Conservative parties keep winning the election

[The Silent Hero]

According to the politics tab, no more than 40% of the voting population identifies with conservative parties. They're a minority in the upper house. Yet every single election the reactionary or conservative parties win 85+ percent of the vote and have a "99% coalition". It's been like this since day 1. Why can't my nation vote in other parties? Would the proportional representation reform fix it?

 

[Owl Raider]

According to the politics tab, no more than 40% of the voting population identifies with conservative parties. They're a minority in the upper house. Yet every single election the reactionary or conservative parties win 85+ percent of the vote and have a "99% coalition". It's been like this since day 1. Why can't my nation vote in other parties? Would the proportional representation reform fix it?

Political reforms is the key. Representation is only a minor aspect of it, but the voting franchise reforms matter a lot. At the beginning most nations have very few reforms if at all, which basically means that only the rich can vote. Since early on you don't really have any capitalists than the rich people are all aristocrats. Aristocrats are conservative by default. Since Aristocrats are the only ones that can vote and they're mostly conservative than elections will keep electing conservative parties. Once you get some political reforms going you can get the liberals and than socialists in power if you so choose. By the way, unless you're playing a democracy(so basically USA or most South American nations) you shouldn't really care about elections as you can appoint whichever party you want regardless of them.

 

[Mikalos]

Political reforms is the key. Representation is only a minor aspect of it, but the voting franchise reforms matter a lot. At the beginning most nations have very few reforms if at all, which basically means that only the rich can vote. Since early on you don't really have any capitalists than the rich people are all aristocrats. Aristocrats are conservative by default. Since Aristocrats are the only ones that can vote and they're mostly conservative than elections will keep electing conservative parties. Once you get some political reforms going you can get the liberals and than socialists in power if you so choose. By the way, unless you're playing a democracy(so basically USA or most South American nations) you shouldn't really care about elections as you can appoint whichever party you want regardless of them.

you generate CON or MIL by doing so though

 

[Thrake]

you generate CON or MIL by doing so though

... Which allows to pass reforms. I'm a republic, I wish I could reform, but I can't find a mean to pass reforms as I also keep getting conservatives in power. Funnily enough, I could be more progressive with monarchies with reactionnaries in power.

 

[Owl Raider]

you generate CON or MIL by doing so though

You're saying it like it's a bad thing. Honestly mil is overrated, you're going to get rebels no matter what, so having slightly more or less mil won't really make much of a difference. So actually having a bit of mil is good as it allows you to pass reforms. As for con, it too helps you pass reforms and modernize in general. Also unless you're playing as the US con shouldn't get exceedingly high because your clergymen(which you're supposed to focus on with pretty much every nation until you get 2% in each region) suppress con very effectively.

 

[The Silent Hero]

Political reforms is the key. Representation is only a minor aspect of it, but the voting franchise reforms matter a lot. At the beginning most nations have very few reforms if at all, which basically means that only the rich can vote. Since early on you don't really have any capitalists than the rich people are all aristocrats. Aristocrats are conservative by default. Since Aristocrats are the only ones that can vote and they're mostly conservative than elections will keep electing conservative parties. Once you get some political reforms going you can get the liberals and than socialists in power if you so choose. By the way, unless you're playing a democracy(so basically USA or most South American nations) you shouldn't really care about elections as you can appoint whichever party you want regardless of them.

But I already have universal voting rights, so elections should reflect the opinion of everyone. What other reforms are needed. It's 1883 right now.

 

[Owl Raider]

But I already have universal voting rights, so elections should reflect the opinion of everyone. What other reforms are needed. It's 1883 right now.

What nation are you playing? What is your current government form? If it's not the voting franchise reforms than perhaps you're an absolute monarchy which doesn't allow liberal/socialist parties therefore there are no viable alternatives to the conservatives or something similar?

 

[The Silent Hero]

I'm France and it's 1883. There's a full range of parties from socialists to far-right reactionaries. I have HM's government so you're right it doesn't really matter, but it'd be nice for some flavour in the politics.

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

Use NF to increase Party loyalty in Liberal areas, this will sway liberals to actually vote liberal instead of conservatives.

 

[Will Steel]

But then won't they always vote only for liberals, if the party promotion NF has been used for long enough?

I once promoted socialists in one of my Korea games. After that the people simply refused to vote for anything else. There were still other parties in the upper house, but the ruling one was always socialist.

 

[grommile]

But I already have universal voting rights, so elections should reflect the opinion of everyone. What other reforms are needed. It's 1883 right now.

Do you have Proportional Representation, or First Past The Post?

If you have PR, the election result will reflect the voting distribution of your population.

If you have FPTP, the election result will reflect the number of states in which each party won a plurality (i.e. more votes than any other single party, even if not necessarily an absolute majority) of the local vote. This setup significantly favours ideologies which are only represented by a single party over ideologies which are represented by multiple parties.

 

[Daffius]

Also corruption. If your administrative spending is low, you could have groups (machine politics?) in provinces giving 100% ruling party support. Before election raise administrative spend to get rid of them.

The type of voting also counts, you want proportional representation as grommile mentioned. Universal on it's own is not enough.

 

[ringhloth]

The ruling party election isn't exactly handled by the party the pop belongs to. Rather, pops will vote for parties that support issues they care about. So if you have a laissez faire liberal party and a interventionist conservative party, and 75% of the people in a state are liberals, but they all prefer interventionism, then they'll vote conservative more often. At least, that's what I've noticed.

 

[takedown47]

I always preferred weighted wealth voting, it gave me an optimal balance between conservative and liberal swinging between the two on a regular basis.

 

[Fiftypence]

The ruling party election isn't exactly handled by the party the pop belongs to. Rather, pops will vote for parties that support issues they care about. So if you have a laissez faire liberal party and a interventionist conservative party, and 75% of the people in a state are liberals, but they all prefer interventionism, then they'll vote conservative more often. At least, that's what I've noticed.

I believe that's only the case with low consciousness. The higher the consciousness, the more POPs vote along ideological rather than issue-based lines.