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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I dunno what the argument would be. Southern Planters represents a group who were very concerned about their political power being lessened by the “larger” states of the more urbanized North. I can’t see them being in support of expanding suffrage to people because of wealth.
Mainly because of the level of concern the framers of the US constitution had to avoid dictatorships - because they knew their classical history. I'd suspect even the Southern planters would have preferred a system where they share power with rich Northerners to a dictatorship.
Mainly because of the level of concern the framers of the US constitution had to avoid dictatorships - because they knew their classical history. I'd suspect even the Southern planters would have preferred a system where they share power with rich Northerners to a dictatorship.
Pre-WW2 there was not a coup, but there was a general feeling that democracy was like absolute monarchy becoming outdated and fascism and communism were the new hot things, and the US sure as heck wasn't going communist. Fascism was extremely in fashion up until we entered WW2, at which point the fascists had to be quiet but they weren't remotely purged or anything.
It is true that the Roosevelt Administration did implement some policies reminiscent of Mussolini's Corporatism
and organizations like the non-interventionist America First did boast broad public support (Although it is difficult to gauge how much of their support was due to fascist sympathies and not true non-interventionist sentiment, certainly shared by many both on the Left and Right).
On the other hand I don't know of any "true" fascist organizations that came close to the power of the CPUSA and similar Communist outlets,
you could observe a sympathetic portrayal of and relations with the Bolsheviks after 1933 at the least and up to the falling out after WW2 (e.g. in Official Reports,Mission to Moscow, etc.),
you have New York Times reporter Walter Duranty receiving the Pulitzer Prize for spreading Communist propaganda (like denial of the Holodomor),
and of course an President intent on waging war against the Axis powers.
Thusly, I think it's premature to say American elite discourse inherently favoured fascism.
I'm responding to the idea that Southern Planters would resist promoting landed vote because they would be against dictatorship. No, I really don't think so. They were quite ready to limit civil rights (which are protections from dictatorship put into Constitution indeed) to preserve their wealth and power.
Maybe there could be a sort of "legal overextension" of sorts, to use a PDX game term, but I think the game already models such a thing indirectly. I od agree that huge shifts happen too fast, as compared to how they should, but this is a tricky thing to tinker with.
Maybe there could be a sort of "legal overextension" of sorts, to use a PDX game term, but I think the game already models such a thing indirectly. I od agree that huge shifts happen too fast, as compared to how they should, but this is a tricky thing to tinker with.
Things happen too.....organically.
Real change is often a huge spurt all at once, you'll get a massive series of changes blasted out in a row, a number of changes very quickly, then you'll just....sit on it.
But the way the game models it, slow reform is the only path that's possible. Even revolutions only change like 2 aspects of the system.
Which probably does make a better game than accumulating mana and then the moment you spend it needing to spend it all at once.
I'm responding to the idea that Southern Planters would resist promoting landed vote because they would be against dictatorship. No, I really don't think so. They were quite ready to limit civil rights (which are protections from dictatorship put into Constitution indeed) to preserve their wealth and power.
While South Carolina didn't have a popular vote for the allocation of electors, I don't think it makes much sense to interpret that as opposition to voting per se; the electors were appointed by the state legislature, which was an elected body.
