest remainder method. This was done by adding up all votes cast for a list and dividing them by the number of candidates presented. Once the seats were allocated to the lists, the candidates that gathered the most votes within the lists were elected.

And in proper pre-1958 French fashion, the lists were rarely single-party, but often responded to local dynamics, like joint Radical-liberal republican lists vs Republican Federation lists and so on.
 
I started working on the 1919 French elections at one point, the results are of course both available on the Internet Archive and also very strange. No doubt your effort will be better than mine though, I think my France base needs redoing in particular.
 
While I keep on working on Spanish elections, I think I'll map 1919 French legislative elections, mostly because the electoral system was peculiar. So usually, in the collective mindset, the electoral system used was proportional representation for the first time in France's history, right? Wrong.

In 1919, multi-member constituencies were re-introduced and a weird mixed majoritarian-proportional system was introduced with small constituencies.

In each constituency, lists were expected to be formed containing as many candidates as seats were up for election. Voters would be able to cast as many votes as seats were up for election, across party lists.

Those candidates who obtained over 50% of all cast votes were automatically elected.

Whatever seats were left unelected because candidates hadn't crossed the threshold were then apportioned across all lists in accordance with the largest remainder method. This was done by adding up all votes cast for a list and dividing them by the number of candidates presented. Once the seats were allocated to the lists, the candidates that gathered the most votes within the lists were elected.

And in proper pre-1958 French fashion, the lists were rarely single-party, but often responded to local dynamics, like joint Radical-liberal republican lists vs Republican Federation lists and so on.
That sounds interesting both for the electoral system and the era, it sounds challenging but I look forward to seeing it at some point!
 
In the meantime, have 1898 (description on the works). 1898 was the sole election in which universal suffrage was used in Cuba and Puerto Rico, after the granting of the Charters of Autonomy (basically turning Cuba and Puerto Rico into something similar to British Dominions except with representation in the Spanish parliament) and the total breakdown of the party system in Puerto Rico as the result of these changes - but you wouldn't be able to tell from the map, because 'orthodox' Unconditionals cooperated with the Opportunistic Unconditionals and because the Orthodox Autonomists also ran together with the dynastic Autonomists (rebranded as Liberals).

As an aside, I also have the results and a map for the 1898 regional election in Puerto Rico, and the results per constituency (but not the party affiliation of all non-majority parties, so it'll take some time to make it...) of the election.

zIPHfSO.png
 
I was doing some random research and found some actual maps from 1907 and 1910 - and the Liberals are red, the republicans yellow. The Conservatives were blue. It might be worth redoing the colour scheme.

On the side, I have been doing more in-depth research for the 19th-century Spanish elections (the Puerto Rican elections of 1898 are esp. a pain in the ass as the governing Liberal Autonomist Union broke down three days before the election resulting in competing liberal autonomists and 'orthodox' autonomists going their separate ways but not a 100% clear party affiliation especially as the press had better things to cover...)

fg4a9hS.png



avPAMCv.png
 
Very nice finds! I've seen a small number of coloured election maps for the UK in the late 19th century where the Conservatives are blue and the Liberals red - the fact that one of the captions refers to 'the red of Liberalism' going up or down makes me think that perhaps this was more universally established than I thought. (Of course it is used that way in modern Canada too, but not sure when that started).
 
This might be a strange request for a graphic to make, but I'll ask anyway? Any chance that anyone here could create a graphic of the oldest validated people and men ever in a TL where both World Wars--and thus both Nazism and Communism--never occur? I suspect that all of these events killed many people, especially but not only males, who had the potential to live to age 110+. By "many", I mean dozens or even hundreds. Were we deprived of any females who had the potential to live to age 117+ and/or of any males who had the potential to live to age 114+ and who had the documents to prove this?
 
Very nice finds! I've seen a small number of coloured election maps for the UK in the late 19th century where the Conservatives are blue and the Liberals red - the fact that one of the captions refers to 'the red of Liberalism' going up or down makes me think that perhaps this was more universally established than I thought. (Of course it is used that way in modern Canada too, but not sure when that started).

Yeah, the Canadian Liberals also immediately came to mind. To be honest, I have not found so far any colour-related metaphor or mention of the Spanish parties back then other than the Socialists.

Frankly, I think the colour selection was far more arbitrary at a time when "political party" meant little more than a "bunch of men attending the same somewhat ideological gentleman's club with attached newspaper and who often - but far from always - vote the same way". I don't think the Spanish turno parties ever even had actual electoral manifestos (with some exceptions like the 1885 Liberal "guarantees law" manifesto, but that had to do with quelling internal dissent rather than a true list of governmental promises), let alone logos or "official" colours.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the Canadian Liberals also immediately came to mind. To be honest, I have not found so far any colour-related metaphor or mention of the Spanish parties back then other than the Socialists.

Frankly, I think the colour selection was far more arbitrary at a time when "political party" meant little more than a "bunch of men attending the same somewhat ideological gentleman's club with attached newspaper and who often - but far from always - vote the same way". I don't think the Spanish turno parties ever even had actual electoral manifestos (with some expectations like the 1885 Liberal "guarantees law" manifesto, but that had to do with quelling internal dissent rather than a true list of governmental promises), let alone logos or "official" colours.
I'm starting to think that colours and political parties might be one of those things where the general assumption that they weren't used that much back in the day may actually be exaggerated - less so than today obviously but we may have swung too far the other way. While there are tons of examples of regional variations, I'm minded of how Hogarth's mid-eighteenth century "Humours of an Election" already uses blue as Generic Tory Colour that people are presumably expected to recognise.
 
While there are tons of examples of regional variations, I'm minded of how Hogarth's mid-eighteenth century "Humours of an Election" already uses blue as Generic Tory Colour that people are presumably expected to recognise.
Which in turn raises the question of where the 'established' colours in Britain come from and how they were agreed upon. I've always assumed Whig and later Liberal orange is derived from their support of William and Mary, and of course Labour red comes from the classic socialist association with the colour, but Tory blue is a bit less obvious considering the Union flag didn't become a thing until after the Tories came into being.
 
Which in turn raises the question of where the 'established' colours in Britain come from and how they were agreed upon. I've always assumed Whig and later Liberal orange is derived from their support of William and Mary, and of course Labour red comes from the classic socialist association with the colour, but Tory blue is a bit less obvious considering the Union flag didn't become a thing until after the Tories came into being.
The Union Flag began with the Union of the Crowns in the early 1600s so that was already a thing, but I don't think that was the reason.

Early proposals from 1604:
1727876716398.jpeg


(Apologies for derailing @Nanwe 's thread!)
 
The Union Flag began with the Union of the Crowns in the early 1600s so that was already a thing, but I don't think that was the reason.

Early proposals from 1604:
View attachment 90359


(Apologies for derailing @Nanwe 's thread!)

Go for it, still interesting.

But I don't disagree on that colours were important - coloured cockades and the specific colour(s) they displayed were an easy way to tell the political allegiance of people in the early French Revolution for instance.
 
Go for it, still interesting.

But I don't disagree on that colours were important - coloured cockades and the specific colour(s) they displayed were an easy way to tell the political allegiance of people in the early French Revolution for instance.
Yeah, cockades are a good one. It's not always obvious where they come from, either - France's was the flag of Paris plus monarchist white from when the Revolution was at a more moderate stage, IIRC, but America's Federalists had a black and white one and don't ask me where that colour choice came from. The only precedent I can think of is that the House of Hanover used black and the Jacobites used white during the Jacobite Rebellions, so maybe it was a vague distant descent from that.
 
I'm starting to think that colours and political parties might be one of those things where the general assumption that they weren't used that much back in the day may actually be exaggerated - less so than today obviously but we may have swung too far the other way. While there are tons of examples of regional variations, I'm minded of how Hogarth's mid-eighteenth century "Humours of an Election" already uses blue as Generic Tory Colour that people are presumably expected to recognise.
This is interesting on that
 
In the meantime, have 1898 (description on the works). 1898 was the sole election in which universal suffrage was used in Cuba and Puerto Rico, after the granting of the Charters of Autonomy (basically turning Cuba and Puerto Rico into something similar to British Dominions except with representation in the Spanish parliament) and the total breakdown of the party system in Puerto Rico as the result of these changes - but you wouldn't be able to tell from the map, because 'orthodox' Unconditionals cooperated with the Opportunistic Unconditionals and because the Orthodox Autonomists also ran together with the dynastic Autonomists (rebranded as Liberals).

As an aside, I also have the results and a map for the 1898 regional election in Puerto Rico, and the results per constituency (but not the party affiliation of all non-majority parties, so it'll take some time to make it...) of the election.

zIPHfSO.png

Still no description I'm afraid as the 1896-1898 was intense and I can't seemingly end up with a text I like (war in Cuba, war in the Philippines, assassination of Cánovas, and endless factional struggles, it's hard)

In any case, I have been working on the new colour scheme, with more degrees to identify better vote shares (atm working on a map with majorities, but unfortunately, not all data is there). Also fixed some party identification - overall tiny things except in Puerto Rico where I had messed up big time but I managed to correct things based on a mix of secondary literature and Puertoricoan press from the era, as opposed to Peninsular press).

ORiHGuP.png
 
Still no description I'm afraid as the 1896-1898 was intense and I can't seemingly end up with a text I like (war in Cuba, war in the Philippines, assassination of Cánovas, and endless factional struggles, it's hard)

In any case, I have been working on the new colour scheme, with more degrees to identify better vote shares (atm working on a map with majorities, but unfortunately, not all data is there). Also fixed some party identification - overall tiny things except in Puerto Rico where I had messed up big time but I managed to correct things based on a mix of secondary literature and Puertoricoan press from the era, as opposed to Peninsular press).

ORiHGuP.png

But on this I'd like to ask for some advice on how to show the majority in the multi-member constituencies. As voters had multiple non-cumulative votes (2 in 3-seat constituencies, for instance), it is hard to calculate - now if i were to show their vote share based on the total number of votes cast, then usually no candidate would get more than 40% of the vote, while if (as I did in the map), I show their % of the total number of voters, I am also overstating their strength.

Does anyone have any idea of how to best show it? I had a vague idea of adding up the total number of votes cast for candidates per party slate (but here, it gets tricky with dissidents, some joint candidacies like in Barcelona...), and split them by the number of candidates but I am 1000% open to suggestions.
 
But on this I'd like to ask for some advice on how to show the majority in the multi-member constituencies. As voters had multiple non-cumulative votes (2 in 3-seat constituencies, for instance), it is hard to calculate - now if i were to show their vote share based on the total number of votes cast, then usually no candidate would get more than 40% of the vote, while if (as I did in the map), I show their % of the total number of voters, I am also overstating their strength.

Does anyone have any idea of how to best show it? I had a vague idea of adding up the total number of votes cast for candidates per party slate (but here, it gets tricky with dissidents, some joint candidacies like in Barcelona...), and split them by the number of candidates but I am 1000% open to suggestions.
The way Andrew Teale does it for multi-member bloc vote wards in English local elections, which is what I have adopted, is as follows:

See here for an example: https://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2014/23/ Take the first case, Addiscombe. Here there was a full slate of 3 candidates for the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, but only one UKIP candidate. Summing all the votes for all the Conservative candidates and calling that the Conservative vote would be misleading, because it would imply UKIP were behind the Greens rather than coming closer than them to winning a seat. So what Andrew does is to count only the votes for the leading candidate of every party and then create party percentages from (Leading Labour Candidate's Votes / All Leading Candidates' Votes) * 100 and so on. I then use the resulting percentages to create percentage shading maps.

I can't remember what he does with independents but I tend to treat them as though they were a slate, even though this isn't always true, as otherwise it misleadingly inflates their votes.
 
The way Andrew Teale does it for multi-member bloc vote wards in English local elections, which is what I have adopted, is as follows:

See here for an example: https://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2014/23/ Take the first case, Addiscombe. Here there was a full slate of 3 candidates for the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, but only one UKIP candidate. Summing all the votes for all the Conservative candidates and calling that the Conservative vote would be misleading, because it would imply UKIP were behind the Greens rather than coming closer than them to winning a seat. So what Andrew does is to count only the votes for the leading candidate of every party and then create party percentages from (Leading Labour Candidate's Votes / All Leading Candidates' Votes) * 100 and so on. I then use the resulting percentages to create percentage shading maps.

I can't remember what he does with independents but I tend to treat them as though they were a slate, even though this isn't always true, as otherwise it misleadingly inflates their votes.

Thanks for this! It was indeed useful, but before I show how it worked out on the 1898 map, let me show another 1898 map.

In November 1897, the Spanish authorities granted Cuba and Puerto Rico their respective Statutes of Autonomy to the two Antillean islands. These Charters granted the two islands wide-ranging autonomy on all matters except foreign affairs and defence (notably, tariff-setting and management were ceded to the island governments - this was an important issue given the depth of the trade network with the US).

These charters essentially enshrined a very similar model of governance in the island as it existed - formally - in the Peninsula. Each island would have a bicameral Parliament, formed by two chambers, the directly-elected Chamber of Representatives (lower house) and the upper house, the Council of Administration (part indirectly elected, part appointed by the Governor-General) and an executive that, while technically headed by a Governor-General appointed by Madrid (the first and sole holder would be Lieutenant-General Manuel Macías Casado), in practice would be run by a Cabinet responsible to the Chambers.

In the case of Puerto Rico, its Statute provided for a lower house of 32 members elected from 8 4-member constituencies using the same system used in the constituencies for the Spanish election, a system of limited multiple non-cumulative voting, where each voter was entitled to cast three votes for different candidates. The Charter, paired with the extension of universal male suffrage (as enshrined in the 1890 law for the Peninsula) to the islands, was part of the reform agenda to meet the demands of autonomists in the difficult situation Spain faced vis-à-vis the Cuban insurrection and growing American hostility.

The granting of autonomy wrecked the power of the previously almighty Unconditionally Spanish Party, which had already been wrecked by splits between its more conservative and more liberal wings. The latter left to form an Unconditionally Spanish Left party that would later rename itself the 'Opportunist Party'. While hailing from the same social classes, the Opportunist Party was not (as) opposed to Antillean autonomy.

After autonomy was introduced (by decree, and illegally, I might add - it later required the Sagasta cabinet to pass a law exempting itself from responsibility for the unconstitutional action), a new cabinet was immediately formed by figures from the autonomist movement. At this point, the autonomist movement had managed to coalesce - with some difficulty - into a single party, the Liberal Autonomist Union. However, differences in forming the slates of candidates (and specifically the opposition of Muñoz Rivera and his followers to include Celso Barbosa in the slate for the capital' constituency) just days before the election broke the party. This had come on top of the formal alignment of the Autonomists with the Liberals in Madrid, which did not sit well with the republican elements in the party.

As a result, the two old factions of the autonomist movement—monarchist, liberal-aligned, and republican (but not pro-independence)—broke into a fairly chaotic situation days before the elections in late March 1898. The different newspapers around the election speak of deals made between the 'Orthodox' or 'Historic' Autonomists and the Opportunists in the capital. At the same time, the Liberal Autonomists were accused of practising the same kind of coactive vote-gathering methods that were so common in the Restauración Spain.

The Chamber formally met for the first time on 21 April 1898, the same day the US declared war on Spain. And the rest, as they say, is history.

mapa_eleccion_camara_de_representates_puerto_rico_1898.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top