Developer Diary 16 - Elections

[Niptium]

So there wouldn't be any pro-independance party in Québec while in the British Empire and then in Canada or isn't that modeled at all in the lower house per region system?

I'd really love to see Québec's (and north-east USA) map.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

So there wouldn't be any pro-independance party in Québec while in the British Empire and then in Canada or isn't that modeled at all?

I'm guessing they'd have a different culture than the predominantly British portions of Canada.

 

[King]

I'm guessing they'd have a different culture than the predominantly British portions of Canada.

yes meaning if they get militant they will be more likely join the nationalist rebel faction, instead of one of the political ones.

 

[Niptium]

yes meaning if they get militant they will be more likely join the nationalist rebel faction, instead of one of the political ones.

How would a portion of your pop get higher militancy on ethnic/linguistic/nationalistic grounds? I understand the impact of issues for the social-economic political parties (Liberals, Socialists)... but for nations under the control of others?

 

[Red_Communist]

yes meaning if they get militant they will be more likely join the nationalist rebel faction, instead of one of the political ones.

So there is a chance you can play an Independent Québec? That'd be kinda neat, actually.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

yes meaning if they get militant they will be more likely join the nationalist rebel faction, instead of one of the political ones.

ah ha, answers a question i hadn't yet asked about the Irish

 

[King]

How would a portion of your pop get higher militancy on ethnic/linguistic/nationalistic grounds? I understand the impact of issues for the social-economic political parties (Liberals, Socialists)... but for nations under the control of others?

If you are not an accepted culture you will have higher average militancy.

 

[Niptium]

That would make a great DD...

 

[Red_Communist]

So there wouldn't be any pro-independance party in Québec while in the British Empire and then in Canada or isn't that modeled at all in the lower house per region system?

I'd really love to see Québec's (and north-east USA) map.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=423928

On page 17 you can see what Québec's province layout looks like. It may not show the Northern part of Québec, but you can see most of the provinces.

 

[BlueWarrior]

Very interesting - can't wait to see what's in next weeks DD

 

[Vricklund]

There's no plurality this time round is there? Or not in a way that effects or is affected by elections?

I too had some questions on plurality two weeks ago. All we got was this shady answer.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

First up the coalition, we have kept the same ideological labels for parties in the lower house and the upper house and we divide these ideologies into blocks. The Conservatives and Reactionaries are one. Then you have Liberals and Anarcho-liberals, Socialists and Communists, and finally all on their own the Fascists (being a bit angry they find it hard to find common ground between themselves and anyone else). Under conditions of average militancy these ideologies fight elections as coalition blocks. Each party inside the block tries to win the most seats they can, the winner of the election is the ideological block with the most seats. The ruling party is the largest party inside the block. When militancy goes high enough, these coalitions shatter, as the political system is polarised and the largest single party becomes the ruling party.

Ugh. This is confirming my worst fears over this project, but you know what? Question time:

1) How do the blocs decide what issue to support? I'm sure Socialists and Communists will argue heavily over military spending, for instance.
2) Let assume that we have a Communist Upper House and a Communist Lower House. We implement Communist reforms (while at the same time lowering the militancy of the population so that the Communists will eventually rejoin with the Socialist bloc). Next election, we'll have a Conservative Upper House...but what sort of game logic will you have to make sure that we still have a Socialist/Communist voting bloc controlling the Lower House?

 

[Eichenthal]

So, each country has exacty 7 parties, since nationalists are not in, right?

 

[telesien]

Ugh. This is confirming my worst fears over this project, but you know what? Question time:

1) How do the blocs decide what issue to support? I'm sure Socialists and Communists will argue heavily over military spending, for instance.
2) Let assume that we have a Communist Upper House and a Communist Lower House. We implement Communist reforms (while at the same time lowering the militancy of the population so that the Communists will eventually rejoin with the Socialist bloc). Next election, we'll have a Conservative Upper House...but what sort of game logic will you have to make sure that we still have a Socialist/Communist voting bloc controlling the Lower House?

1) there won't be anything like that. strongest party from each block makes the whole politics the way they like it

2) lower house elections are about issues not ideologies. when voters won't change issues, they will still support the same parties. well maybe not the extreme ones, but they won't to destroy political reforms anyway.

 

[Eichenthal]

1) How do the blocs decide what issue to support? I'm sure Socialists and Communists will argue heavily over military spending, for instance.

Blocs are for the vote only, if the bloc wins, its largest party will rule and thereby its policies on military spending etc. will be the ones relevant.

 

[Snaggleooo]

Very impressed with this. One of the DDs I was most looking forward to. Love the FOX reference too.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

2) lower house elections are about issues not ideologies.

But then how are they related (since that was the impression I got in the Upper House Dev Diary...that they are named the same because there is some relation between them)? o

 

[telesien]

But then how are they related (since that was the impression I got in the Upper House Dev Diary...that they are named the same because there is some relation between them)? o

Actually there are almost not related. Those terms were selected because:
a) for upper house - they are known and people understand them
b) for lower house - they can show you what each party represent at first glance

otherwise they are not used for lower-house. just with the exception of very close result, when they are the tie-braker

 

[beatoangelico]

the political system looks worse every time some info is revealed I guess I'll wait for the usual price drops + patch combo.

 

[Colon]

Ugh. This is confirming my worst fears over this project, but you know what? Question time:

1) How do the blocs decide what issue to support? I'm sure Socialists and Communists will argue heavily over military spending, for instance.
2) Let assume that we have a Communist Upper House and a Communist Lower House. We implement Communist reforms (while at the same time lowering the militancy of the population so that the Communists will eventually rejoin with the Socialist bloc). Next election, we'll have a Conservative Upper House...but what sort of game logic will you have to make sure that we still have a Socialist/Communist voting bloc controlling the Lower House?

Parties have their issues predetermined. People vote for them because they support those issues.

If with "implement communist reforms", you just mean more social reforms, you are really only creating a welfare state. If you mean also removing political reforms, you are establishing an authoritharian state where the communist party will stay in power regardless.
There's no way you can ensure a certain party stays in power as long you allow a free vote, otherwise it wouldn't be a free vote anymore. If people would stop voting for the communist party, it's because the party's issues are simply no longer aligned with their own.