Should democratic authorities have legislatures?

[WeeBigTerd101]

I believe democratic authorities should have legislatures. Obviously, this would come with an internal politics update. How should it work though? There are many ways of dividing a legislature by factions or parties. Ways such as, first past the post, single transferable vote, ranked voting, etc. However, since this is Stellaris it should be kept simplified. I say the proportions of the legislature be determined by faction support as it doesn't require any new system to be developed or anything like that.

I also think other authorities should have cabinets/advisory boards/councils or whatever. How they would be determined though I'm not as sure. Perhaps with Oligarchy for example, determined by your government type, your council of advisors could be all scientist leaders, or all your generals, or admirals, or governors. Though I'm not entirely sure about the need for non-democratic authority types to have such bodies.

Anyways back to democratic legislatures. What would the point of them be? I think the point of them would be to determine or deepen the process of changing policies. For example, let's say a nation has 100 pops and 3 factions. Let's say the three factions are Egalitarian, Xenophile, and Pacifist, with support of 42%, 35%, and 23% respectively. Whenever one goes to change a policy the chance of the change passing would be determined by the legislature's faction make-up with a little bit of chance thrown in. Furthermore, crises or tough times for your country would affect the chances of that change passing. For example, let's say your nation is being beaten in a war. In that example, the switch to a militarized economy would be more popular. On the other hand, if your nation is at peace or easily winning a war with no need for a boost in the military industries then a shift towards military production would be unpopular and less likely to be passed.

In our made-up nation, only one faction takes peace and war as their chief concern so their perspective and vote can be predetermined most of the time. However, the other two factions are concerned with equality and equity between pops of the empire and pops of different species. Thus their vote would more likely be influenced by more factors in mind. For example, let's say our example nation is at war with an authoritarian slave empire. Although pops of the pacifist ethos likely see the adversary nation as deplorable and the war as a just cause, they still denounce the use of violence and will vote against militarization and government support of the war industry. However, the egalitarian and xenophile pops approve of the war not because it is war as a militarist or authoritarian might, but because the war fights inequality and xenophobia. Thus a higher percentage of the main two representatives would vote for a change in economic policy towards the military-industrial complex. Again though not all of them would approve as this is unrealistic; as I said chance is thrown in.

I believe the best way to implement this "legislature vote" is a way similar to how democratic rulers are elected. A temporary screen appears that you can view and it shows information about the process. Information such as total representatives, percentages of reps in factions, percentages of yay and nay, time until the vote is over, etc.

Some people may say this is unnecessary or too complicated or annoying and to that, I say Stellaris at its heart is a roleplaying game. This addition I have illustrated not only increases roleplay potential but also makes the game more interesting. It also allows the game to deepen and expand. An example of this could be espionage to influence factions or elections or votes.

 

[Bloodbat]

I don't know how it should work exactly but elections definitely need to be more interesting and important in democracies than they currently are, they're an essential part of the democratic fantasy. I know I want a pollofpolls-style tab that shows how much support each faction currently has and the results of each election though, that's just a given.

The main change I would prefer is elections being based on factions rather than candidates, with the ruler being determined by whichever faction or faction bloc ends up winning. Maybe the main difference between elections and basic faction support would be the possibility of alliances, with the largest faction still having the possibility of being kept out of power.

The game would also need to provide more demographic information, like the proportion of faction support from each species.

 

[Ikael]

I agree with the sentiment of the topic, elections in democracies should matter, but right now the whole mandate mechanic is incredibly weak and can be ignored almost entirely.

As to how to solve it, I think that a reworked mandate mechanic could do wonders for this neglected authority type:

- Each candidate would have a different mandate, that is, an electoral promise made for their constituents. Roughly the same as now
- However, instead of unity, the reward for fulfilling a mandate would be a powerful & immediate (albeit temporal) empire modifier, that will last until the next election
- So the sooner you fulfill your mandate, the bigger will be the rewards (!)
- Note that each mandate should have a different, thematically accurate reward. So if you are planning to go to war, you will want the "National security" candidate to win so you can reap combat bonuses once fulfilled
- Conversely, arriving at the next election with an unfulfilled mandate would penalize your empire with a temporal +100% ethics divergence, showing your's people lowered faith in democracy due to broken electoral promises. So you really won't want a candidate with unrealistic or difficult to achieve mandates to win
- This would turn democracies into an extremely adaptative government type with "high risks, high rewards" attached to it, which will make you pay attention to your own elections closely

Some examples of ideas reworked mandates:

Spoiler: Ideas for mandates

> New frontiers: Either fund two new colonies or conquer a new planet during your mandate. Gain +50% resettlement chances for your pops and -15% claim costs until the end of the mandate upon completion
"This candidate has promised boundless lands of opportunity for all his constituents"

> Butter, not guns: Adopt a civilian economy for 2 years of your mandate. Gain +15% pop growth until the end of the mandate upon completion. Incompatible with genocidal empires
"A bold plan for expanding social benefits by cutting military expenditures"

> Cultural identity: Ascend a planet or adopt 2 traditions. Gain +10% stability and +50% ethics attraction until the end of the mandate upon completion
"An electoral program focused on bringing our nation together by promoting our heritage and common culture"

> Deep space infrastructure: Build 10 stations or 1 new starbase. Gain +15% orbital station output and +75% starbase upgrade speed until the end of the mandate upon completion
"This politician favors a comprehensive overhaul of our empire's deep space infrastructure"

> International influence: Pass a GalCom resolution. Gain +2 monthly influence until the end of the mandate upon completion. Incompatible with genocidal empires, Inwards perfection
"This candidate has focused its campaign on foreign policy and growing our influence overseas"

> Scientific advancement: Research new rare technology. Gain +15% research output until the end of the mandate upon completion
"An electoral promise of bringing our national science towards new, never-seen heights"

> Power broker: Sign 2 new treaties or declare one new rivalry. Gain +10% diplomatic weight and -25% costs to espionage operations until the end of the mandate upon completion. Incompatible with Inwards perfection
"This candidate has positioned himself as a skilled statesman able to make our empire regain its prestige"

> Industrial growth: Grow your stock of physical resources by at least 10% without running a deficit. Gain +10% alloy output until the end of the mandate upon completion
"An ambitious government program aimed at expanding the heavy industries of our empire"

> National security: Grow your fleet by at least 10% of your current used naval cap. Gain +2 encryption, +1 detection, and +15% ship fire rate until the end of the mandate upon completion
"This candidate is devoted to ensuring a more robust army no matter the costs"

> Government stimulus: Spend at least 20% of your credit reserves on rushing buildings. Gain +50% to living standards trade value until the end of the mandate upon completion
"Extensive public spending program that aims to stimulate consumption in all the corners of our empire"

 

[Me_]

I think the system should be completely different from the current one. The first question that one needs to ask is: what would be the difference between more democratic and more authoritarian governments. The first think that comes to mind is that autocratic regimes can do whatever they want, while democratic regimes must more or less do what is expected of them by the voters.

How do we translate this to the game? One (very bad) idea would be to go through negative motivation and give democracies penalties for not fulfilling mandates. Why then would anyone ever choose democracies? Another, slightly less bad idea is to make rewards for mandates more rewarding, but the reward is distant and is't likely to be considered during ongoing decision making.

Thus we arrive at a new idea. Scrap the current mandates as a do X to get Y mechanic, instead make them provide huge bonuses to doing what the mandate expects you to do.

Have a mandate to expand? Influence cost of new systems is reduced by half. Have a mandate to expland agriculture? Agricultural districts and buildings cost half to build.

Basically, authoritarian regimes would be equally good at everything (they could be given some extra broad bonuses, like extra influence and lower empire size), while democratic regimes would be really good at one thing at a time. And NO the democratic regimes would not get a penalty to doing other things than the mandate. That is a bad gameplay loop.

And the most important thing: Scrap the reward at the end of mandate idea in its entirety! It is extremely silly. What is it supposed to represent? Did USA get a unity bonus at the end of Trump presidency for fulfilling the build the wall at the border mandate? New elections are not a time for handing out medals.

 

[nat.hol]

Anyways back to democratic legislatures. What would the point of them be? I think the point of them would be to determine or deepen the process of changing policies. For example, let's say a nation has 100 pops and 3 factions. Let's say the three factions are Egalitarian, Xenophile, and Pacifist, with support of 42%, 35%, and 23% respectively. Whenever one goes to change a policy the chance of the change passing would be determined by the legislature's faction make-up with a little bit of chance thrown in. Furthermore, crises or tough times for your country would affect the chances of that change passing. For example, let's say your nation is being beaten in a war. In that example, the switch to a militarized economy would be more popular. On the other hand, if your nation is at peace or easily winning a war with no need for a boost in the military industries then a shift towards military production would be unpopular and less likely to be passed.

I would suggest having legislatures create a cost or reward for changing policies, instead of limitations. For example, if more than 50% of the legislature agrees with a policy change, then the change grants you unity (depending on how popular it is). If not, it costs you unity instead (depending on how unpopular it is).

Maybe less democratic governements would have the same mechanic with decreased costs and rewards.

 

[ruzen]

Yea the internal politics dlc should solve many lackluster feelings for all giverment types.

All players waiting for this for years now.

 

[Me_]

I can see Legislatures being tied to leaders somehow. Currently leader are a really boring mechanic, governors in particular are extremely boring just hire-and-forget thing. I could see governors in Democratic nations being tied to specific Factions (although personally, I would like to see factions being replaced by parties in Democracies, which would be more inclusive by encompassing multiple Ethics, but also being more exclusive by being supported by specific citizen types or job stratas). Governors pool would be decided by the strongest Factions (Parties) in the Legislature and would have a bonus trait based on their Faction (Party).

Legislatures could be another way to add specializations.

E.g. Democracies could be given an option to designate a sector as special economic focus and then the Legislature would decide which sector would be chosen, based on the preferences and strengths of particular Factions (or Parties). Other some mechanics like that could be added (establishing a penal colony, resort world and holy worlds could be made by Legislatures rather than directly by the player in Democracies, but in exchange for having less control over them, they could be made a bit stronger).

I could also see Legislatures set science focus, giving more progress for research of particular type and guaranteeing that at least one tech of such type would be available to chose in the tech selection (but not forcing the player to pursue it in any way, just encouraging).

There could also be colonization focus, making one colony grow faster and building buildings and districts of a given type faster, but the specific colony and the preferred type of buildings and districts would be chosen by the Legislature.

 

[Obeliskkai]

Yea the internal politics dlc should solve many lackluster feelings for all giverment types.

All players waiting for this for years now.

Internal politics is an absolute must have. I was crestfallen last year when we got Overlord, dealing with relations between vassals and stronger empires, as the big expansion.

Now don't get me wrong, Overlord is a damn good expansion and it fleshed out a part of the game that needed fleshing out, but it was the equivalent of getting a really nice chocolate bar when you what you'd been asking for was Ice cream. You liked the chocolate bar, it was a great chocolate bar, but crucially it wasn't Ice Cream.

I would like to think that the reason the devs went with Overlord rather than an Internal politics DLC is that they wanted to finish the job of fleshing out external relations they began with Federations and continued with Nemesis, which is a choice I can respect. However, I do think the next big expansion should deal with Internal Politics.

Now let's not beat around the bush, the next big expansion is definitely well under development. They've announced a reveal for expansion pass 6 on console in the summer and autumn, and it's going to need something more than just Toxoids and First Contact to justify itself. It's going to need that big expansion update. So the question as to what the next expansion is going to be about is already settled, it's merely a hope they've decided to tackle Internal Politics (and at this point it's a little hard to think of anything as big as Internal Politics which they've not tackled yet).

Internal Politics has the potential to really improve the game. Imagine each government type having it's own way of doing things for example. Democracies could have political parties representing the factions and elections to a legislature as the OP suggests. Oligarchies or Feudal System could instead have noble houses, one championing each faction who scheme against each other. Megacorporations could have divisions such as Science or Arms manufacturing for their factions whose strength is measured on their relative wealth. And all of these factions or parties could be manipulated by outside forces (or even internal force), allowing the Espionage system to be improved and made more meaningful. And if done right, we could at last have proper civil wars which don't end till one side defeats the other.
And if you don't like internal politics at all, opt for a gestalt empire.

That last paragraphs is just my imagination running riot of course, but I badly want an internal politics expansion. I want to have our version of Londo Mollari scheming his way through the Centauri royal court to gain power. I am hoping that the next expansion is it.

 

[-Marauder-]

While this sounds interesting, would make the government more complex and deep, I can't see this being very fun to be honest. And it would create a bunch of headaches and complications, also discourage people from taking government types which come attached with such issues.

 

[Bloodbat]

Internal politics is an absolute must have. I was crestfallen last year when we got Overlord, dealing with relations between vassals and stronger empires, as the big expansion.

Now don't get me wrong, Overlord is a damn good expansion and it fleshed out a part of the game that needed fleshing out, but it was the equivalent of getting a really nice chocolate bar when you what you'd been asking for was Ice cream. You liked the chocolate bar, it was a great chocolate bar, but crucially it wasn't Ice Cream.

I would like to think that the reason the devs went with Overlord rather than an Internal politics DLC is that they wanted to finish the job of fleshing out external relations they began with Federations and continued with Nemesis, which is a choice I can respect. However, I do think the next big expansion should deal with Internal Politics.

Now let's not beat around the bush, the next big expansion is definitely well under development. They've announced a reveal for expansion pass 6 on console in the summer and autumn, and it's going to need something more than just Toxoids and First Contact to justify itself. It's going to need that big expansion update. So the question as to what the next expansion is going to be about is already settled, it's merely a hope they've decided to tackle Internal Politics (and at this point it's a little hard to think of anything as big as Internal Politics which they've not tackled yet).

Internal Politics has the potential to really improve the game. Imagine each government type having it's own way of doing things for example. Democracies could have political parties representing the factions and elections to a legislature as the OP suggests. Oligarchies or Feudal System could instead have noble houses, one championing each faction who scheme against each other. Megacorporations could have divisions such as Science or Arms manufacturing for their factions whose strength is measured on their relative wealth. And all of these factions or parties could be manipulated by outside forces (or even internal force), allowing the Espionage system to be improved and made more meaningful. And if done right, we could at last have proper civil wars which don't end till one side defeats the other.
And if you don't like internal politics at all, opt for a gestalt empire.

That last paragraphs is just my imagination running riot of course, but I badly want an internal politics expansion. I want to have our version of Londo Mollari scheming his way through the Centauri royal court to gain power. I am hoping that the next expansion is it.

Internal politics will probably be expanded on through a custodian update rather than an expansion, or at least it should be.

 

[XCodes]

Internal politics will probably be expanded on through a custodian update rather than an expansion, or at least it should be.

Agreed. I don't want to have to start spending influence and unity to just get my leaders to do the things they do already like so many of the internal politics suggestions seem to want to have happen to the game. It'd be like First Contact except instead of not being able to meaningfully interact with pre-FTL civs, anymore, you wouldn't be able to meaningfully interact with *your own* civ, anymore. The dominant strategy would be to vassalize a bunch of empires and tax their resources because they're fundamentally more competent than you are.

 

[Obeliskkai]

Internal politics will probably be expanded on through a custodian update rather than an expansion, or at least it should be.

I actually came to the same conclusion since I made this post. I've even seen elsewhere that the next patch, 3.8, has an open beta and the last open beta dealt with a fundamental pillar of the game in ship design. The 3.8 patch might therefore contain an update of similar significance.

I think there is a very good chance the internal politics rework maybe upon us.