Jump to content
270soft Forum

gop4e

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gop4e

  • Rank
    Political Hack
  1. Most defenitly this should be implemented! Some ideas I see: Wartime: Events in Vietnam (60's-70's), Iraq (1991 & 2003 +), Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti (1990's), Grenada (1980's), et al. effecting candidates and their stances at those appropriate times. Cold War issues: USSR invasion of Afghanistan, SDI (aka "Star Wars"), Missle deployments, SALT treaty progress domestic disturbances: Watts, Detroit, and LA/Rodney king riots (how the incumbent party candidate is percieved as handling them, recovery aid, comments about it) Elections upsets: 1994 mid-term election (which stripped the democrats of their majorities in Congress and defeated high-profile DNC candidates - an effect which would linger onto election day due to the percieved partianship during that time) controversies: Waco, Elian Gonzales, Militia movement, NAFTA, OJ Simpson trial (stuff people in politics sometimes weigh in on, sometimes costing them dearly, sometimes not) Natural disasters: Mt. St. helens 1980, SF Quake 1989, Hurricane Frances, Mississippi flooding (how fast the government acted and what aid was given could effect outcome) Terrorism: Oklahoma city, 1st WTC attack, 9/11 Some of these could be before the election, but have lingering effects, such as the topic being brought up, how the incumbent handled the affair, and their position on controversial things surrounding it. Perhaps a candidate should start out with a list of strengths and weaknesses that could help or haunt them...
  2. As you know, there is serious efforts going on to keep Ralph Nader in the race (if you're a Republican) and keep him out (if you're a democrat). All the means are legal that are being employed, however they look sneaky and nasty to the public. I think instead of primaries for certain third parties, there should be a campaign to get on the ballott in all 50 states. Plus they'd have to fend off the major parties if they are "spoiler" parties/candidates. How about: If it is a new party or independent candidate, they must establish themselves by actively campaigning to get on the ballott (like Perot). There would be no primaries for the third party, as there would all ready be a preferred candidate. The leader would have to campaign hard state-by-state, and if they have enough money, appear in the media. Once there seemed to be enough support gauged in a particular state, the party could apply to appear on the ballott (by collecting signatures or holding a nominating convention* in that state). Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, and Reform (after 1992) would still have primaries, since they are established and it would be futile to try to knock them out. The early reform movement led by Perot in 1992 was still in its infancy, although popular, and is subject to the rules I propose here. The major parties have the available options during the primary phase to deal with the third party if they find them a help or nussiance: support the third party/candidate: Help the candidate get on the ballott using your foot soldiers to circulate thier petitions or have your foot soldiers encourage your party faithful to attend the nominating convention and vote for the candidate. Benefits: moves undecides toward third party, not your opponent, weakens oponents base core, negative news story for oponent (headline: Environmentalists bolt to Nader) Consequences: More attention to campaign reform issues, chance of integrity scandal, possibility of negative news stories (headline: Bush campaign actively supporting Nader candidacy), chance of backfire sabotage the third party bid: Use your crusaders/media to denounce the third party (headline: Rush Limbaugh denounces Constitution party as kooks) and the leader or have your foot soldiers fill the nominating convention with non-voting attendees. Benefits: keeps otherwise undicided voters in your corner, could stregthen your platform and base core, positive news stories (headline New poll: Kerry gets big Anti-war vote) Consequences: possibility of negative news story (headline: Democrats block Nader from California ballott), chance of backfire, chance of integrity scandal. *Note: Nominating conventions are an arcane loop hole in state elections laws (still on the books from the late 1800's), and should be a state-by-state issue. Nader has found this in at least Oregon and used this to attempt to get on the ballott. It's sort-of like gatering petition signatures in one place. What happens is the supporters of a candidate hold a sort-of mini state convention and invite all registered voters (party afflitiation doesn't matter). They have to have at least 1000 people attending to proceed. Once this number is reached, they doors are locked and the meeting is called to order. A majority of the attendees must vote for the proposed candidate (I think that secret ballots are used). If the candidate is approved, the supporters send the ballotts to the state elections board to be certified and the candidate's on the ballott. Here in Oregon, Nader's tried this several times in Portland, with Democrats flooding the convention to occupy space to not vote and Republicans voting for Nader. Nader's attempts at this have, so far failed and have moved to petitioning).
  3. Don't some states have both porportional and super delegates? If I recall, Iowa uses this mix. Example: Kerry wins the majority of the vote, so he gets 2 super selegates and 25% of the porportional delegates, Dean 20%, Clark 16%, so on and so forth... And don't forget the candidates that don't do so well dropping and pledging their delegates to whoever they think has the best chance or who they think is the best candidate, but thats for another topic.
  4. gop4e

    Crusaders

    How about crusaders that appeal to certain voters? It could be on certain issues or it couldbe based upon the crusader's "platform". For instance: Republicans could get Zell Miller to woo centrist or Reagan Democrats and the dems could have Howard Dean swing anti-war voters away from the green party. Plus, have the news generate an article if the crusader does something noteworthy and allow the candidates to spin it! It wouldn't happen too often (maybe once during a week and only 1 crusader at the most-the real focus is supposed to be the candidate), but could give the candidate a boost or a black eye depending on if the crusader is a loose cannon!
  5. Darn right there ought to be consequences for legal challenges. Probably a signifigant reduction in score would be best, since legal battles would be rare and take place after the election night results. I think a trigger should be a very very nasty and close campaign. For instance if both major candidates have less than 51% of the vote and a close elecoral vote over the required amount, plus a lot of scandals would have to have appeared during the campaign.
  6. Now here's where things can get nasty: The Supreme Court of the USA. Considering that court challenges and recounts are being considered, why not have your candidate take it to the highest court in the land? This way it would be settled once and for all. This would only be triggered in close races with close electoral votes. Also, there must be some kind of legal challenge (recount, attempt to throw out absentee votes, etc..) in a state which could throw the electoral balance in the favor of the plantif from the defendant (to make the required minimum EV's or to break a tie if above minimum req'd EV's). The supreme court would have to be based on the following formula: If the bench is mostly liberal, then there's a 60% chance that they may rule in favor of the democrat (or other left-leaning party). 40% in favor of the republican (hey they do interpet the law and your candidate may have done something pretty nasty that party/idealogical affiliation absolutely can not forgive!). This works vice-versa for a conservative bench and conservative candidates. Even better is the fact that this can represent the pull of Justices upon their peers and the possibility that dissenting judges may just change some in the majority's minds about an issue. A split bench results in a 50-50 chance. Sound good?
  7. Another overlooked aspect is absentee ballotts and mail-in ballotts. Currently, Oregon is the only state that votes completely by mail-in ballott. Some states recieve their absentee ballotts after its live-in citizens have all ready voted, then add them to the total (usually this doesn't affect the outcome). However, let's look at some of the fun/havoc we can create with mail-in ballotts: Overseas ballotts: Tourists and citizens living overseas are being targeted with a "get out the vote" campaign in this election. In close elections, this demographic should effect the outcome in some states. Politically, these voters should be a grab bag for the parties. Overseas voter political leanings: mixed, reflecting national trends and changing with them Military ballotts: Members of the military overseas or in other states are still residents of the last state they resided in; thus able to vote there. In close elections, the military votes may make the Republican or a Democrat strong on the military win the state. Military voter political leanings: right leaning In-country absentee voters: This voter could be anyone from a businessman in town for a convention to a snowbirder in Arizona for the winter. Also a few of these could be people that prefer to vote by mail in their home instead of going out to a polling place. These voters would have an impact similar to overseas voters. Legal issues: Should there be a close vote, like 2000, a candidate should be able to challenge absentee votes in close states and attempt to have them thrown out in court (Gore tried this in 2000). There should be some sort of consequence for this, likely a reduction in score. Oregon vote-by-mail: Should work just like an election held at a polling place, except by mail. We recieve our ballotts in the mail and send them out by a deadline before the election. Results are revealed on election night once the votes are counted (the current time results are shown in P4E will do). Signifigant issues during the 2000 election were raised by both campaigns and candidates should be able to easily obtain recounts (see other posts in this forum for recount topics) without penalty. Oregon's system is sometimes controversial. Depends upon who's claiming it benefits them and who's screaming that it's fraud-prone (usually someone who feels it cheats them in some way). Quick addition (almost forgot): Election night results should display absentee votes seperately, perhaps after the regular votes have come in. Whatever change in results occurs should also be shown. This way you know what to challenge in court and what to ask for a recount on. You should be able to recount absentee votes seperately or with the regular votes. It probably goes without saying, but these results should be displayed on election night's sequence. Preferably after the main results are in to simulate the time that it takes to recieve absentee votes.
  8. After the 2000 election, petitions circulated in Oregon to make an "instant runoff" system for the Presidential election. This would have entailed that you vote (in the same election, same ballott) for your first preference, then select your second preference if your first choice didn't come in as one of the top 2 vote recipients. This would only have kicked in if the top 2 didn't get a clear majority of the total votes cast. (this did not make the ballott). Also, some state and local elections boards call for a run-off election in local races under these circumstances. This would be helpful in crafting state-only scenarios. Just in case some states implement this in the future for presidential elex and to help us create realistic local (statewide) scenarios; run-offs should be looked at very closely as to increase the game's realism.
  9. When you vote for president, all you do is just vote (in the case of winner-takes-all states like mine) for all-Dem or all-GOP electors, then they choose the President. I think that a porportional system might be fairer for "disenfranchaised" regions. California has too many electoral votes up for grabs in a winner-take-all situation. Perhaps elect all but 2 electors in each state by congressional districts and the remaining two are "super electors" elected by the statewide vote? Politics aside, aren't electors able to cast their vote for whoever they want regardless of the vote in their state? I seem to remember that there was an elector from Texas in the 1970's that kept voting for some congressman instead of to whom the voters committed that elector to. The fact that an elector could do this should be examined and implemented in the game although it is very very rare.
  10. Thanks Tony for the reply! I like to help add into games. The Sim City official site got an eyeful from me a while back... Glad to be a part of the process!
  11. Hmmmmm... Immoral agendas from the Dims? Well what do you expect from a party that condoned what that sex offender in the White House was doing in '90's? Looks like the 'Ol Gipper's ahead of Impeached former president Bill "Big Creep*" Clinton! Reagan was by far the best out of all those choices. However I did not see Teddy Roosevelt. That would have been a tough decision. It seems we started the 20th with a great President and thank goodness we had another one in the next-to-last decade (80's) that kept our nation strong and proud. Couldn't tell I'm a hawk, eh? *Monica and Linda's name for him, not mine!
  12. gop4e

    Alternate History

    All this talk about secession reminded me of Matt White's AH homepage. Stop me if you've seen it before, but here's an interesting scenario: Break North America up into as many nations as possible! I'm tinkering around with something like this for a AH scenario: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/balkanus.htm Only I'd have a few more contries Rhode Island wouldn't ratify the US Constitution and go its own way, "Emporer" Joshua Norton is taken more seriously and norfthern California ends up a kingdom , The French keep Maximillian on the throne of Mexico and the rebels under Juarez proclaim New Mexico (an Arizona and NM that are never annexed by the Union plus Sonora and Baja) as the Republic of Mexico. Oh and don't forget Alaska, an unique republic in which Russian exiles and Anglo North American immigrants have made into a stable and sucessful oil-rich nation. And earlier someone mentioned the Hartford Convention. The Decades of Darkness timeline details what happens after a sucessful Hartford Convention in the form of books from the timeline's 1950's. New England gets lucky and takes New York and New Jersey! http://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
  13. Thanks for the comment! If anyone is interested, I'll ask a friend of mine that's involved in politics for more ideas. Those are just off the top of my head...
  14. gop4e

    Other Games

    I got Shad Prez from the Underdogs, but it won't work in Virtual PC (I'm on a Mac for now). I even had it in a DOS-only emulation and still it's messed up... Here's my faves: No Greater Glory (Still haven't beat it) Balance of Power (Cold War geopolitical game) Conflict Middle East (play the Israeli PM and try to overthrow your neighbors) People's General (War game-China vs. the USA/West in 2008) Tower (Air Traffic control game-land and taxi planes at O'hare and DC National) Colonization (based on original Civ, but in the colonial Americas) Civilization 3 Sim City 4 The Sims Tropico Railroad Tycoon Mostly a strategy/God games fan here Can anyone tell me how to get Shadow President running? I've been wanting to play it since I was a kid. Also any No Greater Glory hints?
  15. Hello all! Just found this and love P4e and PM4e! Here are some of my suggestions for President forever (an asterix denotes stuff that can transfer over to PM 4e): *Media spinning: Spys in the opponents campaign and negative ads should trigger scandals. How about being able to choose how you spin the media? Such as press conferences, photo-ops, lawsuits, large-scale events, go on a news program, etc to respond to the scandal During scandal responses, you should be able to choose how you respond to questions about the issue, with the more riskier and farther-from-the-truth answers costing you at the polls. Sucesses would go toward eradicating the scandals (or help you if its a good news story). What the media says should not be just limited to a newspaper format, instead ti should become a breifing compiled by your campaign showing the media's reactions toward your actions. Headlines and the option to spin. You should be able to use friendly media outlets to carry your message, spin for you, and do research for scandals. (ex: Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for Bush, Al Franken and Moveon.org for Kerry, and Howard Stern for Libertarian candidates). *Command Points TV appearances and spinning should cost some CP's, since you must take time off campaigning to do them. They should cost 1 CP. Spinning should cost 1 CP and its effectiveness should be based upon your performance in responding to the charges. Appearing on a TV or radio interview should cost 1 CP. This is because you must spend time to prep and appear for the interview that you would otherwise spend campaigning. Also, the interview should also be location based. Sometimes the media will interview you wherever you are (live campaign coverage) or you'll have to go to them (Oprah in Chicago, Letterman in NYC, Leno in LA). Ehen your candidate has to travel for the interview, the game will let you know what state you have to be in and when if you agree to the interview. *Barnstorming: Choose how you will barnstorm. Stump for a candidate for Governor, the Senate or House; circulate through crowds shaking hands, show up at grand openings for public infrastructure projects, visit factories If both candidates from the two major parties are in a battleground state (or province), the media should generate some kind of article about it which would be spinnable. Congress/Governors: The Presidential candidate should be able to stump for Senator, Governor, and Representative candidates. A good part of getting a mandate to govern as President includes good workings with Congress and the states. (this could be done off the PM4e ridings system, but affect your score, not whether or not you get elected) Prominent Party members, Governors, Senators, and members of the House should be able to endorse their party's candidate. This would be based on your platform and work similarily to the organizational endorsements. Although you may have some prominent people from within your party all ready endorsing you. *The parties: The pull of major heavyweights in the party or infighting can impact your platform and chances for electability. Say something bad about the Clintons, and they may pull the rug out from under your Democrat base. Move too far to the right and John McCain will come out swinging. Move to what Zell Miller thinks is the far left and watch him speak at your oponent's convention. Third parties should pick up conservative or liberal votes depending upon their base supporters and which party's candidate has been hit with a candidate. This is based off my notion that voters who bolt from a candidate during a scandal become undecided (but leaning left, right, or moderate). Moderates should have the bulk of their number going toward the opponent (undecided if both parties have active scandals), the right-leaners going toward rightist parties (Reform, Constitution, maybe libertarian depending on the issue), and leftist parties get the left-leaners (Greens, libertarians on some issues). However there is a good chance that the two major parties can get those voters back if they handle the scandal well. *Organization endorsements: Give the organizations a name. Such as the NEA (National education Association), NRA, etc.. An d have them align politically the way they do in real-life. Although the NRA would never endorse Kerry or the NEA Bush, they still and can try to woo them. Add non-issue groups: such as lodges, unions, corporations, celebrities, heads of corporations, millionaires, retired generals (thinking Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf or MacArthur types here), think-tanks, universities, newspapers (editorials endorsing candidates). Since McCain-Fiengold, the funds will have to be limited but can provide a big state or nationwide momentum or footsoldier/crusader creation boost. Link the issue or general momentum boosts from endorsements to specific areas or just certain states. If the New York Times endorses Kerry, then nation-wide Kerry momentum goes up (since it is read nationally). If the Eugene (Oregon) Register-Guard endorses him, then he'd only get a boost in Oregon, since that is a small newspaper, but a major city in Oregon. Celibrities effect national momentum, etc Democrats and greens should have a big advantage in the celebrity and university endorsement departments, however the Republicans have as big of an advantage with veteran's groups and religious groups. And there are some exceptions to the rule... *Advertising: Advertising should be broken into 3 categories: TV, radio, internet (campaign website, pop-up ads), and print (newspaper/magazine ads, handouts, posters, billboards). You should be able to run as many adds as you can afford of any type. TV ads would be the most expensive, print being the least. TV would reach the most, but the internet would be most cost-effective. Research/scandals: Specific things should come up as part of a scandal. If you try to find a scandal on Bush's integrity, it would come up as the "AWOL from the National Guard" issue. On Kerry, it would be the current Swift Boat Vets controversy (which could also hurt Bush!). On Experience, Bush would get tackled with "Federal spending highest ever" or on Kerry, the "Missed vote" fiasco (which could work against Bob Dole in '96). You are also limited, like the policy speeches, to one scandal per topic, however, all the issues are open to research scandals upon. You'd be given a choice to research the specific issues for insight or to attack your opposition. As indicated above, some scandals can also hurt you. If you push them too hard, you'll get the "Candidate X campaign too negative?" stories and the opposition may spin it to make like you're throwing mud during the spin media phase. I know that these are quite detailed an a bit to read. However they would make excellent additions to an all ready great game.
×
×
  • Create New...