Jump to content
270soft Forum

1800 Election Update (Historical Scenario Commission)


vcczar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

1800: 
The other Pinckney in South Carolina ihas a 50 set for both Jefferson and Charles Pinckney, but that may be intentional. 
The Tammany Hall endorser in NY should have Burr, Hamilton, and other New Yorkers set pretty high. Currently, only Jefferson has a 50. 
I would raise Pinckney's percentages in SC a good amount and a little throughout the rest of the south. Burr was fairly popular throughout the South, but Pinckney's numbers feel way too low as a fellow Southerner. 
Regional issue positions need to be set.
I'm unsure on this, but perhaps lower Burr's experience to 3. He has only been a Senator before this election. I've also read some about his personal charisma, but I'm not sure if it would justify raising his charisma to a 4. 
In a similar note, Jay should probably have a 3 in experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally: 

Charles Pinckney's general election blurb makes a reference to the 1804 election. 
Maybe rewrite Burr and Pinckney's blurbs in general to make it more obvious that they are unofficial VP candidates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

1800: 
The other Pinckney in South Carolina ihas a 50 set for both Jefferson and Charles Pinckney, but that may be intentional. 
The Tammany Hall endorser in NY should have Burr, Hamilton, and other New Yorkers set pretty high. Currently, only Jefferson has a 50. 
I would raise Pinckney's percentages in SC a good amount and a little throughout the rest of the south. Burr was fairly popular throughout the South, but Pinckney's numbers feel way too low as a fellow Southerner. 
Regional issue positions need to be set.
I'm unsure on this, but perhaps lower Burr's experience to 3. He has only been a Senator before this election. I've also read some about his personal charisma, but I'm not sure if it would justify raising his charisma to a 4. 
In a similar note, Jay should probably have a 3 in experience. 

Thanks! Some of these I had already noticed, but you also found some things I was unaware about. 

1. I noticed this and I updated Thomas Pinckney to support Ch Pinckney 100% yesterday or the day before. 

2. I also had noticed this and set it to automatically endorse Burr. Many of these NYers are Federalists. Those that are not have been set for Burr

3. The only reason I have Pinckney as low as he is in the South, is that when he's higher, he ends up winning the entire election.. I sort of allow this competitiveness because the South was dominated by Republicans, who knew they had to vote for Jefferson and Burr, which they did. 

4. Thanks for reminding me to set the regional issue positions. I consistently overlook this; although I set the national issue stances. I'll need to do this for about every election, I think. 

5. I have now changed Burr's experience to 3. I'll keep Burr's charisma at 3, because he was considered very dislikable to fellow politicians, and the popular vote wasn't that universal at this point. His personal charisma was great among those that agreed with him. 

6. Jay had served as Chief Justice, as NY Governor, as a cabinet secretary (colonial era), and in the continental congress, and as a candidate. No one really has more experience than him. I'll keep him at 4. 

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

Additionally: 

Charles Pinckney's general election blurb makes a reference to the 1804 election. 
Maybe rewrite Burr and Pinckney's blurbs in general to make it more obvious that they are unofficial VP candidates. 

1. This must have been fixed at some point by me. I don't see this in his blurb on my end. 

2. Good idea. I made these changes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

Gamebreaking bug: No voters are set in many regions which means that everyone is stuck at 0%. Affected regions are as follows: GA, SC, TN, PA, KY, CT, NJ, NY, VT, NH

Screenshot_19.png

@CalebsParadox

This is because there wasn't a popular vote in these states. The election was decided by state legislatures. I had to take candidates off (and will have to take parties off in in the next scenario), because the candidate %s don't matter in deciding the state--it becomes completely randomized, leading to unrealistic results. The best solution I could find was to take off candidates that had no shot at winning that states legislature. NY is a huge state without popular vote, and it is a total crap shoot that can determine the election. If you or @Patine or @jvikings1 or anyone else can think of a better solution, then I'll adopt that. However, this was the most realistic and workable solution I can think of. Alternatively, I could set the population to about 100 or 200 to reflect the legislatures, but that wouldn't be realistic as 0% of these states contributed to the popular vote % gained by the candidates. 

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

@CalebsParadox

This is because there wasn't a popular vote in these states. The election was decided by state legislatures. I had to take candidates off (and will have to take parties off in in the next scenario), because the candidate %s don't matter in deciding the state--it becomes completely randomized, leading to unrealistic results. The best solution I could find was to take off candidates that had no shot at winning that states legislature. NY is a huge state without popular vote, and it is a total crap shoot that can determine the election. If you or @Patine or @jvikings1 or anyone else can think of a better solution, then I'll adopt that. However, this was the most realistic and workable solution I can think of. Alternatively, I could set the population to about 100 or 200 to reflect the legislatures, but that wouldn't be realistic as 0% of these states contributed to the popular vote % gained by the candidates. 

I set the voting population to the number of members in the state legislature in the 1824 election, so that is what I would go with

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

I set the voting population to the number of members in the state legislature in the 1824 election, so that is what I would go with

Where did you get the number of members in the state legislatures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

I set the voting population to the number of members in the state legislature in the 1824 election, so that is what I would go with

 

33 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Where did you get the number of members in the state legislatures?

Yes. I recall wanting to do that for South Carolina's voter total in my old 1848 and 1860 scenarios for P4E2008, but I found it impossible at the time to find the number of members in the South Carolina legislatures of those years. Where did you find them, @jvikings1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jvikings1 and @Patine

I'll just do a second second update for these pre-popular vote states. I'll carry on with how I'm currently doing it until then. In update #2, I'll adjust these states, and also include more VP options, and what-if candidates, if anyone wants any more of them, when I do this second update. I'm also going to improve the download page descriptions to make them more engaging. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...