Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Odd results

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if anyone else has been getting odd results since the last few updates. More often than not I'll see candidates win states that the shouldn't be winning, generally by an overwhelming margin. For instance, I just simmed through my 2020 election with Delaney vs. Trump. Delaney took Alabama with 60%+ of the vote. He also won MT, KY, and SC. Part of this might have been the result of attacks from 3rd parties, I'm not sure. Overall, I'm not sure what causes a party to plummet in support in selected states, or what compels the CPU to act so aggressively in states that should be solidly belonging to the other party. 

@admin_270 is there a way to get the CPU to focus only on battleground states? Perhaps in the editor, you could allow a function that can restrict the CPU in the General Election only, for historical purposes. you can check the states that the computer avoids barnstorming, rallying, or using ads in. Fundraising could be different. It could be an option function, sort of like popular vote election or no-VP option. 

Share this post


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

I'm wondering if anyone else has been getting odd results since the last few updates. More often than not I'll see candidates win states that the shouldn't be winning, generally by an overwhelming margin. For instance, I just simmed through my 2020 election with Delaney vs. Trump. Delaney took Alabama with 60%+ of the vote. He also won MT, KY, and SC. Part of this might have been the result of attacks from 3rd parties, I'm not sure. Overall, I'm not sure what causes a party to plummet in support in selected states, or what compels the CPU to act so aggressively in states that should be solidly belonging to the other party. 

@admin_270 is there a way to get the CPU to focus only on battleground states? Perhaps in the editor, you could allow a function that can restrict the CPU in the General Election only, for historical purposes. you can check the states that the computer avoids barnstorming, rallying, or using ads in. Fundraising could be different. It could be an option function, sort of like popular vote election or no-VP option. 

Well one primary goal is to make more states battlegrounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Well one primary goal is to make more states battlegrounds.

In historical elections there are some states where that isn't possible, or shouldn't be possible. For instance, the "Solid South." Even in the 2016 and 2020 scenarios, parties shouldn't be able to get some states to a battleground state. I guess I desire realism more than most gamers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

In historical elections there are some states where that isn't possible, or shouldn't be possible. For instance, the "Solid South." Even in the 2016 and 2020 scenarios, parties shouldn't be able to get some states to a battleground state. I guess I desire realism more than most gamers. 

One way to fix this is to make the states electoral bases more solid as I did in Israel 1996 to prevent Netanyahu from winning the Arab districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

One way to fix this is to make the states electoral bases more solid as I did in Israel 1996 to prevent Netanyahu from winning the Arab districts.

I did that with some states, like Alabama. It shouldn't ever go Blue in 2020. 

Share this post


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

I did that with some states, like Alabama. It shouldn't ever go Blue in 2020. 

make it 98 1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

make it 98 1 1

You know, I believe there's a FEW more Democrats in Alabama going into 2020 than there were Republicans and anti-Jim Crow Democrats and Independents (at least who weren't unconstitutionally disenfranchised) in the state in 1920.

Share this post


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

You know, I believe there's a FEW more Democrats in Alabama going into 2020 than there were Republicans and anti-Jim Crow Democrats and Independents (at least who weren't unconstitutionally disenfranchised) in the state in 1920.

I mean 98 percent solid 1 percent leaning and 1 percent undecided.

It will vary over the course of gameplay but the result won't get unrealistic that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I mean 98 percent solid 1 percent leaning and 1 percent undecided.

It will vary over the course of gameplay but the result won't get unrealistic that way.

I'll try that. 

Share this post


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

You know, I believe there's a FEW more Democrats in Alabama going into 2020 than there were Republicans and anti-Jim Crow Democrats and Independents (at least who weren't unconstitutionally disenfranchised) in the state in 1920.

That's called "blue-dog" Democrats. They're people who always vote Republican but register Democrat because their ancestors were Democrats. It's 99% in the South but if you check states i'm pretty sure Kentucky, a very red state, has more Democrats than Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

That's called "blue-dog" Democrats. They're people who always vote Republican but register Democrat because their ancestors were Democrats. It's 99% in the South but if you check states i'm pretty sure Kentucky, a very red state, has more Democrats than Republicans.

It does. I was just looking at a list of registered Democrats, and they dominate KY, LA, NC, FL. Seems kind of strange to me. I wonder if @jvikings1's family are registered as Democrats. 

Share this post


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

It does. I was just looking at a list of registered Democrats, and they dominate KY, LA, NC, FL. Seems kind of strange to me. I wonder if @jvikings1's family are registered as Democrats. 

It's all because the Confederates were Democrats. Pretty sure Michigan is Republican too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

That's called "blue-dog" Democrats. They're people who always vote Republican but register Democrat because their ancestors were Democrats. It's 99% in the South but if you check states i'm pretty sure Kentucky, a very red state, has more Democrats than Republicans.

 

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It does. I was just looking at a list of registered Democrats, and they dominate KY, LA, NC, FL. Seems kind of strange to me. I wonder if @jvikings1's family are registered as Democrats. 

Well, the old Southern Democrats, who spawned from the "Redeemers," who themselves were a re-invention of the Civil War and Antebellum-era Democrats, seem to have more or less morphed, for all intents and purposes into the core of the Hard Social Conservative Republicans of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

That's called "blue-dog" Democrats. They're people who always vote Republican but register Democrat because their ancestors were Democrats. It's 99% in the South but if you check states i'm pretty sure Kentucky, a very red state, has more Democrats than Republicans.

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

It does. I was just looking at a list of registered Democrats, and they dominate KY, LA, NC, FL. Seems kind of strange to me. I wonder if @jvikings1's family are registered as Democrats. 

My direct family moved from Illinois, so we have been registered as Republicans, but it would definitely not surprise me if some of our extended family are registered as Democrats that vote Republican.  For the first time, Democrat voter registration fell below 50% a few weeks ago.  This is left over from the days when you have to be a Democrat to vote (as there was little to no Republican opposition is many counties).  Gov. Bevin is only the 3rd Republican governor since WW2, and Republicans flipped the state house in 2016 for the first time in almost a century (part of this was due to strong union support of candidates, especially in the eastern part of the state).

Share this post


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

I'm wondering if anyone else has been getting odd results since the last few updates. More often than not I'll see candidates win states that the shouldn't be winning, generally by an overwhelming margin. For instance, I just simmed through my 2020 election with Delaney vs. Trump. Delaney took Alabama with 60%+ of the vote. He also won MT, KY, and SC. Part of this might have been the result of attacks from 3rd parties, I'm not sure. Overall, I'm not sure what causes a party to plummet in support in selected states, or what compels the CPU to act so aggressively in states that should be solidly belonging to the other party. 

@admin_270 is there a way to get the CPU to focus only on battleground states? Perhaps in the editor, you could allow a function that can restrict the CPU in the General Election only, for historical purposes. you can check the states that the computer avoids barnstorming, rallying, or using ads in. Fundraising could be different. It could be an option function, sort of like popular vote election or no-VP option. 

Well, I have to say, it's also always annoying when you are leading by 15 in Iowa, then win by 1 the next week and then proceed to lose NH, SC, and NV coming in 5th or 4th despite having been leading there, support just absolutely plummets, it's unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well, I have to say, it's also always annoying when you are leading by 15 in Iowa, then win by 1 the next week and then proceed to lose NH, SC, and NV coming in 5th or 4th despite having been leading there, support just absolutely plummets, it's unrealistic.

Well, P4E2008, in it's early versions, had REAL bizarre rollercoaster rides in terms of sudden, drastic, and fanciful polling shifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Party registration state by state is an interesting topic. A lot of states (I think 22?) don't have it, including a couple states mentioned above - AL and MI. Both have open primaries, where anyone can vote. As for the other states, the vast majority were mostly dominated by Dems (I suspect because they dominated Congress in the New Deal Era until Gingrich became speaker, and because presidential primaries were largely insider jobs before the 70s). Over time, this edge has diminished in a lot of places, and in some states the GOP has taken the edge (or in the case of FL, gotten pretty close).

I actually put together a spreadsheet with figures for the individual states a few months ago from various sources (state SoS sites, Ballot Access Newsletters, Almanacs of American Politics, in some cases archived newspapers). If anyone is interested, here's a link (I don't know if it's of any use to anyone, but feel free to use the info if it is):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s1UdD1c7jS76ilFWtYqdTHDuWM7IJcTRpoRopYtTYHw/

I began with 1972 (since that was the first year after the primary reforms of 1968, and also because the 26th amendment kicked in, so it makes things comparable. I might expand it backward at some point, but it could be of limited utility (a lot of states didn't require registration for smaller counties for instance, such as NY and OH in the 70s, and WI until about 10 years ago; ND still doesn't have it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW I haven't made any scenarios, but the solid/leaning/undecided concept is pretty interesting (and seems like a complicated problem). I'm not sure what the best way to handle it is. Maybe looking at statewide elections and finding the relative ceiling/floor?

Share this post


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

Well, P4E2008, in it's early versions, had REAL bizarre rollercoaster rides in terms of sudden, drastic, and fanciful polling shifts.

How bad was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NYrepublican @Reagan04

I ended up making the 2020 election with 90 committed 10 leaning and 0 undecided voters for both parties in every state. The result ended up being much more realistic. Although Dems still scored too high in WI and MI (over 60%) and they won TX. The CPU seems to fixate on random states. AL went red, but it barely went red. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thr33 said:

Party registration state by state is an interesting topic. A lot of states (I think 22?) don't have it, including a couple states mentioned above - AL and MI. Both have open primaries, where anyone can vote. As for the other states, the vast majority were mostly dominated by Dems (I suspect because they dominated Congress in the New Deal Era until Gingrich became speaker, and because presidential primaries were largely insider jobs before the 70s). Over time, this edge has diminished in a lot of places, and in some states the GOP has taken the edge (or in the case of FL, gotten pretty close).

I actually put together a spreadsheet with figures for the individual states a few months ago from various sources (state SoS sites, Ballot Access Newsletters, Almanacs of American Politics, in some cases archived newspapers). If anyone is interested, here's a link (I don't know if it's of any use to anyone, but feel free to use the info if it is):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s1UdD1c7jS76ilFWtYqdTHDuWM7IJcTRpoRopYtTYHw/

I began with 1972 (since that was the first year after the primary reforms of 1968, and also because the 26th amendment kicked in, so it makes things comparable. I might expand it backward at some point, but it could be of limited utility (a lot of states didn't require registration for smaller counties for instance, such as NY and OH in the 70s, and WI until about 10 years ago; ND still doesn't have it).

I think public party registration in this way is a GRAVE error in judgement by electoral authorities. Party membership should be managed by private rosters and organization of the parties themselves, like in pretty much every other country. The way they do it now in much of the U.S. is yet another tool I often mention of Duopoly electoral rigging (and yes, I do use the term "electoral rigging," even though it's often associated with more unsavoury regimes) to weight elections extremely heavily - and institutionally - in favour of the corrupt party Duopoly and make it nigh impossible for a Third Party or Independent candidate to get any traction than a rare, and usually short-lived, breakthrough. The only FIRST WORLD nation where complacent, smug, corrupt, entrenched, detached-from-the-people, nigh-unchallengeable parties who just sit and screw over their own people and lie to them again and again and watch as they crawl back to them at the ballot box because no opposition man easily get through their "corrupt machines" (except each other and Primary challenge, which doesn't really fix the overarching problem here) is PERHAPS the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan - but they're control is not so tight since the early '90's, but it's also a similar situation (even though the other Japanese reliably gain seats in the Diet, the Liberal Democratic Party has only lost a majority government twice since it's formation in the late '50's, and both times surged back to power at the very next election).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:47 PM, Patine said:

I think public party registration in this way is a GRAVE error in judgement by electoral authorities. Party membership should be managed by private rosters and organization of the parties themselves, like in pretty much every other country. The way they do it now in much of the U.S. is yet another tool I often mention of Duopoly electoral rigging (and yes, I do use the term "electoral rigging," even though it's often associated with more unsavoury regimes) to weight elections extremely heavily - and institutionally - in favour of the corrupt party Duopoly and make it nigh impossible for a Third Party or Independent candidate to get any traction than a rare, and usually short-lived, breakthrough. The only FIRST WORLD nation where complacent, smug, corrupt, entrenched, detached-from-the-people, nigh-unchallengeable parties who just sit and screw over their own people and lie to them again and again and watch as they crawl back to them at the ballot box because no opposition man easily get through their "corrupt machines" (except each other and Primary challenge, which doesn't really fix the overarching problem here) is PERHAPS the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan - but they're control is not so tight since the early '90's, but it's also a similar situation (even though the other Japanese reliably gain seats in the Diet, the Liberal Democratic Party has only lost a majority government twice since it's formation in the late '50's, and both times surged back to power at the very next election).

I'll agree that party registration should be managed by the parties themselves (and closed primaries held by them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 4:47 PM, Patine said:

I think public party registration in this way is a GRAVE error in judgement by electoral authorities. Party membership should be managed by private rosters and organization of the parties themselves, like in pretty much every other country.

I don't necessarily have a problem with private rosters/organization or closed primaries, but if that's the case, then primary nominating contests should be funded by the party organizations, and not by taxpayers (as it stands, most if not all states fund contests, so taxpayers foot the bill, even if they can't participate). In several states, such as NY (where I live), you have to affiliate with a party by October of the previous year. In terms of presidential contests, this is before coverage really picks up. In state and local contests, candidates might not even be chosen at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thr33 said:

I don't necessarily have a problem with private rosters/organization or closed primaries, but if that's the case, then primary nominating contests should be funded by the party organizations, and not by taxpayers (as it stands, most if not all states fund contests, so taxpayers foot the bill, even if they can't participate). In several states, such as NY (where I live), you have to affiliate with a party in October of the previous year. In terms of presidential contests, this is before coverage really picks up. In state and local contests, candidates might not even be chosen at that point.

I would fully and wholeheartedly agree with private party funding of rosters, organizations, and primaries. In fact, I'd prefer it. The only other nations in the world today where political party organization and activities are fully, publicly are one-party, dominant-party, and party-of-party political structures, and, in these cases, only for the alpha government party. I think that says something right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×