What creates a political party? Is it a single set of coherent beliefs? Or is Jane Galt right and for the Republicans it's a set of ideas and Democrats it's a set of groups? Even looking at the supposedly ideologically consistent Republican Party, it's not hard to tilt the axis a little and see how a great deal of it is circumstancial.

I once took a Constitutional Design class by Dr. Donald Lutz at the University of Houston, where we learned quite a bit about constitutional design, political parties, and how people generally align.

On the first or second class, he asked "There is only one function of a political party. What is it?"

Some people suggested to advance ideas, but they were shot down. Others suggested to provide a platform for candidates, and Dr. Lutz said that they were closer. The answer, he explained, was simply to win elections.

In systems with a large number of parties, you often see groups that represent a narrow political interest. In the United States, such a system would likely include a Feminist Party, a Fundamentalist Party, a Libertarian Party (that actually matters), an Environmentalist Party, a Black Caucus Party, and so on.

That gave me an idea.

I was working on a story at the time which involved two parties that I did not feel comfortable making Republican and Democratic parties because of the unique circumstances of the world they're living in (see questions 6-8 of the quiz).

At the same time, I didn't know what these parties stood for, precisely, and that always bothered me, even though it was a relatively minor thing until Election 2000 (which in my world was even MORE debated than our own, and determined such before the Florida Fiasco). I'd named the parties the Federalist Party and the National Party.

President Maxwell Knight was a Federalist serving out the remainder of his second term. He followed the more controversial Federalist President Clifford Ellington. The 2000 election revolved around a National Party Senator Franklin R. Cale of Oklahoma and Federalist Secretary of State Ken Patterson.

Beyond that, I had no idea what the party's were for except that the Federalist Party was more pro-military, anti-hypersapien, and the demeanors of Knight and Ellington were largely conservative and establishmentarian.

I considered making the Federalist Party a rip-off of the Republicans and the Nationals the Democrats, but I decided to have a little more fun with it. I later considered making the Nationals de-facto libertarians, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they'd never win elections that way.

So when Dr. Lutz taught me about the interest-group parties, I felt that interest groups were probably the best way to form new parties. If I could switch enough of them around, it might seem more random, but perhaps I can figure out unifying ideals around each party.

So I made a list of the interest groups in the existing parties and then put them in a pool to figure out how to divide them.

There were a number of routes I could have gone, but many of them seemed slight variations of the Christian/Business vs. Minority/Women breakup we have now.

I looked at other paradigms. Could the US be seperated into Social Democrat and Christian Democrat? Given the history of central Europe compared to our own, it seems unlikely two parties would spring up in the US that late. I also considered a variation of England and Australia's Labor Party for us. What if in the late 19th century, the unions had been more successful and able to overthrow one of the existing parties?

Eventually, I looked at the America's early Federalist party and did some reading up on why they won and why they dissipated. There I found what I was looking for (which was perfect since I'd already named one of my party's Federalists). The Federalists were in many ways the bridge between British Aristocracy and American Democracy.

What if we'd never entirely crossed that bridge? What if, during the Adams/Jackson years, something happened? So I changed up history and Adams became the last Democratic-Republican president. Jackson, in his anger at being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote, was successfully recruited by a (non-existent) historical figure named Edmund Fox to join the Federalists.

The Federalist Party was revived and the Democratic-Republicans were decimated. The Whigs originally gathered in opposition to Andrew Jackson, though I eventually took the name National Republicans (used by John Quincy Adams in the real world in his race against Andrew Jackson) and they became stand-ins for the Whigs.

Flash forward roughly 100 years and the National Republican Party was perpetually in the outs against Federalist President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eventually, a new progressive party called the Alliance Party formed, hindering the NRP further by splitting the FDR vote until eventually they both merged into the National Alliance Party shortly before FDR's death.

They were referred derisively as the Whigs. The original British Whigs were those protesting against the crown and the American Whigs were named such because of their view of Andrew Jackson as a proto-king. Eventually, not sure what to call themselves, they decided Whigs was somewhat better than Allianceers or Nationalists and ran with it.

The first National Alliance President was Columbia University president and former military commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected in 1952.

Okay, so now that I knew the history of how the Federalist and Whig Parties became the dominant two, what would this history suggest that they stood for? In a roughly similar timeline, the Whigs would be the Republicans and Federalists the Democrats.

So I looked over my list of interest groups and realized that a number of them hinged on the protests of the 60's. I also realized that the next three post-Eisenhower presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) were all definitely Federalists and decided that the 60's protests would be aimed at them, and NAP would be taken over by protesters. the only difference would be that the Federalists would neutralize the racial protests pretty quickly, alienating the South and solidifying the black vote.

So I looked at the 60's protesters: feminists, anti-war, and later environmentalists and homosexuals, and put them in the Whig camp. If the Federalists are American proto-aristocrats, then immigrants would largely also fall with the Whigs.

Pro-war folks and big government folks were natural Federalists. As were those uncomfortable with the sexual revolution. So Federalists included New Dealers, unionists, and Catholics. Their actions during the civil rights struggle solidified them the black and Jewish votes as well.

So the ball ricochets back to the Whigs, and since big government people are Federalists, small government people are Whigs, which makes sense because this is the party of Senator Taft and the anti-New Dealers of yesterday.

To make a long story a little less long, the system was largely left with a consolidated, pro-America, pro-government party in the Federalists and the Whigs, who were in many ways merely a reaction to it. As such, and much like today's Democratic Party, they are often a disparate combination between free marketers and former hippies.

I also had to figure out regional strengths and weaknesses. The aristocratic Federalists are strongest in the East and the Rust Belt (Michigan and Illinois through New Jersey). The Whigs are strongest off the Pacific Coast (California being a stronghold) and do well generally in the west and mid-west. That said, the Federalists are the dominant party and it's generally quite tough for the Whigs to take a presidential election.

When choosing mascots for each party (since the elephant and donkey need not apply), I chose the beaver for the Federalists and more fittingly the platypus for the Whigs.

The party divisions in the world are somewhat messy. They're also exacerbated by the "hyper sapiens" which have a definite effect on the political climate and help meld disparate parts of the Whigs together.

This is all a relatively minor part of the story - a story I'll likely never actually get to write - but it has a profound effect on how I view contemporary American politics in this world. I'll post on that part next.