• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #45 - Elections

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome once again to a Victoria 3 Development Diary! Today’s topic is elections. We’ll be covering the various laws that enable and affect voting, as well as the progression of Election Campaigns and how they affect political power in your country. We'll briefly be mentioning Political Parties in this dev diary, but they’re not the focus of this week - more on that next time! For now, I’ll just say that Political Parties in Victoria 3 exist in democracies and are made up of alliances of Interest Groups.

A country has Elections if it has any of the Distribution of Power laws that enable voting:
  • Landed Voting: Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Officers hold essentially all voting power, gaining a huge bonus to the Political Strength they contribute to their Interest Groups.
  • Wealth Voting: There is a Wealth Threshold that determines a pop’s eligibility to vote. Pops that can vote have more Political Strength.
  • Census Suffrage: The Wealth Threshold is significantly lower than in Wealth Voting. Literate pops contribute much more Political Strength to their Interest Groups.
  • Universal Suffrage: There is no Wealth Threshold for voting. Pop type and literacy do not grant additional Political Strength. Though of course a pop’s wealth will continue to contribute to their Political Strength, and Literacy will make pops more politically engaged.

Under the Wealth Voting Law, political power is held by the pops (and their Interest Groups) who can accumulate the most wealth, and largely denied entirely to the destitute. This naturally favors Aristocrats and the Landowners in more agricultural economies, while favoring Capitalists and the Industrialists in more industrialized economies.
votinglaws.png

All of these laws are compatible with any of the Governance Principles laws. A country with the Monarchy law for instance could be an absolute monarchy with no voting system at all, or it could have Universal Suffrage - likewise a Republic might very well be a presidential dictatorship. If you are so inclined, you could even create a Council Republic or Theocracy that uses Wealth Voting (though it would be bound to create some political conflict, to put it lightly).

There are three factors that, when applicable, will prevent pops from voting entirely:
  1. Discrimination. Discriminated pops cannot vote in Elections.
  2. Living in an Unincorporated State. Only pops living in Incorporated States can participate in Elections. Pops living in, for example, a growing colony cannot vote.
  3. Politically Inactive pops do not vote, regardless of whether they are “legally” eligible. These pops are not part of any Interest Group, and tend to have low Literacy and/or Standard of Living. Peasants working in Subsistence Farms, for instance, are almost always Politically Inactive.

In 1913, suffragette Emily Davison was killed by the king’s horse during a race. A passionate believer in her cause, she had been arrested repeatedly by the British government and force-fed while on hunger strikes.
suffrage.png

This is a good opportunity to talk about the women’s suffrage movement. In Victoria 3, passing the Women’s Suffrage Law will greatly increase both your Workforce Ratio and your Dependent Enfranchisement. This means that a greater proportion of pops will be eligible to work in Buildings, and a much greater proportion of Dependents will now count towards the voting power of their pop. There will be very little support among Interest Groups to pass this Law in 1836 however. After researching Feminism (or having the technology spread to your country), politicians will begin to appear with the Feminist ideology, which causes them to strongly approve of Women’s Suffrage and disapprove of less egalitarian laws. Once you research Political Agitation, the suffrage movement will begin in full force. The ‘Votes for Women’ Journal Entry will appear, and events will trigger from it that will give you the opportunity to grow or suppress the Political Movement. You can complete the Journal Entry by passing the Law and having your first Election Campaign with women eligible to vote; alternatively you can ignore or suppress the movement until it loses its momentum and withers away.

Why, you ask, would you want to suppress the suffrage movement? If you’re striving for an egalitarian society you certainly wouldn’t. But if instead you’re trying to preserve the aristocracy and maintain a conservative nation then not only will your ruling Interest Groups strongly disapprove of Women’s Suffrage but it will also be very harmful to their political power. Greater Dependent Enfranchisement inherently benefits larger pops more than smaller pops (especially under more egalitarian Laws like Universal Suffrage where wealth counts for less), and it is inevitable that there are vastly more Laborers, Machinists, and Farmers than there ever will be Aristocrats or Capitalists. Pops may begin to wonder why the Lower Strata, the largest class, does not simply eat the other two.

The Whigs took a catastrophic hit in the polls after I repeatedly fired a negative election event to test the system.
electioncampaign.png

Elections happen every 4 years in countries with voting laws. An Election Campaign begins 6 months prior to a country’s Election date. Each Political Party is assigned a Momentum value at the beginning of the Campaign, which is a measure of the success of their campaign and is a major factor in determining how many Votes they will garner on election day. During this campaign, Momentum will fluctuate for each of the running Political Parties and impact the final result. Since Parties, Leaders, and many other aspects of the political scene in your country are likely to have changed in the years since the previous election, the Momentum from previous elections does not carry over and is reset. Momentum can be affected by chance, events, and the Popularity of Interest Group Leaders.

The Tories’ success in the last election empowered the Landed Gentry, though the sheer wealth of their aristocratic supporters is still the largest contributor to their Political Strength under Great Britain’s Wealth Voting law.
electionvotespower.png

When the Election Campaign ends, the votes are in and the results are set in place until the next election. Interest Groups receive additional Political Strength from their party’s Votes, which will be a major factor determining your Legitimacy and therefore the effectiveness of your government. The actual makeup of your government is still up to you; just like the electoral systems of most modern countries, winning the popular vote does not automatically mean that a certain party or coalition of parties gets to form a government. But the post-election strength of your Interest Groups and their Party affiliations should be a major consideration, especially if you’re forming a minority government.

In Victoria 3, Elections can be a powerful force for political change but also a source of volatility. Dealing with (and if you’re so inclined, manipulating) Election results will be a major consideration when you form your governments. In this dev diary I’ve mentioned Political Parties, and we know you’re eager to hear more about them since the last time we communicated on the topic. You’ll be pleased to discover that in next week’s dev diary we’ll be covering our design for Political Parties in more detail, so watch this space!
 
  • 187Like
  • 48Love
  • 18
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Please make it so IGs can be split by parties, as this shows how 2 party systems and the like come to be.
That's simply not how 2 party systems came to be. 2 party systems mostly function as two competing gigantic alliances of a bunch of different interest groups - very easy to represent with this system. And those parties changing over time can be pretty easily represented by interest groups eventually switching allegiances. There's no need for them to be split between the parties.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Sounds good.

Can't wait to form a 7 party goverment that doesn't care about who came out of the elections the strongest. :p
A multi-party system that doesn't care about their clout (i.e., they have no compellingly different opinions on the issues) sounds like a disguised version of the dictatorial single-party system that allows voting for different members of the same party.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing I'm still confused about. When you're selecting your government and you have elections with parties, do you choose how to form your government by bringing parties in as a whole or picking individual interest groups still?

It'd be kind of disappointing to still choose individual interest groups. Bringing whole parties into the government and having the trade-off of potentially bringing interest groups you don't want but may have to if they're in the same party as a desired interest group was one of the big benefits having political parties would bring to the political system of democracies. It also would make a lot more sense than still being able to cherry pick individual interest groups even if they're in opposing parties.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
Reactions:
3) On a similar note, do elections really do nothing more than just hit interest group clout? That feels a bit... lacking. Under many systems an election winner simply takes power. Under many others it is almost impossible to ignore winners - and while I appreciate the current system may allow for that it seems to me that it really, really shouldn't be feasible for any democracy to have this election result and have the player simply choose to have a government of intellectuals. It also wouldn't really make much sense if the player could choose a government of industrialists, trade unions, and the church, taking from all the parties.
To be honest, there are *no* political systems where the election winner "simply takes power"

Under all voting systems and whether your government is parliamentary or presidential or whatever, it's never guaranteed that the true winners of an election will be allowed to take power.
Elections are rigged, people are bribed into resigning, elected officials turn heel and govern as if they're members of the opposite party, bloodless coups happen. Especially in the day and age that we're talking about, electoral irregularities aren't the exception, they're the rule.
But, notably, *all* of this stuff is made much harder if you're unpopular - and people are much more likely to get violently mad the less popular you are.
I don't think this is a perfect representation of this, but I think the very simple "everyone votes and the winner gets power" idea that some people have is certainly lacking. I mean how would you possibly represent something like the US Presidential Election of 1876 with that?

I think a couple of features would help represent this even better:
Incumbency effects: it's much easier to nefariously "win" an election if you're already in power, so I'd hope that is represented in some way.
Counter-Coups: If your legitimacy drops very low, of course it could cause a civil war, but I'd like some quick and relatively bloodless way to effectively force the player to replace the groups in power if, let's say, a group that should've lost the election has really "overstayed their welcome" in power.
Democratic tradition: in a country like the US or the UK in the 1800s, a straight coup, especially one led by groups with little power, might be much harder than, let's say, in Brazil with weak democratic structures. I'd like there to be a way that high legitimacy for a long time makes it even more punishing to put unpopular groups in power.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Awesome dev diary — I think this approach is much more dynamic than Victoria 2’a system.

I think the suggestions I’m about to propose would be more suited to a DLC (you can happily take my money for this), because while I think the political foundation of this game is rock-solid, it needs a lot of work.

Somebody mentioned their (disappointment?) that parties are abstractions that boost IGs, rather than the other way around. Perhaps Parties could, in the future, not simply be effectively buffers to IGs but institutions unto themselves. Right now, they don’t seem to have any depth. Could a future expansion give parties the depth proper to them in this era? Parties are basically coalitions of IGs — maybe there can be representations of splits or combinations.

I also really liked HOI3’s ministry. I always thought this would be cool for a Victoria game, but Victoria games never had characters — until now. Why not include ministry positions? Let’s say I want Cornelius Vanderbilt as my Secretary of Education — thus boosting industrialist IGs and riling up the plebs. Or, if I have a parliament like the UK, doesn’t it make more sense to see Benjamin Disraeli as PM while Victoria sits as Head of State? Or Bismarck in Chancellor position, while the Kaiser sits on the throne? Maybe Tukachevsky becomes Minister of War, giving some minor approval to the Landowners due to his aristocratic background (represented as a personality trait rather than an ideology or IG for him). Either way, I imagine a cross between the court positions of CK3 Royal Court and the ministry system in HOI3. I think Vic 3 could pull this off — and it’d be a lot of fun here.

Also, what happened to upper/lower house? Maybe Paradox could come out with a DLC that reps legislative houses in systems that allow them. If you allow voting, you are—depending on your government type—given different legislative bodies. For instance, if you’ve got a Parliamentary Republic, you get a… parliament! Versus a Presidential Republic, where you maybe get a bicameral legislature if you’re in the US. Or, if you’re q council republic, you get a Supreme Council or Congress of Workers and Peasants deputies (which can be flavored in game — as the Supreme Soviet in Russia for instance, or Duma in normal Russian republics or Constitutional Monarchy). Seats could be fixed in game or determined by the size of your country, but either way, I think some kind of system that visually shows the organs of government could EASILY fit in here.
Honestly, it’s not even crazy to include the court system. I mean, in the US at least it was huge in determining the shape of laws. US could have a unique feature for this, maybe — even the selection of justices which would have their own ideology and shape the outcome of laws (e.g., maybe you are trying to pass equal protection laws for racial minorities, and it’s got a lot of support — WELL, the Courts, who your old president chose, are mostly conservative, and they strike the law down!). This would get over the absurdity that popular and even overwhelming support for laws = their eventual enactment, which is historically false and determinative especially in the USA. It could act as a dynamic, in-game protective barrier against the tendency towards automatic liberal utopia as time goes on that featured heavily in Victoria 2: now you are faced with a Justice system which disfavors the legislature. Checks and balances should be represented!

Another concern of mine is that parties only exist in democracies. This makes sense to a certain extent, but doesn’t at all represent, for instance, a group like the Bolsheviks (who were half underground, half parliamentary). What about parties as concrete bodies of political change that you can suppress, and which can even exist independently of support of an entire IG? Going back to Russia: perhaps the Bolsheviks represent, say, 38% of the trade unions, 25% of soldiers, and 5% of farmers, while the Mensheviks represent another 45% of trade unionists, 5% of capitalists, and 10% of intellectuals. My basic underlying question is: how do you deal with parties who warred over these interest groups, and did not secure a majority/representation of them? How would you deal with SRs versus Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks? I don’t think this is quibbling either. Combine this with the Parliament/legislature proposal, and this could form some cool features: parties allying over certain issues, or splitting over others.

Most importantly though, I’m just gonna miss the representation of the upper house in Vic2 and hope it makes some kind of comeback in Vic3 DLC. I also think ministries should really be considered as a way to further nuance politics and IG control of government…

EDIT:

Also, I know someone who has some experience with the game (I KNOW, I oppose this too, etc etc), and they told me a little about something that threw them off. AFAIK, the oligarchic council republic boosts the rich IGs. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the direction the devs are probably trying to go with this. I think oligarchic council republic is supposed to represent collective rule by the party nomenklatura or revolutionary elite — bureaucrats and intelligentsia in-game. But doesn’t it defeat the purpose when you have an oligarchy council republic, translating to increased clout for the rich? Shouldn’t bureaucrats and intellectuals get buffed?

EDIT2: Could peasants ever become insurrectionary? Peasant revolts are a thang. Could a party ever rep the peasants, as opposed to farmers?
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But if instead you’re trying to preserve the aristocracy and maintain a conservative nation then not only will your ruling Interest Groups strongly disapprove of Women’s Suffrage but it will also be very harmful to their political power
Will that be always true ? Or will it change depending on the country ?
For example in France the Women's Suffrage was more popular among the conservative than among the socialist.
If women are more likely to vote for conservative, will they support women's suffrage ?
 
Curious about this too.

If tories get 100% of votes and whigs 0%, I can still "choose" a whig government, only, with many maluses?
I mean the Whigs could've rigged the election, or threatened and bribed and jailed a bunch of Tory MPs into resigning, or the new PM could be a secret Whig attempting to govern without any Tories in his cabinet. Really, there are any number of ways that the Whigs could *try* to have power after the election ... but they all seem like they'd be *very* unpopular and *very* unlikely to succeed, so I'd hope those maluses would be big enough to make putting the Whigs in power practically suicidal (though maybe not impossible).
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Another interesting DD.
Though the system as shown Looks very much bar-bones. Hopefully to be improved by DLCs or modding.
Some questions:
1. Can other voter eligibility criteria be modded in - for example only Armed Forces veterans can vote or only members of a certain political party?

2. Can we mod in a difference between right to vote and right to be elected? For example all literate can vote, but only wealthy are allowed to run?

3. Women suffrage - can a step-by-step Introduction be modded in?

4. Are there only nation-wide elections?

5. If local elections are possible - can there be different voting laws for local and for national elections?

6. Can corporatist system be modded in? Meaning a system where representatives are elected by professional associations / Trade unions - not by population of an electoral district?

7. If a country has established church or recognized nobility - can these groups be guaranteed places in national parliament - like House of Lords used to be in UK?
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
  • Landed Voting: Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Officers hold essentially all voting power, gaining a huge bonus to the Political Strength they contribute to their Interest Groups.
Don't the "Farmer" profession also represent smaller land owners. The rural middle class and such? Shouldn't they also get some voting power, even if less so?
 
If Parties are alliances of Interest Groups, where do Trade Unionists go - social democrats or communists - as both of these had their foundations in trade unions? And who takes the place of the other party?

More on this next week!

Devs openly rigging elections now, what's next?

Which is probably a good time to ask if election events solely change Momentum or can have other impacts (like IG satisfaction). What type of events are there? Can Momentum related events backfire, like say attempted rigging be uncovered?

Election events almost always have effects other than Momentum changes.

How does the women’s suffrage movement work in absolute monarchies like Japan? Will I be able to still enact it, to have Female Empresses beside just Emporer and also get woman in the workforce, while still not allowing any voting whatsoever?

Women's Suffrage can only be enacted in countries with Elections.

Where does the notion that peasants don't vote from from? Especially if you have universal suffrage?

Peasants are usually Politically Inactive due to their low wealth and literacy. Wealthier and more educated peasants might very well develop some political consciousness and start supporting the Rural Folk though.
 
  • 29
  • 13Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Great dev diary! I however think discriminated pops should be able to vote depending of the active discrimination law. For example, french canadians were discriminated against by the english ruling elite, but could vote in the legislative assembly of Lower-Canada (even tho it didn't come with any actual powers). How will the game simulate that kind of political situation?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
To be honest, there are *no* political systems where the election winner "simply takes power"

Under all voting systems and whether your government is parliamentary or presidential or whatever, it's never guaranteed that the true winners of an election will be allowed to take power.
Elections are rigged, people are bribed into resigning, elected officials turn heel and govern as if they're members of the opposite party, bloodless coups happen. Especially in the day and age that we're talking about, electoral irregularities aren't the exception, they're the rule.
But, notably, *all* of this stuff is made much harder if you're unpopular - and people are much more likely to get violently mad the less popular you are.
I don't think this is a perfect representation of this, but I think the very simple "everyone votes and the winner gets power" idea that some people have is certainly lacking. I mean how would you possibly represent something like the US Presidential Election of 1876 with that?

I think a couple of features would help represent this even better:
Incumbency effects: it's much easier to nefariously "win" an election if you're already in power, so I'd hope that is represented in some way.
Counter-Coups: If your legitimacy drops very low, of course it could cause a civil war, but I'd like some quick and relatively bloodless way to effectively force the player to replace the groups in power if, let's say, a group that should've lost the election has really "overstayed their welcome" in power.
Democratic tradition: in a country like the US or the UK in the 1800s, a straight coup, especially one led by groups with little power, might be much harder than, let's say, in Brazil with weak democratic structures. I'd like there to be a way that high legitimacy for a long time makes it even more punishing to put unpopular groups in power.
It doesn't make sense for undemocratic processes like fraud and such to be fundamentally baked in to elections in this manner though. They don't arise from a vacuum like this system would enable. Usually there's either some group already in power that refuses to relinquish it or a highly radicalized interest group (typically the military or economic elites but also ones like the Bolsheviks) that seizes power in a coup. Certainly in cases where the elections are very close I could see the player being able to "tip the scales" to one side or another (things like Bush vs. Gore in 2000 or 1876), but that's not the same as being able to put the Communist party into your government regardless of how strong they are, which this system appears to allow us to do.

It'd make far more sense to me for elections to tie into the revolution and radicalization mechanisms and be opportunities for high-clout high-radicalization interest groups or parties to seize power through fraud or disputing the results without necessarily causing a civil war, especially in states with low legitimacy (a concept we haven't heard much about yet). Maybe there could be some sort of journal entry that triggers for especially contentious elections to let the player guide the outcomes. This way the player could still have some agency over which interest groups end up in power, but would keep it more grounded in the pops.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Is the Universal Suffrage decision is meant to encompass all aspects of women getting more involved in the society? I'd rather see more laws/decisions about it than just one "on/off-switch".
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
The reason an election doesn't simply cause "the winning" party to take power is because, outside of two-party states, we need to give the player a chance to build a ruling coalition. Say an election split the vote 50/30/20 between the Conservative, Free Trade, and Religious parties. I might not want the Conservatives in charge at all, and decide the Free Trade + Religious parties result in sufficient Legitimacy to get by - or I could sideline the Free Trade party entirely by putting the Conservative and Religious parties in charge. This is hardly even "gamey", these kinds of post-election negotiations that set the terms for what might be politically feasible during the upcoming mandate period are virtually the norm in almost all democratic countries. We also permit free Interest Groups unaligned with any party to support a ruling party, if for example the Armed Forces have decided to stand outside party politics entirely but still have considerable Wealth-derived Political Strength due to consisting mostly of Aristocrats and well-paid Officers and supported by high-ranking Generals. So player input into which coalition should form (and support) the government is necessary.

Normally, when kicking an Interest Group (or a Party, along with all its Interest Groups) out of government, it gains a bunch of Radicals who are displeased with being removed from power. Just after an election, this penalty is revoked for a single reformation of the player's government, incentivizing using this opportunity to optimize Legitimacy in light of these new election results.

On the subject of the fine details of electoral systems (length of mandate periods, proportional vs first-past-the-post, upper and lower houses, etc.) these details are very interesting and we've played with laws that govern some of this in the past. The problem was that they were hard to balance so they mattered as much as the other laws, and they did not feel impactful to enact. Not implying here that the details of electoral systems are unimportant - I've certainly had my share of lengthy debates of the impact of MMP vs FPTP - but in the simulation the impact isn't felt as tangibly and doesn't affect gameplay as much as, say, extending the voting franchise to more Pops or instituting a welfare program. So to do this justice we'd probably need a system of sub-laws or configurable laws, which isn't something we'll be able to do for release at least.
 
Last edited:
  • 62Like
  • 27
  • 9
  • 4Love
  • 4
Reactions: