Megathread : Politics, Government and Elections in V2

[unmerged(41229)]

I like the ideas being discussed here and I particularly like the idea of incorporating some kind of women's suffrage reform into the game. Yet, I think it should be difficult or even impossible to enact such a reform (limited by popular support, ruling party, or a whole host of other things) until later in the game.

Until Women's suffrage is enacted the votes of half of all pops (evenly distributed across classes) should simply be thrown out by the engine or something

 

[unmerged(91061)]

But what practicle effect would that have on the game? Unless women POPs vote different to men pops, it won't influence any elections.
If however, women's suffrage can be a policy that shifts a country's ideology, then I can see it having a purpose.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Come to think about it, women POPs would be hell of an improvement for the whole social/economical simulation model.

I just wonder if they are good for the game period though, more fitting first half of the XX century, with their growing role in the economics, purchase power, political role and such.

 

[Orinsul]

As far as i can see theres no need for a division of the sexes in the POP structure. Nothing would be gained except a small amount of political correctness, thoughout the time period in the upper classes they are mostly in terms of support as far as economic consideration goes and for the lower a small increase in productivity and work efficency happens thoughout the game anyway and any government move to drive women into the factories could increase the value to a similar amount.
Womens Sufferage should cause initial instability but severe trouble for nations with a signifigant reactionary presence and a minor amount from conservative and given condition the other centre ideologies as well.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

And the Papal States!

Papal States
Papacy
Head of State elected by the clergy at the death, with full powers.
Appointed Lower House.
Suffrage - Clergy.

Oh yes, theocratic elections would be cool.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

Yeah. Victorias politics are great fun the times when they are unpredictable and exciting. Such as, when my newly established Chilean democracy had reactionaries win and establish a dictatorship. A dictatorship which then welcomed hordes of French aristocrats escaping the French republic. The only stable dictatorship I've ever had, lasted for 20 years, and I only dissolved it because state capitalism didn't work for the country anymore. And guess what, once I reinstated democracy, the damn reactionaries won again! I was forced to change ruling party and remain in dictatorship.

Had similar experiences with nazis too, but the sad truth is that usually, a liberal laissez-faire party is elected after 1848, and then stays in power for the rest of the game, unless the player does some gamey tactic to get rid of them. In those cases, politics are uninteresting and dull.

I love reactionaries!

 

[Archaalen]

I would like to put in an opinion about the issue of incumency. Being an incumbent, most typically, gives a natural advantage to political parties of all sorts. Whether your system of government is corrupt or not, having control of the levers of power in the country gives you additional legitimacy, and those who vote without proper understanding of the issues tend to vote for the incumbent (which is what sould tend to happen with low con POPs, rather than making them Conservative). The party in power, whether they actually caused it or not, tends to become either blamed or credited for how the country as a whole is doing. If the economy is rolling along well, the nation is at peace or just won a war, and disease or disaster have not struck in a while, these things all tend to favor the incumbent. However, if your nation just lost a humiliating war, if the economy is in apparent decline, or if plagues, floods, or earthquakes have struck recently and caused significant damage, then the incumbents will tend to suffer for these things. Thus, a good model for the effects of incumbency would take into account how the country's POPs "feel" about how their nation is doing. This factor could be called "self-confidence" or something of that nature, and the higher it is, the more likely the POP is to vote for the incumbent, regardless of issues or party preferences.

 

[Tjuk]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (probably, yes) but something I missed in Vicky and EUIII is that democracies have very little downsides. This in contrast to history where democracies are proven time and again to be hard to establish, rather unstable at first, quite susceptible to radicalism and revolutions and rather impotent when a show of force or cruelty is required to maintain the status quo. There are very little examples of democracies declaring an unprovoked war (whether the casus belli was genuine or not) and even fewer wars between two established democracies. So few, as a matter of fact, that it became political theory.

An example that, to me, is the exception that confirms the rule is the Second Boer War, which ended with so many concessions to the Boers that it was more like the Boers annexed the cape colony than the other way around.

Perhaps it would be nice if Vicky II limited democracies in the same way HOI did, only allowing democracies to fight a defensive war or only allow them to fight offensive wars after providing the population with the right mindset (Yellow Journalism).

 

[kolpo]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (probably, yes) but something I missed in Vicky and EUIII is that democracies have very little downsides. This in contrast to history where democracies are proven time and again to be hard to establish, rather unstable at first, quite susceptible to radicalism and revolutions and rather impotent when a show of force or cruelty is required to maintain the status quo. There are very little examples of democracies declaring an unprovoked war (whether the casus belli was genuine or not) and even fewer wars between two established democracies. So few, as a matter of fact, that it became political theory.

An example that, to me, is the exception that confirms the rule is the Second Boer War, which ended with so many concessions to the Boers that it was more like the Boers annexed the cape colony than the other way around.

Perhaps it would be nice if Vicky II limited democracies in the same way HOI did, only allowing democracies to fight a defensive war or only allow them to fight offensive wars after providing the population with the right mindset (Yellow Journalism).

Yes and what I also miss are the political consequences of wars. You can fight a prologued war, lose tons of men and not see any significant effect on ellections. While I think it should have at least some effect.

Maybe does the population unite behind the ruling party out of nationalism or does it start to vote for the opposition either because they want the war to end or think that the ruling party is mishandling the war.

 

[Tjuk]

Yes and what I also miss are the political consequences of wars. You can fight a prologued war, lose tons of men and not see any significant effect on ellections. While I think it should have at least some effect.

Maybe does the popultion unite behind the ruling party out of nationalism or does it start to vote for the opposition either because they want the war to end or think that the ruling party is mishandling the war.

Indeed, when a war is going on it quite often is the leading issue during elections. There are multiple examples of this but to stick with the second Boer war, the British elections of 1900 and 1906 were heavily influenced by successes in the war (1900 khaki election, concervatives win) and its fallout (1906, concentration camps scandal, liberals win).

 

[minority]

I don't quite remember the election mechanics in Vicky, but did stats like consciousness affect voter turnout?

In fact, was there even a variable voter turnout?

I think that's definitely a factor in influencing the predictability of an election, where an energised minority can take hold of government.

And indeed, while Vicky elections were influenced by issues and/or ideology, there are other, perhaps less rational drivers behind voter behaviour like the effects of prominent politicians of their day (think Gladstone). Although an EU:Rome-style political characters is not feasible, but there should be something to represent the individuals (and their political strengths) as a factor as well.

Things like wars affecting elections have already been mentioned, but perhaps also diplomacy (religious voters objecting to helping infidels, for lack of a better term) etc.

But all this leads to extra complexity and trying to get the right balance of the weight of each factor to produce "logical" election outcomes. I guess Paradox won't want to overcomplicate things.

cheers

 

[Archaalen]

Consiousness affected ideology rather than voting turnout. Low con POPs naturally turned Conservative in ideology, even if that was opposite their normal stance.

 

[unmerged(137742)]

Turkish Players Suggestions

Sorry, my english is bad


Will be continuously updated

• Ingame, there will be real political parties at present.
• Population get detailed information
• Victoria 1, the Caucasus and Crimea's population is very wrong information.
• Set according to race and religion Look at taxes.
• Tribe country we may get fired.

 

[Tjuk]

In vicky 1, consciousness and pluralism was more of an issue for monarchies than it was for democracies. I think that democracies should have all the perks they had in Vicky 1, like increased immigration and lowered militancy from high pluralism and consciousness, but with limited player control over sliders, reforms, international pollicy, army size etc.

 

[CCFC1927]

Perhaps it would be nice if Vicky II limited democracies in the same way HOI did, only allowing democracies to fight a defensive war or only allow them to fight offensive wars after providing the population with the right mindset (Yellow Journalism).

It depends on what you label as a democracy as two of the most liberal countries in europe (for the time) Britain and France had two of the largest empires in the world, and they didn't gain them by fighting defensive wars but because of their cultural and social ideas of the time.
But what I want to say is that I think Parliaments should play I greater role in passing law and (in some cases) declaring war. Say if you wanted to introduce state pensions they would need to pass through both houses to become law. And perhaps your head of government could have traits, such as affecting the abillity of passing through difficult legislation. And perhaps the ability of parliaments taking up legislation themselves with the ability given to you as head of state to veto the legislation i.e. declining royal assent but this could result in dissent and higher militancy.

 

[kolpo]

But what I want to say is that I think Parliaments should play I greater role in passing law and (in some cases) declaring war. Say if you wanted to introduce state pensions they would need to pass through both houses to become law. And perhaps your head of government could have traits, such as affecting the abillity of passing through difficult legislation. And perhaps the ability of parliaments taking up legislation themselves with the ability given to you as head of state to veto the legislation i.e. declining royal assent but this could result in dissent and higher militancy.

Yes I too think that the parlement should vote on proposals that can force you to do certain things. The parlement could for example vote for unemployment subsidies. If that vote passes with a narrow majority might you be able to veto it, but that should have consequences(especially when you veto a very popular proposal). For example could vetoing a very popular proposal make the party that proposed it so strong in the next elections, that you can no longer veto their proposals.

 

[minority]

But what I want to say is that I think Parliaments should play I greater role in passing law and (in some cases) declaring war. Say if you wanted to introduce state pensions they would need to pass through both houses to become law. And perhaps your head of government could have traits, such as affecting the abillity of passing through difficult legislation. And perhaps the ability of parliaments taking up legislation themselves with the ability given to you as head of state to veto the legislation i.e. declining royal assent but this could result in dissent and higher militancy.

I think to a certain extent, limitations on the economic sliders and ability to enact/repeal reforms based on the ruling party of the day already models parliamentary approval. I kinda think trying to model the workings of a parliament itself would not be feasible or fit into general gameplay.

cheers

 

[Hertog Jan]

I think to a certain extent, limitations on the economic sliders and ability to enact/repeal reforms based on the ruling party of the day already models parliamentary approval. I kinda think trying to model the workings of a parliament itself would not be feasible or fit into general gameplay.

cheers

I tend to disagree. Simulating parliaments is one of the reasons why PI is contemplating introducing them in the game. It would give flavour to the game and innovate its political aspect. One releases a sequel only if it brings consideral improvements. Why would a gamer buy a sequel that has few or no improvements? Modelling a parliament is feasible (look at Eversim's Geo-Political Simulator) and also fits into the highly political and ideological atmosphere of the era. The 19th century was the century of parliaments and constitutions and the age of isms.

I think that especially democracies and constitutional monarchies are badly modelled. Democracies should have stronger parliaments. Constitutional monarchies should give the player the possibility the form governments at will, but the player will need parliamentary approval for important laws (which presents the limits on executive power in constitutional monarchies). Reforms should be approved by parliaments in forms of government that provide for parliamentary approval.

I even would propose to have more flexible forms of government within the main forms of government of Vicky 1. There could be different models of monarchy (ranging from absolute (Russia), semi-constitutional (Prussia/Germany) to fully constitutional (United Kingdom)) and republics.
This could be managed in some kind of constitution wizard.

I also like a constitution wizard in relation to this idea, which I really like:

That would be a nice touch if term limits could be set in the constitution. None of this everyone serves the same time mallarky.

The ability for the player to draft a constitution would be a great feature to have (even in an expansion pack) where you can set term limits, type of parliament (if any), type of executive, suffrage, etc. as well as more specific laws (cannot have less then trinkets in health care, communist parties are banned, etc.).
Furthermore, during a revolution, if you are defeated by the rebels or surrender before hand, you then go on to draft a new constitution which must meet a certain ideological requirement based on the rebels in the victorious revolution. Meeting the minimum ideological requisite would disperse most rebels and install a new government under that constitution, but some rebels would remain. If however, you surpass their demands then the more you surpass them the more rebels who're content and disband. Things could be made more complex by adding competing ideologies amongst successful rebels. For example, if I lost a revolution in Spain, and the rebels were mainly radical-liberals plus a few socialists, then I would need to have X amount of things in the constitution that were in accordance with radical-liberalism (Republic, universal suffrage, all parties allowed), As Well As, Y amount of things in accordance with socialism (cannot have less then trinkets in Pensions, unions legal).

Thoughts?

 

[Arilou]

I'd say the most important bit would be have a more dynamic impact between issues and actual game-events. (not Events)

So a war would make militarism (or pacifism!) more popular, while an economic crisis would have eveyrone focusing on their daily bread.

 

[Ovg]

Come to think about it, women POPs would be hell of an improvement for the whole social/economical simulation model.

Imagine all the "Women's republic" AARs