• 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:
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.

I mean... the whole point of a liberal democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the majority this way, by a tacit agreement on core values.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Questions:
* Can there be bans on what sort of political parties there are? e.g. a socialist government banning capitalist parties from running.

My bad; I had a question about coalitions during the edit after my eyes completely skipped over them.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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.

The government selection process and the election process really aren't fundamentally connected though. An election just rebalances the political strength of various factions and gives a short period where the population doesn't get angry just because the government was changed ... which is all how it works in real life. Governments don't have to change due to an electoral change, and electoral changes aren't strictly necessary for governmental changes. In real life, elections don't automatically put people in power - they just rebalance who is seen as legitimate rulers of the country. The actual obtaining of power takes place through other (often extralegal) means, that I don't think are well-represented by the full blown revolution and civil war mechanics in this game.

But separately, I'd like for those other means to have some true representation in this game. For example, if there was a party that got a majority of the vote, and you decide to choose another to be in government, I'd like for you to have to choose some reason why: whether it was technicalities in the electoral system or whether it was straight-up rigged or just done via violent intimidation or a bloodless coup - I don't know what these would do, maybe affect legitimacy or the ease of passing bills or generate radicals from your opponents...

Lastly, I think the idea of the player being able to choose who takes power, regardless of their political strength, is just much better for gameplay than a sort of automatic election -> government system. In Victoria 2, if you wanted, for example, the Communists in power, often you would have to intentionally sabotage the country in order to make everyone mad enough, and only then could they take power through rebellion and actually try to make themselves popular enough to hold power through governing well. The self-sabotage was always utterly bizarre. Now, if you want the communists in power, there's no need to do that self-sabotage, and you can try to empower their IGs and then put them in power and try to generate enough support to retain power by governing well. In short, what if you want to play as the coup plotters?
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Dissapointed about it, the idea that post-election you can completly ignore a coalition with 80% of votes and make a minority government formed exclusively by non-marginalized IGs even if they have just 5% of votes and your only cost will be a legitimacy hit definitely don't sound like a authentic experience, if a player want to have total control about what IGs form his government he should not choose to be a democracy in the first place.

Can't speak for other places, but for the German Empire this was pretty much the norm? It simply didn't matter who had the largest share of votes. Election results didn't determine the gouvernment composition. The gouvernment was instated by the emperor, not the parliament, not the electorate.

However, the gouvernment that was put into place would still have to find majorities among the elected parties. So from this perspetive the system that the DD presents works. I guess it will depend on how parties are managed and if they will replace IGs in the implementation of laws. If they do, then a minority gouvernment instated by the player still would have to seek majorites from the outside to actually achieve anything.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Can't speak for other places, but for the German Empire this was pretty much the norm? It simply didn't matter who had the largest share of votes. Election results didn't determine the gouvernment composition. The gouvernment was instated by the emperor, not the parliament, not the electorate.

However, the gouvernment that was put into place would still have to find majorities among the elected parties. So from this perspetive the system that the DD presents works. I guess it will depend on how parties are managed and if they will replace IGs in the implementation of laws. If they do, then a minority gouvernment instated by the player still would have to seek majorites from the outside to actually achieve anything.
But that was the German Empire, not a democracy though it had some democratic elements.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Neondt, and the extra info from you and Iachek :) I vote for more Vicky 3 :)

The system sounds great, and that it will add more depth and interest to politics in nations where voting exists - all very cool.

Pops may begin to wonder why the Lower Strata, the largest class, does not simply eat the other two.

Cannibalism confirmed!

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.

Gerrymandering denied! (Not a bad thing - I don't think this is necessary for the game at all, although down the track an expansion focussed on politics that added more depth may be cool).

This is a tricky DD for a maritime-themed pic - but it's not impossible. In 1909, Lloyd George included funding for four more dreadnoughts in his "People's Budget", which was blocked by the House of Lords - so the PM, Aquith, dissolved Parliament, had an election, which he won (but without a majority - so there was a need to involve a minor party, just like there might be in V3 :) ), and the Lords dropped their opposition to the budget, and thus the four more dreadnoughts. Here's a pic of one of them (the others were Monarch, Conquerer and Princess Royal) - HMS Thunderer :)

1651794336609.png
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
OPB wrote this on the Discord feedback page on Vic 3, which is soemthing tbh I completely agree with.

“So, it took me a long time to really think of what my opinion regarding today's DD was.

I think it's mechanically absolutely brilliant. Transparent cause and effect and it is applicable to any society I can come up with in this time period, whether a parliament exists or whether it is a clique-based influence situation. It's a generalistic piece of greatness on a mechanical level.

However, the DD also made me realise something: I am quite peeved as this generalistic mechanic comes with a level of abstraction once elections play a role that removes the player from concrete reality in a similar way that I felt when parties were not a planned game feature.
The absence of a concrete parliament and a legal framework for that parliament (bicameral, unicameral, mandate distribution laws etc) makes it so that I feel like I will have to "interpret believable situations into the abstract project when working.


The ACW DD showed the debate regarding slavery progressing, being stalled and such. In reality, this heavily relied on the Senate being half slavery states, half non-slavery states for example. In-game this *is* implied, but that's just it - it's merely implied. There is no actual senate that allows slave states to maintain their position by sending in two reps per state no matter the population density. This situation is simply something I have to insert when the game says "The law is stalled in parliamentary debates" rather than the game doing it by itself.


tl;dr I think very highly of the political mechanisms on a mechanical level, but think that they are one or two steps too many removed to feel inherently immersive to me. Parliaments/assemblies not being a sort of institution in the game makes it so that my electoral considerations are rather broad than the intense national gardening focusing on such things such as "How do I best steal Tennessee's senate seats?"”

EDIT (Not OPB): Whilst this might not make it in time for release, I do hope that in very future patches down the line once it’s released, it will be looked into. The abstraction for me feels rather disconnected from the nation which I’m governing, in my personal opinion. The presence of Seats in Parliament/Senate should be included imo.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't think IGs lose all of their influence just because the party they backed lost an election. If you read the DD it says that the election results boost the clout of IGs that are affiliated with parties that earned votes.

Yes, I too have read DD, the post of mine you are reacting to is me agreeing with this decision. The IGs are the main political mechanic and parties and elections are a subsidiary mechanics, which, while abstracted, is reasonably close to how politics works in the real life if you follow the Italian Elite school.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Under one of the more restrictive voting laws, if a pop demotes to a pop type that doesn't fall under that eligibility, will they lose their ability to vote or will they be "grandfathered" in?

Would they regain the vote if/when promoting back into the eligible pop types?
 
EDIT (Not OPB): Whilst this might not make it in time for release, I do hope that in very future patches down the line once it’s released, it will be looked into. The abstraction for me feels rather disconnected from the nation which I’m governing, in my personal opinion. The presence of Seats in Parliament/Senate should be included imo.
The problem with a legislative seat mechanic is that the government is more than the just the legislature. In just the United States you have the President, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the federal departments, the state governors and the state legislators. I prefer a system that allows for the fuzziness of how all these elements interact with each other, albeit abstractly, rather than a detailed simulation of one part that neglects the rest of it.
 
  • 9
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Didn't Vic2 have more election laws than this? Like "weighted landed" and "weighted wealth" or something. Any reason why this has been reduced?

Also is the election every 4 years entirely static? Is there a way to e.g. force an early election?
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
From the description of Momentum it seems like which parties were previously in charge is disregarded. It seems a bit weird to me that whether they did a good job or not last term would have no impact the current election.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the idea of the player being able to choose who takes power, regardless of their political strength, is just much better for gameplay than a sort of automatic election -> government system. In Victoria 2, if you wanted, for example, the Communists in power, often you would have to intentionally sabotage the country in order to make everyone mad enough, and only then could they take power through rebellion and actually try to make themselves popular enough to hold power through governing well. The self-sabotage was always utterly bizarre.

I agree that giving the player more control in this case is progress. I regularly had to tank my economy in Victoria II to get the reforms I wanted. It was not fun game design so the change here is great.

The problem I see is that the choices players now have in forming a government out of interest groups is stale and it's a weird model of political behaviour.

If the only constraint on who is in power is keeping a lid on (il) legitimacy, then players will probably develop a really easy to follow rule of thumb around that. Just don't let legitimacy fall below x% and any combination is fine. There's a risk that that will lead to stale game play.

It's also kind of strange. Imagine that you're playing the USA with the Slave Planters in Government. The Republicans win 51%of the vote and eek out a bare majority in both houses while also taking the presidency. The player notes that forming another slave planter government would now reduce their legitimacy by X, but that's still well above the rule of thumb threshold for legitimacy so the player ignores the Republican landslide and forms another slave planter government.

What does that say about the agency of the Republican party who just won government? Abe Lincoln sighs "I'm powerless to stop the formation of another pro slavery government. I'm just the Chief Executive of the Federal Government with a double majority to pass laws governing these United States. Utterly powerless. I'll just sit quietly for the next four years because...
The spirit of the nation demands it?"

What might be more interesting is if the choice of interest groups in government was less generic than simply lower legitimacy. It would be better to have choices like two parties or interest groups falling out during the election and refusing to enter coalition together. A party leader dies and although their party has a majority it cannot form government until they settle the succession. One party refuses to join a coalition unless the other party commits to enact certain laws.

Those would be interesting choices and they would illustrate the agency of the political actors in a way that explains why they do or do not cooperate with each other.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions: