Developer Diary 13 – Upper House and Reform

[bbasgen]

Conservative: I am happy with the Status Quo
Reactionary: This government has failed to defend the Status Quo
Liberal: I want political reform
Anarcho-Liberal: This government will not give us political reform
Socialist: I want social reform
Communist: This government will not give us social reform
Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.

Well done, but you are essentially using only one criteria across your spectrum: reform vs. status quo. This gets you close, but raises several contradictions as Safferli pointed out in his initial responses.

A very useful ideological spectrum can be found at the Political Compass website, where the spectrum is a grid defined by:

1. Libertarian versus Authoritarian
2. Collectivist versus Individualist

This is nearly as simplistic and abstract a design as what you have proposed, and yet allows for a much more accurate rendition. Notice, for example, how this system does a much better job of explaining Fascism:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

 

[telesien]

Nice DD! It seems you guys have made a vaery nice workable abstraction of politics - it seems a little confusing at first, but makes sense with a moments thought, I think!

I have one question though - will there be Presidential elections and such things? Or will the heads of state remain as in V:R?

Amen. I was confused (and not just a little) when I read it, but after 20 minutes on bus, I had time to think about it and I just love it. Not that I agree with every little detail, but the overall concept is totally awsome and I am just dying to read about the lower house elections and how they managed to use proportional voting system

 

[telesien]

Well done, but you are essentially using only one criteria across your spectrum: reform vs. status quo. This gets you close, but raises several contradictions as Safferli pointed out in his initial responses.

That is true, but remember, that this is only used for upper house reforms. Various parties will still have their issues and they will represent real policy just the way you show here. Upper house doesn't make the everyday politics and making it focused just on reforms is good idea. Also the ideologies there are not ideologies in their pure state, but more of a way to show how people feel. So no more laissez-faire election victories with riots because of lack of social reforms.

EDIT: Sorry for making two posts, I got confused and instead of editing the old sent the new one. Sorry...

 

[wilcoxchar]

Excellent developer diary. I haven't read through all the thread yet but can political parties change ideology based on the current enacted reforms? Or is it that as reforms are made, the party's issues change to reflect their ideology?

Also, this finally settles the debate on which ideology Teddy's Progressive Party will be. Under those rules it definitely falls under socialist as the party was more concerned with social reform than political reform.

 

[bbasgen]

When a Liberal gets what he wants, he becomes conservative, to keep what he fought for.

exactly.

This is a good thought, but I think it is quite problematic. Relative to the issue won, the liberal could be thought of as becoming "conservative", but ideology is not relative to a particular issue, it is instead relative to the social context of society.

For example, firstly, a socialist who wins the 10 hour day still has a long list of other reforms he is interested in. Secondly, even with particular reforms won, there is no particular reason to suggest that said socialist isn't going to want to keep going for the 8 hour day. Thirdly, that socialist may indeed become "liberal" or "conservative" if the national context changed such that a 12 hour day, and other regressive issues across the board, were being sought after.

Most importantly however. There is a key threshold here that has nothing to do with reforms. Political ideologies rest on a central premise of the relationship of the society/individual/etc to the state. This can be expressed in various ways (e.g. social good vs. individual good, free market vs collectivist, states rights vs federal government, etc), and while POPs should be able to shift from one side of that spectrum to the other -- it ought to be rare and quite difficult to make happen.

Also, this finally settles the debate on which ideology Teddy's Progressive Party will be. Under those rules it definitely falls under socialist as the party was more concerned with social reform than political reform.

This is quite illustrative of the problem. A simple added matrix, call it regarding the role of the state, would resolve it nicely.

 

[King]

Nice DD! It seems you guys have made a vaery nice workable abstraction of politics - it seems a little confusing at first, but makes sense with a moments thought, I think!

I have one question though - will there be Presidential elections and such things? Or will the heads of state remain as in V:R?

No Presidential elections.

 

[King]

Well done, but you are essentially using only one criteria across your spectrum: reform vs. status quo. This gets you close, but raises several contradictions as Safferli pointed out in his initial responses.

A very useful ideological spectrum can be found at the Political Compass website, where the spectrum is a grid defined by:

1. Libertarian versus Authoritarian
2. Collectivist versus Individualist

This is nearly as simplistic and abstract a design as what you have proposed, and yet allows for a much more accurate rendition. Notice, for example, how this system does a much better job of explaining Fascism:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Since the upper house is only concerned with ideology and refrom these are the two things that linkt he upper house. The rest is covered by the lower house so you example does not hold true.

 

[King]

Excellent developer diary. I haven't read through all the thread yet but can political parties change ideology based on the current enacted reforms? Or is it that as reforms are made, the party's issues change to reflect their ideology?

Also, this finally settles the debate on which ideology Teddy's Progressive Party will be. Under those rules it definitely falls under socialist as the party was more concerned with social reform than political reform.

the Progressive movmeent would be representated by a shift in the upper house towards socialist ideology, the lower house party can be something different.

 

[King]

This is a good thought, but I think it is quite problematic. Relative to the issue won, the liberal could be thought of as becoming "conservative", but ideology is not relative to a particular issue, it is instead relative to the social context of society.

For example, firstly, a socialist who wins the 10 hour day still has a long list of other reforms he is interested in. Secondly, even with particular reforms won, there is no particular reason to suggest that said socialist isn't going to want to keep going for the 8 hour day. Thirdly, that socialist may indeed become "liberal" or "conservative" if the national context changed such that a 12 hour day, and other regressive issues across the board, were being sought after.

Most importantly however. There is a key threshold here that has nothing to do with reforms. Political ideologies rest on a central premise of the relationship of the society/individual/etc to the state. This can be expressed in various ways (e.g. social good vs. individual good, free market vs collectivist, states rights vs federal government, etc), and while POPs should be able to shift from one side of that spectrum to the other -- it ought to be rare and quite difficult to make happen.



This is quite illustrative of the problem. A simple added matrix, call it regarding the role of the state, would resolve it nicely.

Yes and no. If a POP has gained the 10 hour day then he has reached one of the conditions to demand an 8 hour day, although the effect of the 10 hour day may be such that the POP is now happy. This I will explain in deeper detail in a future developer diary.

However you are also ignoring the lower house, which covers things like how interventionist the State is in economic policy, we have streamlined the ideology model quite specifically to make thing easier to follow.

 

[Piddyx]

Another article on Fascism

One more thing, King...

I am reminded of another article. It was written in the 1950 and I don't know how well it has held up, but it is called "The Authoritarian Personality" by Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford. I think it might provide insight in modeling Fascist Pops.

I would replace "I am very angry and I cannot articulate why" into "I am very angry at all opposing political views." You would get a militancy increase while other political ideologies are in power (even conservatism) as you want to represent the belief that all other political ideologies have failed them. Militancy would decrease drastically when the brown-shirts are in power, to model their strong trust in authority and the scapegoating of outside forces for the hardships they face.

Here is one problem though, that I don't know you modeled. How does Fascism spread among to the rest of the pops? I am reminded of the postmodern play Rhinoceros about the spread of fascism. When a fringe group takes power how do you show the spread of it's ideology to otherwise sound minded individuals.

Here is my first shot at it. (I'm not sure how historical it would be, because I got most of my knowledge of interbellum Italy and Germany from US Public Schools and they tend to be a little simplistic.) I would say that under a fascist government if a pop meets more material goods requirements then the consciousness decreases and the ideology can spread. It is kind of like the government showing it can make the trains run on time along with the effects of propaganda.

Just a thought. Tell me what you think.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Reactionaries and communists working together to form dictatorship is an impossible situation.

Interestingly enough, it isn't. You might want to read up on Khmer Rouge...

Not a perfect example, but, nevertheless, a valid one, with a deposed monarch being in league with a Communist insurgency to overthrow a republic!

 

[unmerged(48056)]

I would say that under a fascist government if a pop meets more material goods requirements then the consciousness decreases and the ideology can spread. It is kind of like the government showing it can make the trains run on time along with the effects of propaganda.

Just a thought. Tell me what you think.

I fail to see what that has to do with Fascism as an ideology, than with public approval in a Government. In the 1940s, there were fears that Communism would sweep the continent because 'Europeans would rather be Communists on 1800 calories a day as opposed to capitalists on 1200 calories'.


Even in a contemporary analogy, the U.S. government gets away with questionable political appointments and international crimes but your typical American never cares as long as his fridge is full of beer, he can still stream pornography off the internet and catch the fools-ball game at 8 PM.
Just the modern form of the Roman bread and circuses

 

[Hiram_Maxim]

Is the maximum health care reform supposed to represent a universal health care system like Britain's NHS? If so, are there any examples of such a system during the game's time frame?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Is the maximum health care reform supposed to represent a universal health care system like Britain's NHS? If so, are there any examples of such a system during the game's time frame?

Sowjetunion?

Yes, we are trying to make two distinctions here. You attitude towards reform and how you want your country to be right now.

What I don't quite understand is how this ties into POP ideology. In the Communist state/conservative Supreme Soviet/Communist party in power, how is the POP deciding that he will be represented by conservatives in the Supreme Soviet, but by Communists in the lower house? Or, rather, what are the ideologies of the POPs who sustain such a system? Are they Communists? Or are they Conservatives with a preference for a planned economy?

 

[unmerged(48056)]

Is the maximum health care reform supposed to represent a universal health care system like Britain's NHS? If so, are there any examples of such a system during the game's time frame?

Britain's NHS is not in the game's time period. I think maximum healthcare is supposed to represent Germany's public healthcare system. While minimum and moderate healthcare is supposed to represent things like free or subsidized vaccinations

 

[unmerged(40886)]

If everyone becomes conservative once they get their desired reforms, don't we always end up with a conservative upper house? What's the point in not giving people the reforms they want?

 

[ImperialMog]

Actually what does each level of social reform represent?

One question I thought of is how are situations involving multiple parties in the same ideology going to be handled? In the previous game there were situations where 2 parties of ideology x had 30% while 1 party of ideology y had 40% and won. Though that might be a reason for the voting system, I take it FPTP systems will drift the electorate into a two-party system due to the possibility of what I described?

 

[Red_Communist]

Nice DD! I like how the politics is shapping up in Victoria II.
It's what I've been looking for in a GS game.

Keep up the good work.

P.S. Can't wait to Pre-order.

 

[King]

Is the maximum health care reform supposed to represent a universal health care system like Britain's NHS? If so, are there any examples of such a system during the game's time frame?

Health care is a very borad concept that covers a whole number of things that the state paid for that helped people live longer. For example improvement in water and sewage supply did indeed stop you dieing at the age of 20 from Choleria and this will help your life expectancy. So no we aren't talking an NHS style system but a whole of host of things that would be slightly different for each country, but give the same effect.

 

[telesien]

What I don't quite understand is how this ties into POP ideology. In the Communist state/conservative Supreme Soviet/Communist party in power, how is the POP deciding that he will be represented by conservatives in the Supreme Soviet, but by Communists in the lower house? Or, rather, what are the ideologies of the POPs who sustain such a system? Are they Communists? Or are they Conservatives with a preference for a planned economy?

They are not represented by upper house. Upper house composition reflects how people percieve the current state of political and social reforms. Those names are given (I believe) for easier understanding. After all you have to call those representative groups somehow. When you are socialist and you got all your wanted social reforms, but you still want some political reforms, you won't support any guy how is for social reforms and political (socialist), but the guy who is for political reforms and not social ones (liberal). Supporting socialist just because your are socialist doesn't make sense. Just don't take the names too literally