Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fhmutairi

New Primaries System (Regional Primaries) 2008 Scenario

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

Click Here to Download

This scenario applies the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act introduced in the Senate. It makes the campaigning more interesting. It is based on the latest United States - 2008 (Beta) scenario.

Iowa and New Hampshire still first in the nation but they now start in February.

Please give me your feedback.

Enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know better Electric Monk, as I'm not from the US.

I'm from Canada, actually, but am vastly obsessed with politics.

Actually I have certain problems with that regional system as it groups unlike states together. My pet system would be to randomly have 2 small states (i.e. less than a million, one primary & one caucus) at the start—one in February and one in March—followed by 8 biweekly regional contests in random order from Far West, Midwest, Old Confederacy, Rocky Mountains, Mid-Atlantic, Border states, New England, Great Lakes states.

Those 8 groupings share many characteristics with each other and so similar issues apply to each grouping. It would also spread the campaign season from February to the end of July (with conventions right around the corner in August) to stop early wins, to reward organization, to force flash-in-the-pan candidates to have more than just momentum, to prevent a frontrunners easy victory, and to get rid of the current multi-month shadow war between the early win and the convention.

Anyway, any feedback on this scenario?

I haven't played it yet. Sigh. It's on my to-do list, but you're competing (leaving aside non-P4E activities) with an epic 2008 dual character/dual-primary hotseat game with my roommate, my (sometimes collaborative) 1968 scenario and the other scenarios.

Like I intend to do with all other not-mine scenarios on the board I will offer up a bunch of feedback when I get a chance to play it (however, besides you, there's Zion's 1988 & 1976, Jayavarman's 2008 Gold, Doug325's West Wing, and TheorySpark's own 2004) so my critique is coming… eventually :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which scenario does it use? 40% of the nation is undecided and i'm seeing hunter, tancredo, and paul winning states. i just lost new york to fred thompson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul and Huner were both strong i my game. Hunter with California, Paul with Texas, but then picking up a lot of southern states.

It was interesting as I was Thompson and weeks before the convention it was a 4 way tie between Thompson, Giuliani, McCain and Paul. I lost to Paul by 7 votes after McCain dropped out and endorsed Paul. (Giuliani had endorsed me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting scenario, and above all, it's fun. I'd like to see it with a more customized scenario.

Couple of small points ...

Delagates in MI and FL (dems) need to be changed back to full

WV should probably be part of the rust belt or the south.

OK should be in the mid west

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which scenario does it use? 40% of the nation is undecided and i'm seeing hunter, tancredo, and paul winning states. i just lost new york to fred thompson.

Any scenario based off of TheorySpark's raw numbers and calculations will have outrageous results. Seeing Kucinich win half of America in the original 2008 scenario was what made me make my own 2008 Gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohh i see .. i use the customized 08 theory too. i didnt realize that the default one was this way. paul and kuncinich won the nomination in the game and kucinich won the general election with 380 EVs.

the gold is definitely more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a similar scenario for my own amusement. On the Republican side, I used a variation of Sandy Levin's Interregional Primary System. I split the first two primary dates into two smaller dates so in the end, you had four small primary dates and four big primary dates, all of which cut across regions. On the Democratic side, I used the California Plan, a variation of the FairVote-endorsed American Plan. I used the original data though so it may pan out weirdly.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×