Political Framework for comparative analysis

[IsaacCAT]

I love doing charts and analysis in MP games. For Victoria there is one aspect that it is very difficult to chart, that is the political setup of every nation.

Looking in the internet I have found some charts that plot policies in two axis: collective/individual vs More Authority/ Less Authority or another chart with Progressive/Traditional Vs Left/Right.

For our last game this Sunday (current year is 1888) I made a table for all laws with points in each category (see below) and the resulting chart is interesting as players can see how their nation is politically positioned compared to each other.

​

The numbers used for each law are the following. Some of the laws I could not decide if they were possible to fit in any of the two categories. If someone comes up with a better score card, please comment.

PS: updated score card with comments from @Haresus @Life-is-comedy and @mursolini.

Law	Authority (Traditional vs Progressive) Social Equality vs Social Freedom		Law	Collectives vs Individualism (Left vs Right) Economic Equality vs Economic Freedom		Law	None
Governance Principles			Economic System			Army Model
Monarchy	10​		Traditionalism	8​		Peasant Levies
President Republic	2​		Interventionism	-6​		Professional Army
Parliamentary Republic	0​		Agrarianism	-2​		National Militia
Theocracy	10​		Laissez-Faire	10​		Mass Conscription
Council Republic	-2​		Cooperative Ownership	-10​		Colonization
Distribution of Power			Command Economy	-10​		No colonial Affairs
Autocracy	10​		Trade Policy			Colonial Resettlement
Oligarchy	5​		Mercantilism	-8​		Colonial Exploitation
Landed Voting	5​		Protectionism	-6​		Education System
Wealth voting	0​		Free Trade	10​		No Schools
Census Suffrage	-5​		Isolationism	-10​		Religious Schools
Universal Suffrage	-10​		Taxation			Private Schools
Anarchy	-20​		Consumption-based Taxation	10​		Public Schools
Citizenship			Land-Based Taxation	-6​		Health System
Ethnostate	10​		Per-capita Taxation	0​		No Health System
National Supremacy	8​		Proportional Taxation	-8​		Charity Hospitals
Racial Segregation	5​		Graduated Taxation	-10​		Private Health Insurance
Cultural Exclusion	0​		Labor Rights			Publich Health Insurance
Multiculturalism	-10​		Serfdom Abolished	0​		Migration
Church and State			Serfdom	10​		No migration controls
State Religion	8​		Regulatory Bodies	-5​		Migration Controls
Freedom of Conscience	0​		Workers Protections	-8​		Closed Borders
Total Separation	-5​		Children's rights
Bureaucracy			Child Labor Allowed	5​
Hereditary Bureaucrats	5​		Restricted Child Labor	0​
Appointed Bureaucrats	0​		Compulsory Primary School	-5​
Elected Bureaucrats	-5​		Welfare
Internal Security			No Social Security	10​
No home Affairs	0​		Poor Laws	0​
National Guard	5​		Wage Subsidies	-4​
Secret Police	10​		Old Age Pension	-6​
Guaranteed Liberties	-10​
Policing
No Police	-4​
Local Police Force	2​
Dedicated Police Force	4​
Militarized Police Force	8​
Free Speech
Outlawed dissent	10​
Censorship	5​
Right of Assembly	-5​
Protected Speech	-10​
Rights of Women
Legal Guardianship	8​
Propertied Women	6​
Women in the Workplace	-6​
Women's Suffrage	-8​
Slavery
Slavery Banned	-10​
Debt Slavery	5​
Slave Trade	10​
Legacy Slavery	8​

Thank you!

 

[Haresus]

Interesting idea.

Some criticism/suggestions: Wouldn't women's rights be connected with social equality/progressiveness? I think secret police would generally be more authoritative than national guard. Seems a bit strange that all the slavery laws (except for slavery banned) are rated the same, even if there maybe shouldn't be a big difference (8 vs 9 vs 10, for example). I generally think distribution of power should be weighted heavier than governance principle. A constitutional monarchy with universal suffrage should be less authoritarian than a parliamentary republic with wealth voting if all other laws are the same, for example. Parliamentary republic being -5 instead of 0 might be the culprit behind some of those oddities. Something like anarchy should probably be closer to -20 than -10.

But I do like the concept!

 

[IsaacCAT]

Interesting idea.

Some criticism/suggestions: Wouldn't women's rights be connected with social equality/progressiveness? I think secret police would generally be more authoritative than national guard. Seems a bit strange that all the slavery laws (except for slavery banned) are rated the same, even if there maybe shouldn't be a big difference (8 vs 9 vs 10, for example). I generally think distribution of power should be weighted heavier than governance principle. A constitutional monarchy with universal suffrage should be less authoritarian than a parliamentary republic with wealth voting if all other laws are the same, for example. Parliamentary republic being -5 instead of 0 might be the culprit behind some of those oddities. Something like anarchy should probably be closer to -20 than -10.

But I do like the concept!

Thanks for the feedback I will update the numbers with your suggestions.

On women’s rights, if we think about social equality vs social freedom it feels a bit odd that any of the laws rank in social equality for having women under men’s authority. It is not authority but male dominance. But you are right if we think in terms of traditionalism. Women in the workplace and suffrage should score in social freedom/progressiveness for sure.

 

[Life is Comedy]

Intereting brain teaser...
I havent had this kind of chart methodology back in university days, but three things for sure :
A) You give the same value to too many variables
B) You seem to ignore that "0" is also a value (oddly only in your second chart)
C) I guess every "pack" has the same weight (so any "-10" and "+10" would give 0 (but this beeing an abstract game it would be difficult to give a sensible weight as anyway thoose are the pnly actions/laws possible in game with no further nuance allowed)

ALso one more "Meta" comment is that you should decide on what values you are comparing everything. Most political charts on the englishh speaking internet work for exeample really only on the USA. And even more importantly they follow the rule of "extremes exists", instead of the rule "politics is a cricle" (wich i prefer, but here we enter political philosphy whereas if we took liberalism, comunism, fascism for exeample, fascism and comunism touch each other in a circle and are not the extrems with liberalism and the center).
All this said,

First chart

Spoiler: First chart

Distribution of power
Has way too similar values given. I understand limit that oligarchy & landed voting could be the same, as it is only in practice possible to know wich is more inclusive, but wealth voting should definitly be separated. I would even argue (if the follow 1848 liberalism wheareas you need to be rich to understand politics) to put wealth voting at "0". Census would become "-5" and universal "-10". Anarchy is an oddity of the game anyway... but either "10", "15" or "20"...

Church and State
You give a lot of "weight" to this law by giving 10, 0, -10. Because we know "State Atheism" will come out, i would put total separation at "-5". Arguebly Freedom of Conscience could be "5" or "0".

Internal security
You make a really big jump of "-10" but put two laws at "5". Either put Secret police at "10" like @Haresus suggested or the "-10" at "-5"

Policing
I thing here the model breaks a little from real world knowldge and in game mechanics. What i partially dislike is the deviation from your "5" jumps but i also kind of understand because of "local police force" and "dedicated". What do they even mean ? Are we speaking anout the semi-elected semi-given Western style sheriffs ? Are we speaking about a centralised system with educated policeman ? Are we speaking about the justice system itself or only the police ? Going from in game effects, local police force should logicly be more authoritarian than dedicated (if we assume landowners bad wich this chart up until now kind of does).

Spoiler: Second chart

Economic system
I guess you need to decide if we are in 1848 politcs or 2023
I would put either agriaranism either interventionism at "0" and then put all the rest thereafter.

Trade Policy
This one becomes odd as they have only lateral influence on economic equality, which you put as the counterpoint of economic freedom (and even less to do with individualism vs protectionism if not in a broader sense).
Therefore If you want to keep it (as you should) either fully commit on foerign market openess (i would put mercantilism at "0" and protectionism at +5)
either fully commit on the idea of trade itself (import vs export) wich would put isolationism at "0" as they simply have no policy as no trade.

Taxation
Personaly i think the values are too much 2023 ... taxation school book economic theory ?
But it is your work so whoo am i to judge ?
Still i would put "per capita" at 0 as, as far as i know, was the less controversial reform historicly speaking. I understand "land tax" beeing put at -6, but i would follow the idea of going toward "goods beeing taxed" as right and "people beeing taxed" as left for in game purposes.

Children's right
Only strikes odd to me to have -5 ; 0 ; +10 instead of +5

Welfare
Would put "poor laws" at "0" or "+5"
Depending if you lean more that they represnt some proto-family and city subsidies like in Prussia "0" or more like some "work houses" like in Framce or GB "+5".

Slavery
This one really breaks the chart philosphy as it represents something completly different then the rest... We could enter philosphy about is it more or less freedom to be able to own slaves but therefore restrict the freedom of the slave or forbid me to own slave but give that freedom to evryone ? But i dont think it serves it purpose here.
Personaly, i would put slavery banned like you at -10, but have slave trade & legacy slavery at "0" (as they represnt more economical system at this point rather than economical freedom or equality) and have "debt slavery" at +5, as that kind of reprent the philosophy of if you are poor its your fault and thats how you repay me (the "common" slavery of sharan africa wich kind of still exist in its mildest form, althought like many things it is almost disapeard too.

 

[mursolini]

I would more Slavery and Serfdom to the Traditional vs Progressive, because frankly it isn`t an economic issue, but social one. Both statuses come with enourmous amout of political baggage, restrictions and attitudes in culture. That way the chat on economic freedom aslo isn`t loot too distururbed by this.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Ok, I have reviewed the scorecard with all your comments (see OP). Thank you for your feedback to all, I will use it to compare players in our games.

Notes:

C) I guess every "pack" has the same weight (so any "-10" and "+10" would give 0 (but this beeing an abstract game it would be difficult to give a sensible weight as anyway thoose are the pnly actions/laws possible in game with no further nuance allowed)

Not every pack has the same weight, nor it was the intention. There are more points in Traditional laws and more points in laws for Economic Equality. It is a reflex of the laws in the game as they are now, not a balanced system. Because the idea is to compare with other players, you do not need an absolute scale, but a comparison to your peer.

Trade Policy
This one becomes odd as they have only lateral influence on economic equality, which you put as the counterpoint of economic freedom (and even less to do with individualism vs protectionism if not in a broader sense).
Therefore If you want to keep it (as you should) either fully commit on foerign market openess (i would put mercantilism at "0" and protectionism at +5)
either fully commit on the idea of trade itself (import vs export) wich would put isolationism at "0" as they simply have no policy as no trade.

Free market is full economic freedom (10) thus any law that limits the ability to trade with others it is against economic freedom. The nuance is about how economic equality is achieved with the other policies. With isolationism you have no external influences with no economic freedom (-10) while at mercantilism and protectionism you have some sort of curtailed economic freedom (-8 and -6).

Welfare
Would put "poor laws" at "0" or "+5"
Depending if you lean more that they represnt some proto-family and city subsidies like in Prussia "0" or more like some "work houses" like in Framce or GB "+5".

You are right, -10 should be only for UBI (universal basic income). Thank you