Well a Communist dictatorship isn't the best example to pick here, because there are no elections so the Lower House will always be the communist party, while the upper house is ruling party only so will always be 100% Communist no matter what.
Developer Diary 13 – Upper House and Reform
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
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.
Well a Communist dictatorship isn't the best example to pick here, because there are no elections so the Lower House will always be the communist party, while the upper house is ruling party only so will always be 100% Communist no matter what.
But how would the HoS be represented? Surely a King or President would have a large impact?
Okay, this has probably been mentioned but...
Will we have the possibility of a unicameral parliament?
Will we have the possibility of a unicameral parliament?
Most impressive DD yet in my opinion. Loved every bit of information I got in there. It's nice to see you take a leaf out of the Prussian book and add the Universal Weighted voting system, which is what they had been using pre-unification. Will the system model the disgruntled lower class that showed it's disgust at the 3-class system by having very low election attendance?
only one question: bismarck's government was conservative but did (for the time) the best social reforms in europe, how do you deal with this?
A conservative lower house party with a socialist upper house? I think so atleast, dont know if King will be in answering at this hour. The day to day runing of the country would still be conservative, while the goverments agenda to enact social reforms to lower the woryinlgy high militancy is enebled?
edit
no I think I was wrong. silkens makes alot more sense
Last edited:
Bismark's pops had high average militancy, and hence his conservative upper house was willing to support social reform. In fact, if I recall my history correctly this was his explicit reason: granting social reforms to blunt the appeal of the SPD.
The Upper House doesn't necessarily represent the upper house of a parliament...in essence, it seems intended to represent "the establishment." This establishment may be a behind the scenes aristocratic clique, a Supreme Soviet, the top layer of the NSDAP, the House of Lords, etc.
I guess I'd like a little more clarity on the Voting System.
If you have an upper house of 100 members and a voting breakdown of:
Liberal: 45%
Conservative: 30%
Reactionary: 25%
First Past the Post would mean all 100 members would be liberal?
Jefferson's Method would mean that it would calculate the votes from each state and apportion them proportionally? or first past the post? Would it also factor in the population of the state?
Proportional would mean the upper house would have 45 L / 30 C / 25 R? Who would therfore be "in charge" per se?
Thanks.
If you have an upper house of 100 members and a voting breakdown of:
Liberal: 45%
Conservative: 30%
Reactionary: 25%
First Past the Post would mean all 100 members would be liberal?
Jefferson's Method would mean that it would calculate the votes from each state and apportion them proportionally? or first past the post? Would it also factor in the population of the state?
Proportional would mean the upper house would have 45 L / 30 C / 25 R? Who would therfore be "in charge" per se?
Thanks.
That's how I see it too. However, the militancy bar maybe shouldn't be set too high (or not as high as for liberal parties). Historically, conservative (christian democrat) parties did enact quite a few social reforms.
To be fair it happened in the United States... Sometime between 1860 and 1980, the Republican and Democratic parties switched ideologies with each other
Chris said he will talk of elections in a later DD, so be patient!
I guess I phrased my question incorrectly.
Let's say we have an overwhelmingly Socialist population who got all of their reforms. Now, they all like certain issues, and these issues are best correlated with a particular Socialist party on the list...but now that all their reform needs are met, they suddenly turn Conservative and the Socialist party is kicked out...right?
A related question is, is there any relation between POPs ideologies and their issue preferences? Because then, the above situation would create a bizarre political situation where voters flip-flop between ideologies and issues simply because one particular ideology and issue was satisfied!
I'm trying to figure out what the stable equilibria are in the system that you designed.
Does this mean that reactionary revolutionaries will no longer always establish monarchies? If so would there be anyway for say the U.S. to become a monarchy?
My guess is that they will still vote for a lower house socialist party, since the people will like the issues of that party. But since they are also content with all the reforms that now have been enacted the gererall mood of the people will be that of preserving the current situation. So they will at the same time vote in a conservative upper house, since the lower house nad the upper hose patties represent different things. Lets see if I finaly got it right, it would mean that I finaly figured it out
Socialist lower house and conservative upper house. The POPs will remain socialist.
I don't think so, I think they (the Upper House) become considered conservative only in the respect that they don't want to undo/change the reforms anymore.
* double Emu
Revanchism usually happens when you loose wars or territory to other nations. (like Germany loosing WWI)
Ergo. Don't loose wars.
