Well, I'm referring to the Anarcho-Liberals in the Upper House who want to increase political reforms through a revolution. Eh, if you guys have an Anarcho-Liberal revolution that prevents unions from being formed, that'd be fine.
Developer Diary 24 – The Lower House
- 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.
Anarcho-libs in the Upper House will block all reforms. If I understand correctly, they'll do this to increase militancy and spark a revolution to overthrow the government.
The size difference between the US and UK constituents are still several orders of magnitude (both in terms of voters and representatives), so I still maintain that the modeled game concept is much closer to US system than to the British.
(Thanks for pointing out the multimember constituency thingy though, I wasn't aware of it).
I've been following closely if cluelessly: POP ideology is primarily to be a baseline on which the carefully-cultivated issue modifiers operate?
And if the Lower House elections are purely issue-driven, with ideology only as a tie-break, what options exist for the appearance of new parties within pre-existing parts of the political spectrum so that issue matchups get more interesting? E.g., truculent liberal imperialists for the Anglophile posters, Peelite conservatives, etc.
Britain has had roughly twice the amount of MPs per person than the US has had congressmen for most of the period. Both houses numbered in the hundreds. That's spitting distance in this case.
And if the Lower House elections are purely issue-driven, with ideology only as a tie-break, what options exist for the appearance of new parties within pre-existing parts of the political spectrum so that issue matchups get more interesting? E.g., truculent liberal imperialists for the Anglophile posters, Peelite conservatives, etc.
??
Britain has had roughly twice the amount of MPs per person than the US has had congressmen for most of the period. Both houses numbered in the hundreds. That's spitting distance in this case.
Would this mean that a state with Atheism has no affect on consciousness?
Wouldn't that be a terrible effect on a proletarian dictatorship? Perhaps there is a kind of system on which the extremes on each part of the policies have similar effect, with both atheism and moralism reducing consciousness.
If so, it would depend on the governement type. Absolute monarchies want moralism, communist regimes want atheism, and democratic regimes want pluralism?
Britain has 650 constituencies today (don't know exactly how many in the 1800s), whereas the US has 50 today (and always has had one constituency per state in the union). The main point isn't how many representatives are elected per person, but how many are elected per constituency.
With elections where the majority in a state gets to decide all the state's votes, it does matter how large a state is. If there are ~650 states in the game's Britain, first-past-the-post is a good name for the phenomenon. If there are about 50 states in the game's version of continental USA, winner-takes-all is a better name.
This is the thread purports to deal directly with the question of the Lower House. Yet, it discusses the voting system which determines the Upper House. The screen shot shows the Upper House, but does not reveal the Lower House. Is it simply untitled or hidden?
The lower house is everything below and including 'Whig Party'
It talks about lower house...