Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RI Democrat

2003: The Era of Megastates

Recommended Posts

I've put together a couple of scenarios based on the same alternate universe/history and thought I'd share the background and the beta versions here.

The Era of Megastates

The basic premise here is that the D-Day invasion of 1944 failed, with the result that the A-bomb was eventually used against Germany rather than Japan and the Soviet Red Army advanced further into Europe, taking over all of the real-life Warsaw Pact countries plus the rest of Germany as well as Yugoslavia, Austria, and Greece. So the Allies still win WWII, but with the Western Allies in a considerably weaker position than where things ended up in real life. All the Soviet satellite states in Europe were amalgamated into the European Socialist Federation, while France, Italy, the Benelux countries, and the Nordic countries were allowed to remain independent, but only on the condition that they maintained relatively slight military capabilities and pledged not to allow the Western Allies to set up permanent military bases on their soil.

In response to the stronger Soviet/communist bloc and their own limited influence over the European mainland, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand set up a tighter foreign policy and trading alliance that evolves into the "United Commonwealth Confederation" (UCC for short), while the decolonization of the rest of the British Empire proceeds as it did in real life. The UCC along with the U.S., Spain, Portugal, Japan, and South Korea form the Oceanic League as an anti-communist/pro-capitalist alliance. The five Nordic nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark) periodically consider forming a neutral confederation to strengthen their economies and coordinate foreign policy, but this is "vetoed" by the Soviets every time it comes up, until 1991 when perestroika is under way and Gorbachev decides to allow it as a gesture of good will. Here is what the strategic map looks like as of 2003:

image.thumb.png.96d8f1208e5e8fe745be9cf752dbf756.png

Basically, in all the yellow- and orange-colored countries, the governments have largely avoided taking any foreign policy actions that were seen as having the potential to provoke the Soviets, somewhat similarly to what Finland in fact did IRL.

The two biggest foreign policy events leading up to the 2003 elections in both the UCC and the Nordic Union are: (1) bombing attacks by Islamic extremists that simultaneously hit Montreal, Brisbane, London, and Auckland in 1998, which helped lead to the victory of a Conservative UCC government in 1999; (2) in late 1999, a carbon emission reductions treaty was signed in Lyon, with the U.S. under a President Al Gore leading the way and all the heavy hitters joining except for the UCC under Conservative First Minister John Howard.

Here's the map for the Nordic Union scenario, which elects MPs on a proportional representation formula of 1 seat per every 50,000 votes, rounded to to the nearest integer. Note that it runs with the "popular vote" feature turned on and that you will need to enter the total number of votes for each party into an Excel sheet, included in the main folder, that will tell you how many seats each party wins and which coalitions are possible, either as majorities or as minorities with confidence & supply. (Don't be fooled by all the red - while the Social Democrats start out as the largest single party, it is very possible for a right-of-centre coalition to form.) Also, keep in mind that the regions and individual "ridings" are *not* all the same population size, so you may want to invest in ridings where your party is pretty far behind if their populations are large.

Nordic Union - 2003.zip

image.png.d1943061ad7d4a5222eee64296600a87.png

The political parties are:

Social Democratic (mainstream centre-left)
Conservative (mainstream centre-right)
Centre (agrarian and slightly right-leaning)
Liberal (mostly centre-right, united by being pro-free market)
Christian Democratic (socially conservative centre-right)
Green (green, naturally)
Socialist Left (parties to the left of the Social Democrats, but non-communist and pro-democracy)
Sovereignty Alliance (right-wing populist)
Independence Alliance (in favor of independence for Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Aland)
Swedish People's Party (advocates for Finland's Swedish-speaking minority)

By and large, their strength in each area reflects the strength of their "affiliate" parties in each of the countries and their respective regions around the turn of the century, albeit with everyone on the ballot in most regions except for the IA and SPP. So in, for example, Finland, which did not have a significant "Liberal Party" IRL at the time, the Liberals start out with only 1-2% of the vote in most areas.

And here's the map for the United Commonwealth Confederation scenario, which operates on the RL Australian alternative vote system (and does not require any Excel trickery):

United Commonwealth Confederation - 2003.zip

image.png.50e7afdf0afbc70f0ebdacaf0c93399f.png

The political parties are:

Conservative (mainstream centre-right)
Labour (mainstream centre-left to left-wing)
Liberal (centre to centre-left, Labour's coalition partner)
New Centre (pro-privatisation free marketeers, mixed/moderate on social issues, the Conservatives' coalition partner)
Alliance (left-leaning, pro-minority rights coalition)
Greens (green)
People's Party (populist, right-leaning)
Independents

Again, the parties' areas of strength are about what you'd expect from their RL equivalents, so the Liberals are stronger in Canada and to a lesser extent the UK than in Australia or New Zealand, Labour's vote tends to line up with the RL Labour/NDP vote, the Conservative vote does likewise with the RL Conservative/National vote, and the Alliance run strongest in Quebec, the "Celtic nations" of the UK, and the seat reserved for the Maori in New Zealand.

Anyway, I've done my share of research for these scenarios and, if the interest is there, might expand to include scenarios like the 2004 U.S. presidential election, an election in one or more of the Western neutrals, or perhaps the first democratic election in the European Socialist Federation. At the same time, I had to do a fair amount of guesswork on details like issue positions and party leaders, so if I'm off the mark with something, please do let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RI Democrat said:

I've put together a couple of scenarios based on the same alternate universe/history and thought I'd share the background and the beta versions here.

The Era of Megastates

The basic premise here is that the D-Day invasion of 1944 failed, with the result that the A-bomb was eventually used against Germany rather than Japan and the Soviet Red Army advanced further into Europe, taking over all of the real-life Warsaw Pact countries plus the rest of Germany as well as Yugoslavia, Austria, and Greece. So the Allies still win WWII, but with the Western Allies in a considerably weaker position than where things ended up in real life. All the Soviet satellite states in Europe were amalgamated into the European Socialist Federation, while France, Italy, the Benelux countries, and the Nordic countries were allowed to remain independent, but only on the condition that they maintained relatively slight military capabilities and pledged not to allow the Western Allies to set up permanent military bases on their soil.

In response to the stronger Soviet/communist bloc and their own limited influence over the European mainland, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand set up a tighter foreign policy and trading alliance that evolves into the "United Commonwealth Confederation" (UCC for short), while the decolonization of the rest of the British Empire proceeds as it did in real life. The UCC along with the U.S., Spain, Portugal, Japan, and South Korea form the Oceanic League as an anti-communist/pro-capitalist alliance. The five Nordic nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark) periodically consider forming a neutral confederation to strengthen their economies and coordinate foreign policy, but this is "vetoed" by the Soviets every time it comes up, until 1991 when perestroika is under way and Gorbachev decides to allow it as a gesture of good will. Here is what the strategic map looks like as of 2003:

image.thumb.png.96d8f1208e5e8fe745be9cf752dbf756.png

Basically, in all the yellow- and orange-colored countries, the governments have largely avoided taking any foreign policy actions that were seen as having the potential to provoke the Soviets, somewhat similarly to what Finland in fact did IRL.

The two biggest foreign policy events leading up to the 2003 elections in both the UCC and the Nordic Union are: (1) bombing attacks by Islamic extremists that simultaneously hit Montreal, Brisbane, London, and Auckland in 1998, which helped lead to the victory of a Conservative UCC government in 1999; (2) in late 1999, a carbon emission reductions treaty was signed in Lyon, with the U.S. under a President Al Gore leading the way and all the heavy hitters joining except for the UCC under Conservative First Minister John Howard.

Here's the map for the Nordic Union scenario, which elects MPs on a proportional representation formula of 1 seat per every 50,000 votes, rounded to to the nearest integer. Note that it runs with the "popular vote" feature turned on and that you will need to enter the total number of votes for each party into an Excel sheet, included in the main folder, that will tell you how many seats each party wins and which coalitions are possible, either as majorities or as minorities with confidence & supply. (Don't be fooled by all the red - while the Social Democrats start out as the largest single party, it is very possible for a right-of-centre coalition to form.) Also, keep in mind that the regions and individual "ridings" are *not* all the same population size, so you may want to invest in ridings where your party is pretty far behind if their populations are large.

Nordic Union - 2003.zip 1.89 MB · 0 downloads

image.png.d1943061ad7d4a5222eee64296600a87.png

The political parties are:

Social Democratic (mainstream centre-left)
Conservative (mainstream centre-right)
Centre (agrarian and slightly right-leaning)
Liberal (mostly centre-right, united by being pro-free market)
Christian Democratic (socially conservative centre-right)
Green (green, naturally)
Socialist Left (parties to the left of the Social Democrats, but non-communist and pro-democracy)
Sovereignty Alliance (right-wing populist)
Independence Alliance (in favor of independence for Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Aland)
Swedish People's Party (advocates for Finland's Swedish-speaking minority)

By and large, their strength in each area reflects the strength of their "affiliate" parties in each of the countries and their respective regions around the turn of the century, albeit with everyone on the ballot in most regions except for the IA and SPP. So in, for example, Finland, which did not have a significant "Liberal Party" IRL at the time, the Liberals start out with only 1-2% of the vote in most areas.

And here's the map for the United Commonwealth Confederation scenario, which operates on the RL Australian alternative vote system (and does not require any Excel trickery):

United Commonwealth Confederation - 2003.zip 952.24 kB · 1 download

image.png.50e7afdf0afbc70f0ebdacaf0c93399f.png

The political parties are:

Conservative (mainstream centre-right)
Labour (mainstream centre-left to left-wing)
Liberal (centre to centre-left, Labour's coalition partner)
New Centre (pro-privatisation free marketeers, mixed/moderate on social issues, the Conservatives' coalition partner)
Alliance (left-leaning, pro-minority rights coalition)
Greens (green)
People's Party (populist, right-leaning)
Independents

Again, the parties' areas of strength are about what you'd expect from their RL equivalents, so the Liberals are stronger in Canada and to a lesser extent the UK than in Australia or New Zealand, Labour's vote tends to line up with the RL Labour/NDP vote, the Conservative vote does likewise with the RL Conservative/National vote, and the Alliance run strongest in Quebec, the "Celtic nations" of the UK, and the seat reserved for the Maori in New Zealand.

Anyway, I've done my share of research for these scenarios and, if the interest is there, might expand to include scenarios like the 2004 U.S. presidential election, an election in one or more of the Western neutrals, or perhaps the first democratic election in the European Socialist Federation. At the same time, I had to do a fair amount of guesswork on details like issue positions and party leaders, so if I'm off the mark with something, please do let me know.

Montreal is not very Conservative in the British-Red Tory Canadian way at all, you know. Legault's Conservativism is a very different brand, which includes a large dose of Quebec Nationalism, Unilingualism, and insularism, and different views on finance. Also, Western Canadian Conservativism is not really British-Red Tory Canadian Conservatism since the early 1990's either - it's more based on Regionalism, natural resource-control, and much more heavily-based on Republican ideals (to a degree, but a notable degree). These regions of Canada are far more likely to pump up the percentages, and even be stronghold regions, of this People's Party you have at the bottom with pitiful polling, that strongly (with deep blue map colour) support a UCC Conservative Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Montreal is not very Conservative in the British-Red Tory Canadian way at all, you know. Legault's Conservativism is a very different brand, which includes a large dose of Quebec Nationalism, Unilingualism, and insularism, and different views on finance. Also, Western Canadian Conservativism is not really British-Red Tory Canadian Conservatism since the early 1990's either - it's more based on Regionalism, natural resource-control, and much more heavily-based on Republican ideals (to a degree, but a notable degree). These regions of Canada are far more likely to pump up the percentages, and even be stronghold regions, of this People's Party you have at the bottom with pitiful polling, that strongly (with deep blue map colour) support a UCC Conservative Party.

Montreal isn't Conservative in this map - it's primarily a battle between the Liberals and the Alliance, as is the rest of Quebec. The Liberals are yellow and the Alliance are dark-green.

Regarding Western Canada, the Conservative Party in this scenario is not uniformly Red Tory by any means. Thatcher was their leader and First Minister of the Commonwealth in the 1980s just like she was in RL Britain, and I guess I see John Howard - who is the default leader for the Conservative Party - as someone who would appeal to the brand of conservatism that you describe, especially in oil-rich areas after he refuses to sign the Treaty of Lyon. But maybe I should have the People's Party taking a larger share of the primary vote in Western Canada, even if their preferences would still mostly flow to the Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else given either scenario a try? I'm planning to post them to the main campaigns site soon so any feedback is welcome. At @Patine's suggestion I have given the People's Party a small boost in some of the Western Canadian ridings, mostly by shaving off a few points from the Conservatives. However, they're still not likely to win any seats as things stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RI Democrat said:

Has anyone else given either scenario a try? I'm planning to post them to the main campaigns site soon so any feedback is welcome. At @Patine's suggestion I have given the People's Party a small boost in some of the Western Canadian ridings, mostly by shaving off a few points from the Conservatives. However, they're still not likely to win any seats as things stand.

It's been a busy weekend. I'll see what if I can have a decent look at things in the next couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good scenarios! They are really fun to play! Both leaders of the Independence Alliance in the Nordic Union have the same leader portrait. Other than that good job!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Very good scenarios! They are really fun to play! Both leaders of the Independence Alliance in the Nordic Union have the same leader portrait. Other than that good job!

Thanks - I'll be sure to fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...