Jump to content
270soft Forum

mahaadoxyz

Members
  • Posts

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by mahaadoxyz

  1. Ah yeah, actually, as I look over your list of candidates and parties I see that you have in fact named them after the international party organizations. But the International Democrat Union, of course, does not include the U.S. Democratic Party and in fact does include the U.S. Republican Party, so if you're going to organize it that way I don't think it's defensible to put Obama in that group.
  2. Hugo Chavez is dead, I believe. Also, it's not that bad to do proportional representation by country. If you want 800 seats, I'd recommend doing something like taking one-seven-hundredth of the world population, i.e. 10 million, as your approximate district size, dividing the population of each country by that number (which isn't hard when the number in question is a power of 10), and then rounding to the nearest positive integer. So sure, the Vatican "should" get 0.009% of one seat, but instead you give it 1 seat, and all the other tiny little countries. The result is that you end up with well over 700 seats, but since you were aiming for 800 in the first place it works out. Also, this might just be me but I've never been entirely convinced by the tendency of people making these international scenarios to put the likes of Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and David Cameron in the same party. In part this is because I think one should largely judge politicians in different circumstances by the changes they're proposing, and by that metric you've got Obama proposing various changes that would move the United States a bit closer to the European social democratic model while Cameron and Merkel are proposing changes that would move their countries away from that model, and closer to the United States. If you look at their actual platforms, the specific policies they propose, they might end up looking pretty similar, but they're trying to move the world in opposite directions. When I once made a scenario that included not just the whole of Earth but also the whole of history, I basically considered the Democratic Party to be a "liberal" party, sitting sort of in the middle between the left-wing "socialist" parties and the right-wing "conservatives" ones. Indeed, the U.S. Democratic Party has some weak affiliations to Liberal International, while both Cameron's Conservative Party and Merkel's CDU are members of the International Democrat Union, a center-right organization which includes the Republican Party. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to put Paul Ryan in a competing party to Merkel and Cameron when they're both members, in a sense, of the same international party organization. (Apparently Putin's party doesn't have international affiliations, not surprising I suppose but it makes it a bit tougher to place him in this framework.)
  3. Okay, cool, that's more or less what I thought. Thanks for the clarification!
  4. So, I just got the latest P4E 2016 update and looked around the candidate editor, which looks very nice overall. However, I can't find anywhere, in editing the regions, to edit the map points. This would make life very difficult for anyone who wants to make a scenario for any polity other than the United States. Am I missing something here, or is this really missing? If so, I assume it's on the list to be added shortly. Thanks!
  5. Well, yes, they'll presumably be somewhat less exciting contests. Still, every state's been around for a good long while, and in pretty much every state there are at least a couple of notables, and the prospect of some competitive elections. I'm not necessarily sure how dedicated I'll ever manage to be about finishing up the entire series of 50, if indeed they ever release a campaign editor so I can get started. Still, I think it's an interesting idea, even for the states with less loaded depth charts.
  6. In keeping with my theme of all-time election scenarios, I've been thinking about developing a series of All-Time State Presidential elections. The concept here is, in addition to the basic all-time thing, that each state is an independent political entity electing a President to lead it. Any politician or, theoretically, major political figure outside the world of elective office, from that state would be eligible to run. Senators, Governors, conceivably Representatives, etc. Also, as with my original P4E08 All-Star President scenarios, I'd assign people to their own nominal political parties, rather than creating new ideological coalitions. I've already got surprisingly-easy-to-compile historical county-level population data, and my plan is to give each county delegates proportional to the sum of its population at each census throughout that state's statehood. Unfortunately, this means there are a number of states where one county has more than half the delegates, notably Providence Co., Rhode Island, New Castle Co., Delaware, and Maricopa Co., Arizona. In a first-past-the-post electoral college system, giving one region more than half of the delegates means that all the other regions are completely irrelevant, which wouldn't be any fun. I'm hopeful, then, that eventually they'll give us the option of making general election delegates proportionally-assigned, or even using outright popular vote. So actually making these scenarios is probably on hold for a while, awaiting both that development and a scenario editor like we had for the '08 version. In the meanwhile, however, I would certainly like to receive any suggestions people have about candidates in various states, or about how the various candidates and parties should be balanced. Similarly with Issues: my assumption is that most of those will be the same state to state, but that there will be a few local or regional issues that vary. So, anyone have any thoughts? Does this sound like an interesting concept? Got any ideas for candidates/issues? Thanks!
  7. The Federalists had only one high-quality politician, and that was Washington. He is able to win my A-List scenario, if he plays his cards very very right. Alexander Hamilton is another quality candidate, but he's not in this version (though he will be in my version of this scenario for P4E2012, should it ever get around to being developed). The likes of Charles Pinckney and DeWitt Clinton aren't serious contenders, though; I think it's realistic for the Federalists to be basically a minor party in the B-list scenario. (And, uh, I've received it, though I haven't played it yet because I don't have P4E08 on my current computer.)
  8. According to Wikipedia, it's Huey Long, Admiral George Dewey of the Spanish-American War, and animator Louie Schmitt. I have no idea if it's true or not.
  9. Okay, cool. I might or might not get a big enough chunk of free time to do them sooner.
  10. Okay, cool. How quickly do you need them? For the remainder of this week I'm somewhat busy with finals, and then with Christmas stuff early next week. I could probably find time to do it in the next couple of days, but it wouldn't necessarily be the most convenient on my end, so if a delay of a week or so is not a big deal on your end, I might wait until Boxing Day or something.
  11. Got color preferences for each pair of letters? I'm assuming those are the Southern Democratic, Progressive, Anti-Masonic, Free Soil, Constitutional Union, and New Alliance parties, yes? One idea I did just have would be to create an actual logo for the Anti-Masonic Party, basically just a freemason's symbol in one of those red crossed-out circles. I think for one incarnation of this scenario I tried to find a logo from the Federalist Party.
  12. Also George H.W. Bush. In fairness it may never have happened that a party takes power from the opposing party with a substantial victory and then lost four years later. The only occasions I can think of when the out-party has won by a substantial margin are 2008, 1992, 1980, 1952, 1932, 1920, 1912, 1860, 1840 (okay, that might be a counter-example), 1828, and 1800. Of those only 1840 featured a reversal four years later, and it featured a slightly narrower popular-vote margin than Obama '08. Still, I think it's clearly not true that the circumstances of the 2012 election made it a priori impossible for Romney to win.
  13. Looks like the New Alliance Party eventually kind of merged with the Perot party. Would it make sense to include Fulani as an off-by-default Reform type? Not sure it would, but I don't really know the details of the story.
  14. If you wanted to throw Gary Johnson and Ron Paul into a Libertarian primary, given that Paul did run on that ticket in 1988, that could theoretically be cool. Have you included any of the other, more major Southern Democrats already, like George Wallace or John Breckinridge? If so, adding in the protest-vote versions of that party as really weak minor candidates in the Dixiecrat primary would make a fair amount of sense. And as for the Free Soilers, I guess it just depends on the overall philosophy you've been taking to minor parties. My original conception of the scenarios was that there would be the A list, composed of all and only the 43 Presidents of the United States; the B list, composed of the losing nominees of the major parties, plus people like RFK who could just as well have been the nominee; and the C list, composed of the sufficiently notable third-party nominees, without any main parties. But I don't have a big problem with combining B and C, and there's certainly not as clear a philosophical distinction between the two of them as between the A list and the others. Oh by the way, at some point when you've got this scenario in good working order, send it to me as well! (hurricanexyz@mail.com)
  15. I've been known to encounter a similar situation. For instance, in making my All-Time President scenario, the old-time parties like the Federalists are only on the ballot, and only have real primaries in, the states that were in the Union during the last Presidential election they contested. The way I've gone about negating the primaries for the other states has been to give them 1 delegate each, which is close enough to zero that it pretty much can't affect gameplay at all, and then to just leave everyone at 0% in those primaries. What'll happen is that you'll have 100% undecideds for much of the campaign in those states/regions where you don't have real primaries, and then at some point all those undecideds will jump to one of the candidates, who'll win that primary overwhelmingly, but who cares? It's only one delegate. Hope that's helpful.
  16. And I think we mean different things by "integrity." He may or may not have taken consistent positions on issues, but he runs a tight ship and there have been zero significant scandals either during his campaigns or during his time in office. The stimulus was spent with effectively zero waste/fraud. People have to make stuff up to be able to accuse him of doing anything scandalous. Defining Integrity as "personal and campaign integrity" is circular; we still need to know what the word "integrity" means. And my impression is that the main function that the Integrity attribute plays in the mechanics of the game is that it makes it easier or harder for opponents to discover scandals about a candidate. Given how extremely hard it's been for anyone to unearth any actual scandals about Obama, I think he should be above-average in this regard.
  17. I still think that, given the way the "Integrity" attribute is used in this game, Obama should be above-average. It's all about the scandals, and he doesn't generate scandals. Flip-flopping on issues, or even just holding unpopular issue positions, is theoretically handled by the issue positions themselves. I think in general he'd be a pretty strong candidate in this context. I'd say Debating Skill would be the best place to make him average, as debating is not overall one of his strong suits, the last two debates of 2008 notwithstanding. He's not a bad debater, but he's not a particularly good one either.
  18. Which is maybe why he doesn't get a 5, but I feel like he's run basically the most scandal-free Administration in a very long time in this country. And since, in this game, "integrity" mainly means "how easy is it for opponents to generate scandals," I think he should definitely be above-average.
  19. Sure, but it might be a while; I don't expect to do much work actually constructing the scenario until a campaign editor for P4E12 is released, as it's just too much of a pain.
  20. Ah, yeah, I approve of adding Burr to the list. And Romney, obviously.
  21. Recently I was having a conversation about how many of the recent First Ladies would've made better Presidents than their husbands. This got me thinking that one interesting source of some extra female candidates might be First Ladies; for instance, I think Eleanor Roosevelt would make a very interesting candidate. And, slightly more broadly, I think it might make particular sense for those groups that have had traditional trouble getting elected to prominent offices to be willing to include people who were notable not as officeholders but just as public figures. That's sort of the logic on which I've included MLK, obviously, and I figure that some more of those sorts might make sense. Of course, that skews things in favor of the left-wing parties, or at least in having more people in them, since most of these figures from disadvantaged groups are left-wing, one way or another. So if anyone has any good ideas for non-politician conservatives, or populists, or whigs, they'd be much appreciated.
  22. Anyone who wants to can share this with anyone who wants it, I hereby declare.
  23. Well yes, I'm planning on making the Whigs and the Populists only slightly weaker than the Democrats and Republicans. A roughly, say, 26/26/24/23 breakdown, with room left over for a few trace voters for other things. I suppose I might consider adding Ron Paul in a little party of his own, with barely any support. Or I could include him as a Whig, since libertarianism fits pretty well into the "non-egalitarian, non-traditionalist" heading that I'm using to define that party.
  24. Now that we've actually got our new sub-forum, thought I'd re-post this here. The original thread is here. The basic idea is that figures from throughout American political history are competing against each other in a timey-wimey Presidential election. Unlike some of my earlier attempts at the same sort of concept, people won't just be assigned to the party whose label they claimed in their own time, but rather reshuffled into ideologically coherent parties: the Democrats, the Republicans, the Populists, and the Whigs. For a full listing of my current candidates list, and some other details like issues and such, see the post from the P4E08 thread. In light of last night's events, I feel entirely comfortable keeping George Romney in as the representative Romney rather than Mitt, and I'll boost Obama's standing within the Democratic primary a bit. Other than FDR and Kennedy, I'm not sure there are particularly many real liberals who I'd say are categorically ahead of Obama at this point. Anyway, work on creating this scenario in earnest will commence once a scenario editor for P4E12 is released. I'm hopeful that there'll be an option for multiple different election victory conditions, beside just 'win an absolute majority of electoral votes,' because in a four-way race I'd really like to at least include a potential run-off.
  25. Yeah, the case for McCain is a decent one, as probably a Republican with somewhat Whiggish leanings, at least compared to people like Calhoun and Reagan. Some of his geographic oxygen, anyway, will get sucked up by Goldwater, and I'd probably want to leave him off-by-default, but he's got as good a case as Newt.
×
×
  • Create New...