Jump to content
270soft Forum

1792 Election Update


vcczar

Recommended Posts

I'll post the updates/improvements to the 1792 scenario here. 

The Historical Scenario Commission consists of @jvikings1 @CalebsParadox @Patine @Reagan04 @TheMiddlePolitical @SeanFKennedy @Conservative Elector 2 @Take Me to La Riva @vcczar @NYrepublican @MrPrez @msc123123, all of whom will help in improving historical presidential election at their leisure. We will go in chronological order. 

[Anyone wishing to join the HSC can do so by posting here, and can help by playing through the scenarios to find areas for improvement, providing advice for improvements, and for suggesting events, finding typos or other errors. Suggestions for historical newspapers (for interviews), events, surrogates, fixing inflationary index, etc. can also be helpful. ]

Updates will be edited in the list below as they are made. 

~~~~Updates to the scenario so far have been~~~~

  • Surrogates Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson adjusted by VCCzar
  • Scenario playthrough/checked for errors and such by SeanFKennedy and Conservative Elector 2
  • Typo fixed by Conservative Elector 2
  • Thomas Jefferson (VP/2nd ballot version) and George Clinton (Pres version/1st ballot version) % adjusted by msc123123
  • Relations between Aaron Burr and John Adams set to "bad" on suggestion of msc123123 & those of Thomas Jefferson (both VP and Pres version) with Alexander Hamilton also set to bad (by VCCzar)
  • Money coefficient set from 4 to 3 by Patine
  • Candidate descriptions for Jefferson (VP version) and Ward are updated by CalebsParadox
  • Region % fixed, so that only Washington (and presidential versions of other candidates) can win votes on ballot 1/presidential ballot, by CalebsParadox
  • Region % redone on 2nd ballot (vp ballot) by VCCzar
  • Strengthened campaign power of John Adams (presidential ballot version) on suggestion of CalebsParadox
  • Reduced the experience of some candidates by CalebsParadox
  • Hamilton is made more scandal prone due to higher corruption by CalebsParadox
  • Fixed the relations between the Pinckney brothers on suggestion of CalebsParadox
  • Issue images added by NYRepublican
  • Altered some of the support-levels of some endorsers by VCCzar
  • Events added and edited by VCCzar
  • RH Lee photo fixed by ConservativeElector2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar A thing I wanted to ask is, can you imagine adding a spectator candidate to all your scenarios? Personally, I would love this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I played through as Richard Henry Lee. I did not experience any errors, so it worked well for me. The only thing I noticed when checking for typos and so on, was a missing space at the beginning of the center-right position of the slavery issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting. I don't really know anything about older elections that could be of use, so I'll focus on porting PM4E stuff instead. I'll be sure to download it when they're done!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Sounds interesting. I don't really know anything about older elections that could be of use, so I'll focus on porting PM4E stuff instead. I'll be sure to download it when they're done!

The older elections in the U.S., pre-Cold War for the post part, in my opinion, were the Golden Age of Elections in the U.S., though I might get argument on that one. Even though a lot of the U.S.'s biggest issues were hashed over in the Cold War and post-Cold War period, I'll concede, I feel, in terms of party dynamics, electoral events, and many political leaders (though judging by their day, as many would be social and political dinosaurs today), the elections themselves I find more interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played a number of different scenarios and I was actually looking at playing through all of them (granted I was going to go backwards) so I figured I could help out and made an account.

I haven't run a playthrough yet but the most glaring issue I see revolves around Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson is given a % equivalent to Adams in Virginia.  However (assuming Washington wins the election), Virginia electors aren't eligible to vote for Jefferson because both Washington and Jefferson are from Virginia and the constitution mandates that you must vote for one person outside your state.  You even mention this incorrectly in your scenario by saying that Jefferson would be ineligible to be VP rather than just not being able to get votes from Virginia.  The easiest solution is to give him 0% and remove him from the ballot.

This also leads in to a deeper issue with the scenario because Clinton was the generally accepted Democratic Repbulican candidate.  Jefferson was intentionally not run because of this issue (but elections being the way they were back then Kentucky didn't get the memo and voted for him anyway).  In my opinion, it would be nice to see Clinton get a bit of a bump.

On a separate note, I always feel like it's difficult in the early scenarios to determine good percentages with all the lack of polling data.  One thing I thought of when thinking about the scenario is house elections.  House elections are results we actually have that show, somewhat, party preference.  So I combined 1790 and 1792 (since the scenario starts in 1791) congressional voting data to get a potential better judge of sentiments:

F=Federalist R=Democratic Repbublican I=Party Unknown

Connecticut: 84% F 16% I 0% R

Delaware: 59% F 22% I 19% R

Georgia: 91% R 9% I

Kentucky: No info other than clearly R

Maryland: 49% R 47% F 4% I

Massachusetts: 53% F 32% I 15% R

New Hampshire: 68% F 19% I 13% R

New Jersey: 78% F 22% I

New York: 57% F 43% R

North Carolina: 70% R 30% F (based on incomplete data)

Pennsylvania: 54% R 43% F

Rhode Island 70% F 30% I (based on incomplete data)

South Carolina 60% R 40% F (based on incomplete data)

Vermont: 64% R 21% F 15% I

Virginia: 74% R 26% F (based on incomplete data)

I don't know if this information is useful.  It seems to undervalue Adams which might be because he was already Washington's VP so he was just kept.  Also there's little things that would need adjusting like obviously Clinton would do better in New York than your typical Democratic Republican.

I was looking for potential events or issues and the only thing I could come up with is a French revolution issue with an event that is based on an August 10th attack of Louis XVI's palace (maybe do it a few days after because the news travels slow).

You might want to add Hamilton as an Endorser as well.  And I'd lower Clinton's Corruption/Integrity rating because of the issues with his previous election to be governor.  Lastly, you may want to look at the relationships and make it so Jefferson and Adams and Burr and Adams because they did not like each other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msc123123 said:

I've played a number of different scenarios and I was actually looking at playing through all of them (granted I was going to go backwards) so I figured I could help out and made an account.

I haven't run a playthrough yet but the most glaring issue I see revolves around Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson is given a % equivalent to Adams in Virginia.  However (assuming Washington wins the election), Virginia electors aren't eligible to vote for Jefferson because both Washington and Jefferson are from Virginia and the constitution mandates that you must vote for one person outside your state.  You even mention this incorrectly in your scenario by saying that Jefferson would be ineligible to be VP rather than just not being able to get votes from Virginia.  The easiest solution is to give him 0% and remove him from the ballot.

This also leads in to a deeper issue with the scenario because Clinton was the generally accepted Democratic Repbulican candidate.  Jefferson was intentionally not run because of this issue (but elections being the way they were back then Kentucky didn't get the memo and voted for him anyway).  In my opinion, it would be nice to see Clinton get a bit of a bump.

On a separate note, I always feel like it's difficult in the early scenarios to determine good percentages with all the lack of polling data.  One thing I thought of when thinking about the scenario is house elections.  House elections are results we actually have that show, somewhat, party preference.  So I combined 1790 and 1792 (since the scenario starts in 1791) congressional voting data to get a potential better judge of sentiments:

F=Federalist R=Democratic Repbublican I=Party Unknown

Connecticut: 84% F 16% I 0% R

Delaware: 59% F 22% I 19% R

Georgia: 91% R 9% I

Kentucky: No info other than clearly R

Maryland: 49% R 47% F 4% I

Massachusetts: 53% F 32% I 15% R

New Hampshire: 68% F 19% I 13% R

New Jersey: 78% F 22% I

New York: 57% F 43% R

North Carolina: 70% R 30% F (based on incomplete data)

Pennsylvania: 54% R 43% F

Rhode Island 70% F 30% I (based on incomplete data)

South Carolina 60% R 40% F (based on incomplete data)

Vermont: 64% R 21% F 15% I

Virginia: 74% R 26% F (based on incomplete data)

I don't know if this information is useful.  It seems to undervalue Adams which might be because he was already Washington's VP so he was just kept.  Also there's little things that would need adjusting like obviously Clinton would do better in New York than your typical Democratic Republican.

I was looking for potential events or issues and the only thing I could come up with is a French revolution issue with an event that is based on an August 10th attack of Louis XVI's palace (maybe do it a few days after because the news travels slow).

You might want to add Hamilton as an Endorser as well.  And I'd lower Clinton's Corruption/Integrity rating because of the issues with his previous election to be governor.  Lastly, you may want to look at the relationships and make it so Jefferson and Adams and Burr and Adams because they did not like each other.

 

But Louis XVI wasn't actually living in that palace in 1792. The attack was purely ceremonial. He was trying to demand asylum from the Legislative Assembly because a Parisian mob, convinced he had just tried to cross the border by night to instigate his fellow European monarchs to raise a joint army against France, crush, the short-lived Constitutional Monarchy, and put Louis XVI back in power as a full absolute monarch. This was the biggest charge against him shortly afterward when the National Convention was elected, and it's first action was to declare France a Republic - a big reason why was to legitimize the trial of Louis XVI (or 'Louis Capet,' as he was thus referred to throughout the trial) for treason, as, in a legal sense, you couldn't legally try a reigning monarch for treason, by definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Patine

The money coefficient is set at 4 for this scenario. Does this seem about right? This is as it was for 1792. @SeanFKennedy @Conservative Elector 2 have graciously played through the scenario, and have not had an issue with the money. 

1792 would have been the first U.S. Presidential election where the nation had it's own proprietary minted currency, however I don't believe it started out nearly as valuable as the main European currencies, but it was more stable than before. I'd go with 3, than go to 2 (the most valuable and uninflated it would get) between the Jay Treaty and the War of 1812 and between the resumption of open trade and the Panic of 1837, but lever again hitting the level of uninflation of 2 again afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, msc123123 said:

I've played a number of different scenarios and I was actually looking at playing through all of them (granted I was going to go backwards) so I figured I could help out and made an account.

I haven't run a playthrough yet but the most glaring issue I see revolves around Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson is given a % equivalent to Adams in Virginia.  However (assuming Washington wins the election), Virginia electors aren't eligible to vote for Jefferson because both Washington and Jefferson are from Virginia and the constitution mandates that you must vote for one person outside your state.  You even mention this incorrectly in your scenario by saying that Jefferson would be ineligible to be VP rather than just not being able to get votes from Virginia.  The easiest solution is to give him 0% and remove him from the ballot.

This also leads in to a deeper issue with the scenario because Clinton was the generally accepted Democratic Repbulican candidate.  Jefferson was intentionally not run because of this issue (but elections being the way they were back then Kentucky didn't get the memo and voted for him anyway).  In my opinion, it would be nice to see Clinton get a bit of a bump.

On a separate note, I always feel like it's difficult in the early scenarios to determine good percentages with all the lack of polling data.  One thing I thought of when thinking about the scenario is house elections.  House elections are results we actually have that show, somewhat, party preference.  So I combined 1790 and 1792 (since the scenario starts in 1791) congressional voting data to get a potential better judge of sentiments:

F=Federalist R=Democratic Repbublican I=Party Unknown

Connecticut: 84% F 16% I 0% R

Delaware: 59% F 22% I 19% R

Georgia: 91% R 9% I

Kentucky: No info other than clearly R

Maryland: 49% R 47% F 4% I

Massachusetts: 53% F 32% I 15% R

New Hampshire: 68% F 19% I 13% R

New Jersey: 78% F 22% I

New York: 57% F 43% R

North Carolina: 70% R 30% F (based on incomplete data)

Pennsylvania: 54% R 43% F

Rhode Island 70% F 30% I (based on incomplete data)

South Carolina 60% R 40% F (based on incomplete data)

Vermont: 64% R 21% F 15% I

Virginia: 74% R 26% F (based on incomplete data)

I don't know if this information is useful.  It seems to undervalue Adams which might be because he was already Washington's VP so he was just kept.  Also there's little things that would need adjusting like obviously Clinton would do better in New York than your typical Democratic Republican.

I was looking for potential events or issues and the only thing I could come up with is a French revolution issue with an event that is based on an August 10th attack of Louis XVI's palace (maybe do it a few days after because the news travels slow).

You might want to add Hamilton as an Endorser as well.  And I'd lower Clinton's Corruption/Integrity rating because of the issues with his previous election to be governor.  Lastly, you may want to look at the relationships and make it so Jefferson and Adams and Burr and Adams because they did not like each other.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I've reduced Jefferson to 1% in Virginia for the reasons you give. Can you tell me where in the scenario that I incorrectly state that, "Jefferson would be ineligible to be VP rather than just not being able to get votes from Virginia." I can make the amendment. I'm not sure why I made that mistake. I'll fix it. I must have been tired. 

I'm probably not going to bump Clinton (VP candidate version), since he didn't perform that well, even with being the primary Dem-Rep challenger in the election. However, I decided to give a slight bump to the president candidate version of Clinton (to be used only if Washington is turned OFF) in PA, CT, VT, NH. I'm not convinced that anyone South of Philadelphia would have been eager to support Clinton, since party loyalty wasn't as developed then, and regional personalities often transcended party. Besides, if Washington is OFF, then Jefferson (presidential candidate version) will certainly be ON as well. Overall, I wish the game mechanic was better adaptable for these early election (1788-1800). But I think I've handled it the best way the system allows. I wish there was something that I could program in that allows Clinton's %s to increase if Jefferson is OFF entirely, and vice-versa. But I am forced to create Clinton (pres version) assuming Jefferson (pres version) is also ON, since both are to be used only if Washington is OFF, otherwise both are consigned to the VP ballot (or second choice ballot, rather). Even easier would be if the game allowed voters (electors) to vote for two people, as was done, but I had to categorize everyone into first ballot (Washington only by default) and second ballot (everyone else). 

The undervaluing of Adams in those polls that you mention can be attributed to the fact, as I say, that the party system wasn't well established, and personalities/notables carried the day, sometimes irregardless of their political opinions. Also what the state legislature might approve of in the House, the representation of their state, might be different than what they might want in the executive, where knowledge of foreign policy and international recognition was probably more important to some of the states. Someone like Clinton had very little international recognition, if at all. John Adams had worked with the British as their diplomat (something like 75 to 90% of our trade was conducted with them in 1792), and worked with the French and Dutch. I appreciate those polls, which I have looked at, but I'll keep the %, except for Clinton (pres version) and Jefferson (VP version), as I have them until I can be convinced otherwise. 

Alexander Hamilton is already an endorser under New York. He will immediately endorse Washington (if he is not a candidate himself) if Washington is turned ON. Hamilton won't be a national endorser until 1796. 

Regarding relations, Jefferson and Adams were very close friends at this point. If anything, I should make their relations better. It wasn't until the election of 1796 that their close friendship went sour. While I'm not certain that Adams and Burr had much of a like or dislike of each other in 1792, I will make that adjustment because it does seem probable. 

Thanks for the suggestion for the event as well. I'm going to go through all sorts of domestic and international events. Expect to see more French Rev-based events. 

Thanks for your in-depth suggestions. Very much appreciated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Patine said:

1792 would have been the first U.S. Presidential election where the nation had it's own proprietary minted currency, however I don't believe it started out nearly as valuable as the main European currencies, but it was more stable than before. I'd go with 3, than go to 2 (the most valuable and uninflated it would get) between the Jay Treaty and the War of 1812 and between the resumption of open trade and the Panic of 1837, but lever again hitting the level of uninflation of 2 again afterwards.

Thanks. I may ask this question again. Another helpful thing you could do for me for each scenario (as we go through them on this forum together) is to double-check and make sure I have your flags installed for each state. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, vcczar said:

Thanks for the suggestions. I've reduced Jefferson to 1% in Virginia for the reasons you give. Can you tell me where in the scenario that I incorrectly state that, "Jefferson would be ineligible to be VP rather than just not being able to get votes from Virginia." I can make the amendment. I'm not sure why I made that mistake. I'll fix it. I must have been tired. 

I'm probably not going to bump Clinton (VP candidate version), since he didn't perform that well, even with being the primary Dem-Rep challenger in the election. However, I decided to give a slight bump to the president candidate version of Clinton (to be used only if Washington is turned OFF) in PA, CT, VT, NH. I'm not convinced that anyone South of Philadelphia would have been eager to support Clinton, since party loyalty wasn't as developed then, and regional personalities often transcended party. Besides, if Washington is OFF, then Jefferson (presidential candidate version) will certainly be ON as well. Overall, I wish the game mechanic was better adaptable for these early election (1788-1800). But I think I've handled it the best way the system allows. I wish there was something that I could program in that allows Clinton's %s to increase if Jefferson is OFF entirely, and vice-versa. But I am forced to create Clinton (pres version) assuming Jefferson (pres version) is also ON, since both are to be used only if Washington is OFF, otherwise both are consigned to the VP ballot (or second choice ballot, rather). Even easier would be if the game allowed voters (electors) to vote for two people, as was done, but I had to categorize everyone into first ballot (Washington only by default) and second ballot (everyone else). 

The undervaluing of Adams in those polls that you mention can be attributed to the fact, as I say, that the party system wasn't well established, and personalities/notables carried the day, sometimes irregardless of their political opinions. Also what the state legislature might approve of in the House, the representation of their state, might be different than what they might want in the executive, where knowledge of foreign policy and international recognition was probably more important to some of the states. Someone like Clinton had very little international recognition, if at all. John Adams had worked with the British as their diplomat (something like 75 to 90% of our trade was conducted with them in 1792), and worked with the French and Dutch. I appreciate those polls, which I have looked at, but I'll keep the %, except for Clinton (pres version) and Jefferson (VP version), as I have them until I can be convinced otherwise. 

Alexander Hamilton is already an endorser under New York. He will immediately endorse Washington (if he is not a candidate himself) if Washington is turned ON. Hamilton won't be a national endorser until 1796. 

Regarding relations, Jefferson and Adams were very close friends at this point. If anything, I should make their relations better. It wasn't until the election of 1796 that their close friendship went sour. While I'm not certain that Adams and Burr had much of a like or dislike of each other in 1792, I will make that adjustment because it does seem probable. 

Thanks for the suggestion for the event as well. I'm going to go through all sorts of domestic and international events. Expect to see more French Rev-based events. 

Thanks for your in-depth suggestions. Very much appreciated. 

In the third paragraph of the campaign description on the website you download from you say:

" The winner has the most votes, becoming president, while the second place candidate (assuming he is from a different state than the winner) becomes VP. As such, Jefferson cannot become VP if Washington becomes president, as they are both from Virginia. "

I look forward to the release of the update.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: I gave it another try as Richard Henry Lee. The 32x32 px picture shows Patrick Henry. @vcczar

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, msc123123 said:

In the third paragraph of the campaign description on the website you download from you say:

" The winner has the most votes, becoming president, while the second place candidate (assuming he is from a different state than the winner) becomes VP. As such, Jefferson cannot become VP if Washington becomes president, as they are both from Virginia. "

I look forward to the release of the update.

Oh ok, Thanks. I'll change that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Update: I gave it another try as Richard Henry Lee. The 32x32 px picture shows Patrick Henry. @vcczar

Weird. Thanks for letting me know

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ everyone

See the edited original post to see the changes. Once I get all the new issue images from @NYrepublican, I will then add some more events. Barring anyone recognizing any necessary changes, I will then release the updated scenario tomorrow (Wednesday) night or early Thursday. Thanks for all the work that you have done in helping improve this scenario. @CalebsParadox and @msc123123 have been particularly indepth in their feedback. While, as always, @Conservative Elector 2 @Patine and @SeanFKennedy have made it a duty to improve scenarios by offering sound advice as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

@ everyone

See the edited original post to see the changes. Once I get all the new issue images from @NYrepublican, I will then add some more events. Barring anyone recognizing any necessary changes, I will then release the updated scenario tomorrow (Wednesday) night or early Thursday. Thanks for all the work that you have done in helping improve this scenario. @CalebsParadox and @msc123123 have been particularly indepth in their feedback. While, as always, @Conservative Elector 2 @Patine and @SeanFKennedy have made it a duty to improve scenarios by offering sound advice as well. 

Did you plug in the 1792 flag set I'd sent you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Did you plug in the 1792 flag set I'd sent you?

I thought I did. Let me double check. This is one you sent awhile back, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...