Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes V (Do Not Post Current Politics Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, so I know you all are probably tired of seeing these Clinton vs. Trump infoboxes, and I know that there is a rule against it in this thread. But you know what? Rules are meant to be broken sometimes. It was a pivotal election year in American history, and quite frankly I was disappointed with the outcome. I mean, Trump is from a state where several well known presidents have hailed from, sure, but that doesn't mean a thing when you compare him to Clinton.

Trump is only a politician in his professional life. Clinton's personal life is surrounded by politicians, which I think gives them more experience and someone to confide in when they need advice. Add to that the fact that Trump's party literally ran him on the "Scary immigrants!" rhetoric. The man didn't deserve to beat out Clinton, not by a long shot, so I made an infobox where the proper person became our president.

I probably should have posted this at the other thread. But this is a very important infobox, and this place gets more traffic, so I'm willing to risk it.

Clinton vs. Trump 1860 (Infobox).png


...Had you going there, didn't I? :p

That image was made all the way back in... early May, maybe? I originally had the idea way back in March though, and I was going to post it as an April Fool's joke, but I didn't figure out how to make Wikipedia quality infoboxes until after that point. I could have slapped together something, but I take pride in quality of my projects, even if it is just something silly like this. I did make a mistake though. I forgot to recolor Trump's box on the legend from red to purple before I resized the image, which I didn't notice until I was about to post this. I went in and recolored this image instead of recoloring the map, resizing it and then carefully placing it in the infobox. Not really noticeable, but it still irks me a bit, though apparently not enough to redo it properly, haha.

I was going to wait until April of next year, but I figured, what the heck? Might get a few laughs. Apologies if I overstepped and broke the rules though, if I did just let me know and I'll take this down and put it in a more appropriate place.

Anyways, enjoy, and I hope you get some chuckles out of it like I did when I was making it :)
 

ST15RM

Banned
What happens when Andrew Johnson is a bit more troublesome, runs for re-election and attempts to shut down the Freedmans Bureau as a re-election tool, angering the military a little too much?



You get an American Porfirio Diaz.
Then you get a Second American civil war.
 
The Progressive-Liberal Party is a centre to centre-left political party in Great Britain. It has been described as a big tent, bringing together coalition of Progressive, Social Liberal and Social Democratic ideologies. The party's message consists of social justice, supporting a mixed economy, electoral reform, promoting devolution and strengthening civil rights. As of 2017, the party is considered the "largest party in Western Europe" in terms of party membership, with more than half-a-million members

The Progressive-Liberal Party was founded in 1995, from the merging of the Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, The Social Democratic Party, led by Jeremy Ashdown and the Liberal Party, led by Vince Cable, to try and prevent a 5th conservative victory in the upcoming election. Within the 1995 election the party emerged victorious winning 387 out of the 650 seats available. While in government it created the minimum wage, the Bank of England's independence, the devolved parliaments and introduced the alternative vote plus electoral system in parliament. It also held the plebiscite on the Monarchy, which established the Great British Commonwealth.

The Progressive-Liberal Party Lost the 2005 general election, due to poor turnout, lack of innovation within the party, an unpopular leader as Prime Minister and the parties authorization of the military intervention in Poland and El Salvador. during the period after the election the party took a more left wing approach towards politics, with supporting trade unions, a move away from economic liberalism (supporting more economic interventionist policies), promoting employee ownership and worker co-operatives and taking a more non-interventionist view on foreign policy.

When the 2010 general election occurred the party was temporarily disbanded due to ongoing conflicts between the moderates of the party and the social democratic wing. The election was a disaster for the three parties with the rise of the Right wing National Democratic Party, which came 4th in the whole election beating the Liberal Party, which went into a coalition with the Conservative and Democratic Unionist Party.

The Party was unified in 2012 when the current chair-people (David Milliband, Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson) unified the parties in a more decentralized party, with the creation of the 25 member executive council. This time the party created compromise platform taking parts of both the centrist positions of the late 90's and the left wing proposed reforms in the mid 2000's. Liz Kendall was elected by the one member, one vote system in the party's conference of 2013 winning 65% of the vote.

The Party was re-elected into government in the 2015 general election, along with their presidential candidate (Jeremy Ashdown) also winning the election, On a platform of European integration, national development of infrastructure, referred as the New Deal, ending government waste and creating a more proportional electoral system. The popular program, the previous government's poor handling of a parliamentary expenses scandal (involving a large amount of cabinet members), the unpopular rhetoric of the National Democratic Party with poor management of the economy since the 2011 Pound sterling crisis led to the party wining 276 seats in the House of Commons and 105 seats in the Public assembly.

rRLlbrD.png
 
The 2015 Labour Party leadership election took place between 14 August and 12 September 2015, following the resignation of Ed Miliband as Leader of the Labour Party and the Opposition. Miliband resigned the day after the 2015 general election, which resulted in a surprise Conservative majority and a net loss of twenty-six seats for Labour, who had been in opposition since 2010. Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the party, became caretaker leader during the resulting election period, but announced her intention to resign her current role and would be replaced by Tom Watson.

Three candidates reached the threshold of nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party: Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna. Both Mary Creagh (who later backed Umunna) and Jeremy Corbyn (who refused to support a candidate) also announced their candidacies, but neither reached the required threshold of 35 nominations. The voting process began on Friday 14 August 2015 and closed on Thursday 10 September 2015, and the results were announced on Saturday 12 September 2015. Voting was by Labour Party members and registered and affiliated supporters, using the alternative vote system. It was the first Labour leadership election since 1980 that did not use the electoral college system and the first ever to use a system of one-man-one-vote.

Polling amongst both Labour members and Labour voters indicated that Burnham was the strong favourite going into the contest. All three candidates were believed to represent three groups of the party, with Burnham representing the broad left of the party, Cooper representing the centre and Umunna representing the right. Cooper was eliminated in the first round, whilst Burnham was elected in the second round of the contest, with 104,474 votes to Umunna's 74,551. The result was considered a significant victory for the left and a wounding defeat for the Blairites and Brownites, who had been in control of the party since Tony Blair became leader in 1994.

lpleadership.png

Burnham announced his first Shadow Cabinet at the end of 2015 conference recess:

shadowcab (1).png
 
[QUOTE="Zioneer, post: 17536274, member: 8958"
You get an American Porfino Diaz.[/QUOTE]
Does he at lest actually implement the plans of radical republicans on the south , like is the land redisbuted and voting and education secured and enforced ?
 

Zioneer

Banned
You get an American Porfino Diaz.
Does he at lest actually implement the plans of radical republicans on the south , like is the land redisbuted and voting and education secured and enforced ?
Basically yes. In fact, to provide some legitimacy to his regime, he tries to build up freed slaves, poor whites, and other groups as a voting powerbase, which historians ITTL credit him for. He also successfully annexes the Dominican Republic, which... leads to some issues later on.
 
Last edited:
Following South Carolina's succession in 1862 due to president Bell's plan to end Slavery (albeit over a 5 years), a sense of Independence grew in South Carolina, and in 1867, the South Carolina Freedom Party was formed. Due to this, South Carolina became one of the only southern states with actual opposition to the Democrats. Shockingly (and horrifyingly) the SCFP continued to support Slavery until 1879, 12 years after it was banned and then supported segregation for 10 years after it ended. Despite this shocking racism, the 89% white[1] state doesn't seem to care and the SCFP continues to hold a majority. They also haven't actually forced a referendum through since 1887 (which they lost) but have used it as a gambling chip every time the US won't give them exactly what they want, which is why South Carolina still doesn't popularly elect electors or senators. They're the powerhouse of the SNP, as they're the only Southern Nationalist Party with a majority in either house of the state legislature.
sc-2-png.405984


Oh how little we change...
2017 New York Mayoral Election
1994 Alabama Gubernatorial Election
1975 South Dakota state Election

South Carolina Freedom Party



[1] Yeaaahhhhhh a much longer Slavery period, no reconstruction, and a 27 more years of Jim Crow means a MUCH larger Great Migration
 
Last edited:
Following South Carolina's succession in 1862 due to president Bell's plan to end Slavery (albeit over a 5 years), a sense of Independence grew in South Carolina, and in 1867, the South Carolina Freedom Party was formed. Due to this, South Carolina became one of the only southern states with actual opposition to the Democrats. Shockingly (and horrifyingly) the SCFP continued to support Slavery until 1879, 12 years after it was banned and then supported segregation for 10 years after it ended. Despite this shocking racism, the 89% white[1] state doesn't seem to care and the SCFP continues to hold a majority. They also haven't actually forced a referendum through since 1887 (which they lost) but have used it as a gambling chip every time the US won't give them exactly what they want, which is why South Carolina still doesn't popularly elect electors or senators. They're the powerhouse of the SNP, as they're the only Southern Nationalist Party with a majority in either house of the state legislature.
sc-2-png.405984


Oh how little we change...
2017 New York Mayoral Election
1994 Alabama Gubernatorial Election
1975 South Dakota state Election

South Carolina Freedom Party



[1] Yeaaahhhhhh a much longer Slavery period, no reconstruction, and a 27 more years of Jim Crow means a MUCH larger Great Migration
This is... interesting but also, terrifying.
 
mvdb.PNG

Matteo Van Den Brock is a retired Belgian racer, known for competing in Formula One and IndyCar. His father was famous Belgian racer Stephen Van Den Brock, who raced for teams like Lotus and Brabham, known for his surprise win at the 1965 French Grand Prix, racing for Ferrari. Stephen encouraged his son to race at an early age, and attained a test position for Lotus, in which his father was now at a leadership position. Almost midway through the 1990 season, he signed a contract for the famous Ligier team. For his first season, he impressed, scoring a podium in Portugal. This captured the attention of Frank Williams, who signed him to be the team's second driver for the 1991 season. Van Den Brock had a great season, capturing his maiden win in Mexico, scoring two more wins in Spain and Japan, en route to a third-place finish in the points. For 1992, Van Den Brock challenged his teammate Nigel Mansell for the championship, with Mansell eventually coming out on top. Mansell retired after winning the championship, promoting Van Den Brock to first driver, and giving Damon Hill a spot. Van Den Brock won the Driver's Championship in 1993, scoring 4 more wins than Damon Hill and scoring the most wins that season. At 25, he was then the youngest driver to win a World Championship, narrowly beating out Emerson Fittipaldi's record when he won the title in 1972. In an interesting move that deemed controversial, Aryton Senna was signed to a spot at Williams, taking over Van Den Brocks spot. Van Den Brock then took over Senna's spot at McLaren. This had costly repercussions, as Senna died in the Williams at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. Van Den Brock struggled, scoring no wins with the unreliable Peugeot engine. In 1995, he signed back to Williams, then drove the car to 3 wins en route to a 3rd place postion in the World Championship. Van Den Brock then signed back with McLaren for 1996, trading the Peugeot engine for a Mercedes. The McLaren in 1996 did better than it did in 1994, with Van Den Brock scoring a pole at Monza, and finishing second, but yet finished with no wins. 1997 would be different, with a new sponsor in West, Van Den Brock scored his first wins with McLaren, finishing the season with a Hakkinen-Van Den Brock 1-2 at Jerez after the Schumacher-Villeneuve incident. 1998 would be the beginning of the McLaren domination that was to be continued for the next few years. 1998 finished with Mika Hakkinen scoring his first World Championship, with Van Den Brock finishing third, even after a scary crash at Imola left him sidelined for the San Marino Grand Prix. In 1999, Van Den Brock secured 4 wins en route to a tense championship battle with Hakkinen. In the end, the Flying Finn edged out the Belgian by 4 points. In 2000 however, Van Den Brock secured his second championship, beating Hakkinen and Michael Schumacher. 2001 showed a dip in Van Den Brock's form, with him only securing one win and finishing 4th in the points. 2002 showed Mika Hakkinen retire from the sport, and fellow Finn Kimi Raikkonen replacing Mika. 2002 showed Van Den Brock score another win, this time being at his home race, in Belgium. 2003 was his first season since 1996 in which he didn't get a win, with the closest he got was at Indianapolis. In 2004, Van Den Brock and Raikkonen both got one win, with Raikkonen edging out the Belgian. 2005 would be Van Den Brock's last year at McLaren, with him contending for a championship, scoring 4 wins and coming up in third, behind Fernando Alonso and Michael Schumacher. Van Den Brock decided to move to the new BMW Sauber team, scoring his last win at Germany in a shock win with team-mate Nick Heidfeld coming in second. After the race, Van Den Brock declared his retirement from Formula One after the end of the 2006 season. After this, he raced two seasons in IndyCar, competing for Penske Racing and scoring two wins.
 
Alaska was at one point a part of the Russian empire, however, when the Russian Empire collapsed and fell to Communism, the Tsarist government fled to Alaska, and formed a government from there. After that, Alaska’s government was seen as the true Russian government by all except Soviet Allies. This was especially apparent during the Soviet Union’s conquering of Eastern Europe under Trotsky that almost started a Second Great War between the West and the Communists. However, in recent years the Soviet Union has moderated, and since 1986 has been seen as the true Russia, angering many Alaskan leaders. However during the 2015 election, the anger seemed to die out.

In the 29 years since the Soviet Union was accepted as the true Russian government by much of the world, the Right-Wing anti-Communist Democrats have dominated Alaska. A major part of this was the once-ironically named “Congress of Independents”. The Congress of Independents, or COI is the upper house of Alaska’s legislature that has more seats than Alaska’s (for the most part) Democratically elected Legislative Assembly and approves all legislation coming out of the LA. The COI is appointed by the exiled Tsar, who is currently Tsar Alexander IV[1]. From 1922 until 1994 there were no restrictions on this power, so monarchist-supporting anti-Communist parties (such as the Democrats) have always had an advantage in the legislative field. However, protests caused the Reformist Alexander to change that and basically said that the seat totals in the COI would be relatively proportional to the results in the LA. However, Alexander’s heir, Alexander V[2] personally opposes this idea, causing many to fear that this will change and another period of undemocratic rule will continue (Although Alexander V’s 2-year-old eldest child Cathrine IV[3], has not clearly shown a position on this issue so who knows?). Anyways, in the most recent election, the Democrat government was hit with a recession, and with most left-wing parties (except the mildly Communist Peace party) uniting to form the United Left, it was clear that the Democrats 29 year role could end. However, Democrats leader Sergey Glazyev, grandson of Ukrainian immigrants who avoided the Soviet Union’s brutal regime, refused to lose easily. He jumped on the campaign trail and probably made some corrupt deals with Roman Kopin, Governor-general of the Chukotka area, a disputed area that had it’s most eastern portion taken by the Alaskan government during a war/crisis in the 1930s, causing him to win 92% of the vote in that area despite low public support for the Democrats in that area. This probably would’ve caused a federal investigation if the Democrat-lead COI didn’t block every move to investigate the election results. While corruption may have been a factor, the Peace party splitting votes from the United Left and the UL’s perceived softness on the Soviet Union hurting them in the most western parts of the nation may have been a factor. Either way, the Democrats retained power despite their worst showing since 1987.
0429317F-5D1C-448D-A25F-C331F42F071E.png

[1] Unoriginally named fake person
[2] Unoriginally named fake person
[3] Guess what this is? A Unoriginally named fake person


Oh how little we change...
2017 New York Mayoral Election
1994 Alabama Gubernatorial Election
1975 South Dakota state Election

South Carolina Freedom Party
2015 Alaskan/Russian Election
 
Last edited:
Cross post from my TL (Link in my Signature below)

After forty-one years in power, a record bested only by the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Alberta PCs appeared bankrupt in every conceivable way. Stockwell Day had come to power only a few years earlier under the impression that he would implement strict budgetary measures and reign in government spending, something which the party had slowly let get away from them towards the end of Ralph Klein’s fourteen years as Premier. Many within the government had also hoped that the evangelical Day would be able to squash the uprising of Randy Thorsteinson and his upstart Alliance Party, which had begun to gain traction amongst the more right-wing and ideologically strict voter that the Tories typically relied upon to vote for them. But in his mission to appease the right, Premier Day had neglected the centre, where a great deal of his party still occupied. Red Tories and moderates were left isolated, and in many cases instead turned their attention to the Alberta Liberal Party. In any other province, winning a majority government would typically secure a Premier’s position as head of the party. For Stockwell Day, his unimpressive victory and continued infighting between the Tories left and right flanks, not to mention his inability to deliver on his pledge to balance the budget, meant that his time as head of Alberta Inc. was at an end. Thus, when federal Defense Minister Stephen Harper returned to Alberta to take charge of the struggling provincial conservatives, he was initially greeted as the party’s saviour.

An economist by trade, Harper’s roots in Canada’s conservative movement ran deep. First elected as a member of the Reform Party, he joined others in abandoning the party in favour of the revamped Conservatives after it became clear Preston Manning was taking the party nowhere. Rumoured as a potential federal leader himself, Harper would loyally serve under both Gary Filmon and Jim Dinning, serving in the latter’s cabinet as both Minister of Public Safety, and later as National Defense Minister. But disputes within the party over the direction the government was taking had tested even Harper’s loyalty to his more moderate leader. The Prime Minister’s friendship with Finance Minister John Tory, not to mention the former’s implementation of his own environmental bill had created a great deal of bad blood between the PMO and the Conservative Party’s right flank. Still, Harper had come to appreciate the strategies implemented by Dinning to ignore the larger issues of social conservatives, like same-sex marriage and abortion, and instead play to favourable nods like tax cuts for students who were home schooled. Keeping the conservative movement unified was the key to success, be it in Canada or the province of Alberta. So, when Stephen Harper bested the likes of Lyle Oberg and Ed Stelmach, it was by a rather large margin, reflecting the desire and belief that the former federal minister would be enough to bring order to the growing chaos that was Albertan politics.

But many of the die-hard right-wingers that the PCs hoped to pull back to their flank were weary of Harper, who they viewed as a sellout and a turncoat for abandoning the Reform Party. The fact that the new Premier had served in the cabinet of a man that many members of the federal Reform Party and provincial Alliance thought of as a closet Liberal didn’t help either. Red Tories meanwhile were suspicious of a man who had previously advocated for their destruction, and were alarmed at their new leader’s interest at creating what he had previously called a “firewall” between Alberta and the federal government, a government currently comprised of Conservatives. As for the general public, polls suggested that although the average voter was generally indifferent to who led the Progressive Conservative Party, the notion of a politician from Ottawa coming back to take charge wasn’t as appealing as the Tories had hoped. In essence, although Harper provided a small bounce in the polls, and granted the government some added credibility by virtue of his experience and outsider status, his presence threatened to upset both wings of the party, who were still set to strangle the other. But amid the worry and hand-wringing, the Tory machine still managed to rack up by-election victories, picking up a seat from both the Liberals and the NDP.

Facing off against Premier Harper in the legislature was the new leader of the provincial Liberal Party, former Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier. A former candidate for the federal party, Bronconnier had cemented himself as the most powerful man in one of Canada’s largest cities. It wasn’t before long that the Liberal leader began unleashing attacks against Harper, accusing the latter of returning to Alberta to satiate his own political ambitions, which had begun to be stymied in Ottawa. Although it had yet to happen in Canada, serving as Premier of Alberta was viewed as an excellent stepping stone for anyone wishing to one day serve as either leader of the Conservative Party of Canada or Prime Minister of Canada. The former mayor also accused Harper of pushing a hard-right political agenda, and of being out of step with modern Albertans. While Bronconnier enjoyed the barb-trading in the legislature, Premier Harper did little to conceal his contempt for the institution, often refusing to offer clear or direct answers to the opposition’s questions, be they Liberal, New Democrat, or Alliance. There were many instances where Harper left the Deputy Premier, to answer questions on his behalf.

By the time the writs were dropped in 2012, polls showed the governing Tories still ahead. But something was different. Their lead wasn’t the size that most voters expected or indeed were used to. Ask which party they intended to support in the upcoming election, thirty-eight percent back the Tories, thirty percent intended to vote for the Liberals, and twenty-two percent for Randy Thorsteinson and the Alliance. Headlines began asking a question once though unimaginable; could the Tories actually lose in Alberta? Was the reported chaos in the Tory war room actual, or just a propaganda campaign promoted by the opposition? Red Tories had been isolated from much of the Tory machinery since Stockwell Day came to power six years earlier, and had only been tossed meagre scraps by Stephen Harper. It appeared that many of them intended to shop around this campaign, echoing some of the trends seen elsewhere throughout the country. According to the polls, a number of right-wing voters were still not yet sold on Harper, who had failed to tame the unruly Albertan economy despite promising otherwise, and were even incensed at the very notion that Red Tories were being given scraps by the Premier’s office. In response, the Tory election strategy was simple; try and keep the most loyal moderates within the party base, but reach out and nab the evangelical, rural voter that seemed intent on voting for the Alliance. But attempting to be all things to all people never seemed to work out for Harper, who seemed uncomfortable with the retail politics of his native province. In a federal election, most Tory candidates had little trouble finding support, so aside from attacking the Reform Party as unelectable, there was never much need for real, get down and dirty politics. But, buoyed by victories in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Ontario, the Liberals found themselves increasingly competitive in Alberta.

Red Tories and moderates were upset. Right-wing conservatives were upset. The average Albertan was upset. Add in the Premier’s mediocre debate performance and the question slowly become not whether or not the Tories would lose, but how badly they would lose. Voters weren’t prepared to give the Premier’s office over to the likes of Randy Thorsteinson and his band of often offensive ideologues, but they weren’t willing to give the Progressive Conservatives the benefit of the doubt yet again. That left only one option, and a result that would send shockwaves through not only Alberta, but Canadian politics itself.

The red wave which had begun in Atlantic Canada had come crashing to the shores of Alberta, and what that would mean for the province or Canada…no one was entirely sure. All that was for certain was that Tories in Ottawa were left in a panic, although more than a few within the Prime Minister’s Office couldn’t help but smile at what was quickly labeled the end of Stephen Harper’s career in elected politics. One of Canada’s loudest right-wingers had been toppled. As for the Tories in Alberta, those who were left standing found themselves in an even worse situation. Who would lead them? Could they be saved? Only time would tell.

Kmyl6Np.png

EiXha58.png

Premiers of Alberta:
Peter Lougheed (Progressive Conservative) 1971-1985
Don Getty (Progressive Conservative) 1985-1992
Ralph Klein (Progressive Conservative) 1992-2006
Stockwell Day (Progressive Conservative) 2006-2010
Stephen Harper (Progressive Conservative) 2010-2012
Dave Bronconnier (Liberal) 2012-


If a general election were held today, which potential leadership candidate would make you more likely to vote for the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top