Jump to content
270soft Forum

JasperdeGroot

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JasperdeGroot

  • Rank
    Political Hack

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. I am interested! New verseon with a small bugfix and small changes to balance the endorsers 1.03 - The Netherlands 2017 2 2 2.zip
  2. Fixed a few bugs (to low value on fundraising for example), changed the party names to English and added detailed text to all possible party leaders (didn't have that for secondary candidates and small parties) 1.02 - The Netherlands 2017.zip Edit: apparently I took a bug out but put one in too; got this message when selecting the endorsers button. Got this earlier when I forgot to change the dates of the endorsements but that shouldn't be a problem now (I double checked).
  3. Would it in your opinion be better to use English versions of the party names or the original Dutch ones? I'd like to have a uniform look and am considering using the English names (e.g. "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy" instead of "Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie")
  4. I would like to work on those, very interesting elections! I do wonder though how to implement the impact of the murder of Pim Fortuyn in a 2002-scenario. Some say the shock made the party larger than before and it hit the establishment parties (the party was fourth in the polls before Fortuyn was killed, Fortuyn said before he was killed "If someone attacks and hurts me they [PvdA, VVD, D66, GroenLinks that called him names before] are responsible" and called it 'demonizing', a term that stuck in the political landscape for a while), some say he would have become the largest party (since Fortuyn had a lot of new voters behind him that were underrepresented in the polls and CDA that won the election was the only establishment party that didn't went full-negative on Fortuyn). Very interesting indeed!
  5. I would very much like that! Thanks for your feedback! About the chosen issues: I opted not to add a turkish relations issue, partly because the issue (as a diplomatic crisis; there were some issues with a deal the Netherlands made via the EU with Turkey on immigration but that was more an immigration issue and not connected to this issue) just started to get attention in the last week before the election (it wasn't an issue at all before that) and partly because almost every party had about the same opinion on the matter (left to right supported the actions of the government, apart from Denk, a pro-migrant party founded by Turkish-Dutch dual citizens, closely linked to Erdogans AKP-party in Turkey). For example; a proposal shortly after the elections to re-establish diplomatic ties between the Netherlands and turkey was only supported by 'Denk' and 'Forum voor Democratie' (the latter of which isn't pro-Turkish but was in favor of having diplomatic ties with all countries due to economic arguments). It mostly affected the issues of law and order (due to the riots that broke out because of the visit) and immigration/assimilation (because the rioters were Turkish dual citizens and the background of the crisis was that Turkish ministers were campaigning for a Turkish constitutional referendum in European countries with a large number of Turkish nationals (most of which were second, third or fourth generation). I did add it as an event due to the large rally around the flag effect (PVV was the largest party in the polls until the diplomatic crisis as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_Dutch_general_election). The decline had started before though, but I found that hard to put it in, since the decline was mostly due to the discovery of a leak in the security detail of PVV-leader Geert Wilders which made him suspend his campaign out of fear for his life (since there were two political murders in the last two decades in the Netherlands) between February 23 and early March. He had lost the lead (of about 4 seats) by the time he resumed his campaign. I opted not to add a terrorism issue because it isn't a real issue on it's own. If terrorism is mentioned it almost always is in the context of other issues. There are varying opinions on security measures but those are mostly about law and order, there are parties with an Islam policy (from banning mosques and the Koran (like the PVV), to adding islamic holidays as national holidays (like Denk and Artikel1), as well as opinions on other subjects hitting the issue (like islamic schools, religious extremism, discrimination) as one of the more contentious issues and there were opinions about the role of immigration (and how many and which asylum seekers should be allowed in). Terrorism on it's own isn't that much of an issue. It even wasn't so when an actual terrorist attack took place two days before the regional elections (which also chooses the senate) of 2019. In that way the Turkey diplomatic crisis had a much profounder rally round the flag effect. For example; these are the issues in the last debate of 2017 (with two-way debates at which every party brought in one sentence to debate on for the larger parties): - Islam: Islam is the biggest threath to the Netherlands (between PVV and ChristenUnie) - Immigration/asylum seekers: The Turkey-deal helped decline the number of migrants to the Netherlands and that is a something positive (between VVD and GroenLinks) - Health Care: The dentist should be in the base health plan (between SP and PvdA) - Law and Order and immigration: For the security of the Netherlands harder measures are needed (between CDA and D66) - Discrimination: The Netherlands is for all of us (between PvdA and PVV) - Climate change: We would be independent of fossil fuels within a generation (between ChristenUnie and VVD) - European Union: Trump and Putin make a stronger EU necessary (between D66 and SP) And subjects the debate organizers choose for the smaller parties: - Income equality and taxes - Animal Rights - Discrimination/racism - Climate Change - Dutch identity - the role of the EU (expand versus exit) - Health Care - Pensions/pension age - Euthanasia - Immigration When choosing the issues, at first I started writing down the most prominent issues for each party, which issues were used in the debates as talking points, and which issues had the most distinct opinions between parties.
  6. I've added some options in the scenario for version 1.01: Stef Blok as a surrogate for VVD. Jeroen Dijsselbloem and Frans Timmermans as surrogates for PvdA. Mona Keizer as surrogate and optional candidate for CDA (second in the leadership contest that took place before these elections). Pia Dijkstra as a surrogate for D66. Part of the reason was to make it a bit more realistic; the larger parties didn't have that much of an advantage in the previous version. The previous mentioned organisations and persons have also been added as endorsers. 1.01 - The Netherlands 2017 2.zip
  7. I agree! Now you can only see the number of votes, not the number of seats. The government creation mechanic from the British elections is also absent in these kind of scenario's because of it. It seems so easy to implement, easier than FFP you would think.
  8. Thanks! A small explanation of some of the choices I made and additions I'd like to make: I have added 25 of 28 participating parties. The ones I didn't add are StemNL (a party that promised to let it's members vote for every proposal; not easily implemented here), along with two parties that only contested in very few electoral districts. I'm considering removing the "Niet-stemmers"-party (the non-voters party) that promised to leave it's seats empty if elected for the same reason. I have made it so that all new parties have to gain ballot access (and so didn't start with ballot access in the regions in which they ultimately succeeded). This is because it actually takes a lot of work and money to gain ballot access in each region. New parties with lot's of members or volunteers achieve it fairly easily but smaller ones usually don't. Ballot acces is gained on the level of a election district ("kiesdistrict") which is why I divided the country in these regions. Parties can also change it's candidates in each district but usually opt not to or only with the lowest ranked candidates. I'm planning to add a few endorsement opportunities (I've mostly focused on organizations instead of individuals in version 1.0): Johan Derksen (television personality): general center-right, adds +3 momentum, adds surrogate with spin +3, brainstorming +3 Gerard Joling (singer, television personality): general right, adds +1 momentum Gordon (singer, television personality): general center-right, adds +1 momentum, adds surrogate with brainstorming + 2 Wierd Duk: general right, adds surrogate with spin +3 Claudia de Breij (radio host, comedian), adds surrogate with +2 brainstorming, +2 spin Gloria Wekker (professor): discrimination far-left, adds +1 momentum, footsoldiers chance, adds surrogate Boudewijn Poelmann (owner largest lottery. philanthropist), climate change far-left, adds e200.000 Arnold Karskens: law and order right, adds surrogate with spin +3 Peter R. de Vries (television personality, former crime fighter): general left, adds surrogate with +3 spin, +3 brainstorming Dolf Jansen (radio host, comedian): taxes left, adds surrogate with +2 brainstorming FNV (largest union): dismissal law left, adds footsoldiers chance LTO Nederland (lobby organisation representing farmers): adds e50.000, +3 momentum in regions with large numbers of farmers Johan Vollenbroek (climate change activist), adds footsoldiers chance I also want to add a few surrogates for the larger parties.
  9. 1.03 - The Netherlands 2017 2 2 2.zip I'm in the finishing stages of creating a scenario based on the Dutch general elections of 2017. I have added all 28 parties, with the parties that actually took seats on default and the smaller parties that got less than 0,7 percent of the vote manually selectable. My English isn't that great, so I would really like it if someone could test and proofread it. I put it trough some test runs to get most (all?) of the technical aspects and content right. If you have some issues with e.g. the skill points I awarded to the candidates or other things I would like to hear that too of course! I majored in Dutch political/parlementairy history so I'd really like to create more historical scenario's in the future but decided to use the most recent one as a starting point. I hope some of you would like to try it! 1.0 - The Netherlands 2017.zip 1.01 - The Netherlands 2017 2.zip 1.02 - The Netherlands 2017.zip
  10. Is there any campaign/candidate editor (like the one in P4e 2008) on the way? I hope so!
×
×
  • Create New...