Elections and Red States/Blue States

So with the Presidential Election less than a week away, it might be interesting to talk about the nature of Medieval America and electoral politics.
The first thing to talk about is Medieval America's relationship with elections and monarchies. Any longtime fans note the attempt, even in the feudal state, towards any monarchial nonclemature. The East Map, and the pages for the specific countries, gives the leaders names like President, Governor, and Colonel. As the Western U.S. gravitated towards absolutist states, and the East towards warlords and strongmen, they tried their best to keep up the illusion they had traditionally American titsles, and by the time people stopped caring that democracy was dead, there was probably little generational ambition to call themselves "king". Or perhaps it just remained a dirty word. The comparison bewteen the U.S. and Rome constantly abound, and Odoacer proclaiming himself king is considered by many to be the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. But it's very interesting how "king" and "queen" have taken on an interesting, positive slang in today's culture. Particularly "Yass Queen!" Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if terms like "Queen" and "Princess" remained. The secondary status, and pageantry, of women in a medieval society probably means aa little pomp given to their soft power is harmless. And to some extent, those terms do have a contuinity on American traditions; The Voodoo Queens of course--it's actually very likely the term "queen" is used quite a lot in the Voodoo world. And the legend of Pocohantis has often played up the "princess" aspects, and of course, she is a Disney Princess. Nothing is as American as Disney, and perhaps no word is associated with "Princess" as much. But for the male royalists, it might be a little more complicated. "King" has been used more and more, both by the right-leaning pick-up artists, but even, perhaps semiironically, by those of a leftist persuasion (Who are from monarchists, but probably don't hold much esteem for intrisically American traditions, so it's all canclled out.) To be honest, Donald Trump has a niche but dedicated fanbase who like him not in spite of, but because of his royalist asthetic.
In terms of how people come to power? California has outright primogeniture, but Iowa and Desert are more in line with "elective monarchies", although it's possible that they generall follow straight successive lines (that's generally the point of monarchies, knowing who is going to rule), and may only be disrupted if the heir apparent is young or particularly unfit. There probably is an inordinate amount of civil wars. Interestingly, both California and Deseret have "Presidents" but Iowa has a "Colonel", so as far as we know these titles don't particularly correspond to how the transfer of power occurs.We know Red River has a "Colonel", (which means a Territory is something a Colonel rules), Georgia and the U.S. have "Presidents". (A part of me thinks Quebec, and Canada in general, should have old school royal titles)
Also, it might be interesting to tallk about the red and blue state aspects. They've retained a somewhat consistent continuity the last twenty years, with the fabled "swing states" making up the core of the Rust Belt (Which is probably the most recognizeably Medieval of Medieval America). Some of the biggest waves in terms of alignment has come from Ohio and Florida becoming more and more entrenched as "Red States", while the South (Particularly the Atlantic South) becoming more and more competitive as Blue States. A lot of this can probably be chalked up to racial groups forming into blocks that are more important than economic policy. I think this is worth thinking about, as the Gulf Coast, the regions of America that veer towards the Secretarial States, are probably the most "liberal" by our standards (though it's probably hard, even unfair, hold the modern axis to them.). To a large extent, I would say, and this is a very crude approximation, the Northeast would be socially conservative and economically liberal, much of the South would veer towards socially and economically liberal (As would the Cascadian city states), the Plains would be economically liberal and socially conservative, the Rust Belt would have a tendency to flip flop. The Desert States would probably be fiscally liberal (in the sense that that it is incredibly Statist) and social mores that it hews to very strictly, although somewhat bizarre to the sensibilities of outsiders. Like I said, you can't quite do a one-on-one comparison.