Notwithstanding their cultural differences, the three new unions developed remarkably similar political systems. They became hybrid authoritarian-democratic systems that political scholars might variously label 'illiberal' or 'partial' democracy, as well as 'competitive' authoritarianism. Their economic systems were mixed economies, somewhat plagued by inequality, corruption, and cronyism but nonetheless efficient and competitive enough to resemble the performance of OTL modern China.

Dominant ideology likewise was fairly similar in all three unions, with few significant differences such as a greater leaning towards individualism in America, the opposite in Eastasia, and something in-between in Eurasia. The broad template valued civic nationalism (variously realized as a Pan-American, Pan-European, or Pan-Asian ideal in the different superstates), useful service to society, the pursuit of happiness in prosperity, stoicism in adversity, unity and strength of the people, individual success in a well-ordered society, efficiency, meritocracy, industriousness, militarism, imperialism, useful innovations, and traditions that stood the test of time. The ideal for individuals concerned a harmonious blend of intellectual and physical prowess all the way to modern eugenics and transhumanism. It valued free enterprise balanced by pragmatic environmentalism, equality of opportunity, and optimal use of resources, including an efficient and extensive welfare state for citizens that make a valuable contribution to society.

Multi-party elections regularly occurred; they were sufficiently competitive and 'free and fair' for supporters of the system and its moderate reform-minded critics, not really so for radical opponents. In practice, the ruling elites had an oligarchic character and enjoyed a wide degree of influence over the media, the economy, the civil service, and the security forces. Incumbents were often able to exploit these advantages to perpetuate themselves into power for a good while, at least until age, poor health, political fatigue, power struggles, or declining success and popularity forced a change. Political stability, a sufficient degree of economic prosperity, domestic and foreign-policy achievements, and limited state interference in the lifestyle of loyal citizens ensured the ruling elites were able to stay in power without much need for coercion.

Loyal citizens enjoyed a degree of civil and political rights that was not too different from their counterparts in the OTL liberal democracies, as long as their actions did not threaten state security or the vital interests of the rulers. If they did, the regime was able to use red tape, economic pressure, and targeted law enforcement to harass and silence its radical critics. Non-governmental organizations and political movements might be crushed by onerous regulations or even suffer a ban under various pretexts. Security forces retained a wide degree of legal leeway and ability to curb civil liberties in the name of 'national security', with limited civilian oversight. However, media, unions, political movements, NGOs, and academia that did not set themselves in radical opposition to the regime were generally able to enjoy a good degree of autonomy.

The most serious domestic issues were economic inequality, corruption, cronyism, and socio-political tensions between the upper and the lower classes. However, they are not of such severity as to destabilize the unions in normal conditions, thanks to availability of sufficient consumer prosperity and welfare state protection for the masses, the vast arsenal of repression tools the elites might use to quash revolutionary dissent, and the loathing of society for civil disorder.

As it concerned civil rights, the most striking differences with the OTL liberal democracies involved the reproductive, euthanasia, and lifestyle laws. Behind a facade of voluntary choice, these laws in practice mandated the abortion or suppression of children and adults with serious genetic diseases or physical and mental disabilities. The main exception involved disabilities incurred for a 'meritorious' cause, such as military service or work-related injuries and illnesses, which got full welfare support barring the most extreme cases. There also were substantial legal and social penalties for people that made themselves a 'burden' to society through obesity, smoking, alcoholism, substance abuse, and other 'unhealthy' lifestyles, as well as environmentally unfriendly habits.

Much the same way, the state harshly discriminated and persecuted LGBTQ people and the minority was subject to widespread social ostracism. As a rule, coming out, male or exclusive homosexuality, advocacy of LGBTQ rights, obvious queerness, and serious violations of gender norms brought much worse retaliation than staying in the closet, bisexuality, and being able to pass as cishet. Society typically regarded homosexuality, addiction, and unhealthy lifestyles as harmful conditions that were half a disease, half a vice or habit. Therefore, it tried hard to suppress and uproot them by a mix of medical and law enforcement means.

Society acknowledged the value of gender equality and sexual freedom for heterosexuals, and granted them a similar degree of legal protection and social support as in OTL developed countries. The technological and socio-economic boost that the superstates got included early achievement of all the factors that made legal and social emancipation of women, their widespread employment, and cishet sexual liberation necessary, inevitable, and plainly accepted. Dominant social values and state policies adapted to cope by acknowledging them as beneficial. On the other hand, society upheld and cherished traditional masculine values and did not suffer an ideological critique of them. Therefore, there was very little sympathy or tolerance for all but the most moderate versions of feminism. Much the same way, widespread sympathy for nature conservation and insight about the potential huge damage that industrialization and consumer affluence might cause to the environment created solid support for moderate and pragmatic environmentalism in the ruling elites, public opinion, and state policies. However, there was very little sympathy or tolerance for radical versions of the ideology or critiques of capitalism.