United Right 1993 Scenario Issues

[TeenTory 3]

Hey there,

When I go to start this scenario I'm prompted by a message that says "'Liberal' is not a valid integer". How can I fix this problem, as I really love the 1997 version of this scenario and would like to play this one.

[ktitus 4]

Hey there,

When I go to start this scenario I'm prompted by a message that says "'Liberal' is not a valid integer". How can I fix this problem, as I really love the 1997 version of this scenario and would like to play this one.

Is it the 1993 scenario of the 1997 scenario? (you listed 1993 in the subject and 1997 in your post)

Either way, my guess is that the scenario itself has an error (it's not the game itself). The game probably doesn't like something about the ridings file. If you don't know how to fix it, I'll see what I can do (I would need to know which scenario it is).

Welcome to the forums.

-ktitus

[gopprogressive 1,063]

Speaking of which, I should revisit the 1993 scenario that I'm working on. Principled Conservative did a version of it, and I was editing it. So perhaps I should finish it and let you guys take a look at the beta.

[TeenTory 3]

Speaking of which, I should revisit the 1993 scenario that I'm working on. Principled Conservative did a version of it, and I was editing it. So perhaps I should finish it and let you guys take a look at the beta.

Sorry yes, it is the 1993 scenario which has the problem; 1997 works great.

That'd be awesome, I'd be more than happy to test out your scenario GOP Progressive.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

@issues

Balanced Budget

Business Tax

Constitution

Crime

Democratic Reform

Environment

Fisheries

Free Trade

Goods & Services Tax

Government

Hellicopter Contract

Infrastructure

Military

National Unity

Personal Tax

Public Health Care

Unemployment

U.S. Relations

@end

I may do the Government issue either through experience or leadership. It's basically just a way to qualify public disillusionment with the PC federal government and the NDP provincial governments (in BC and Ontario especially). What do you guys think?

[TeenTory 3]

@issues

Balanced Budget

Business Tax

Constitution

Crime

Democratic Reform

Environment

Fisheries

Free Trade

Goods & Services Tax

Government

Hellicopter Contract

Infrastructure

Military

National Unity

Personal Tax

Public Health Care

Unemployment

U.S. Relations

@end

I may do the Government issue either through experience or leadership. It's basically just a way to qualify public disillusionment with the PC federal government and the NDP provincial governments (in BC and Ontario especially). What do you guys think?

I would say do it through leadership, but it sounds like a really smart way of going about it.

[EGaffney 17]

I may do the Government issue either through experience or leadership. It's basically just a way to qualify public disillusionment with the PC federal government and the NDP provincial governments (in BC and Ontario especially). What do you guys think?

Do it. I think that should probably be done with other "quality" issues like Corruption as well.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

So what issue should I use to replace government? I'll use experience for the government position.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

What would be a better issue for 1993 to replace government (which will become experience, which predictably are the Achilles' heel of the PC and NDP parties, besides other issues): Families (Day care) or Immigration?

[TeenTory 3]

What would be a better issue for 1993 to replace government (which will become experience, which predictably are the Achilles' heel of the PC and NDP parties, besides other issues): Families (Day care) or Immigration?

I would say National Unity, due to the political conditions in Quebec as well as those in Western Canada. Meech had just finished disentegrating National Unity and Canadians were, in part, looking for a federal party best able to lead a united Canada.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

National Unity is already among the issues.

[matvail2002 803]

In 1993, they were 4 main issues and one back issue:

National Unity: The most important by far, because the country was basically collapsing. For this, I would give an advantage to the alternate leaders, which are Paul Martin and Jean Charest. Western Alienation was also a real problem.

Government Trust/The impopularity of the NDP: In 1993, the provincial NDP was putting Ontario at the verge of bankruptcy and even polls were predicting awful results in British Columbia and a complete showdown in Ontario especially at the expanse of the Reform Party in the West.

Deficit Reduction: I would give an advantage to the Liberals for that.

GST: The Liberals and the NDP were theoretically against it (but the Liberals never repelled it, so the Liberals position is more C than CL)

NAFTA: Except for the NDP, the issue was dead.

Note that even the media and internal polling in the PC party were predicting 30-40 seats even at the last week of the campaign. Even the liberals pollsters were surprised by the results.

Also, would somebody here be interested on working on a revamped 1984 scenario.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

How should I phrase the government issue then? I still will keep the experience stuff in there, just as an added penalty for the PC and NDP as well as the far-left parties.

This is what I have currently:

//Government

The New Democratic Provincial Governments have betrayed socialism. Vote for a party that will protect social democracy. (ALL OTHERS except Independents)

The New Democratic Party is a great choice for Canada and has governed well despite economic hardships. (NDP)

The NDP Governments have been a disaster for Canada. We need a party that will stand up for regional interests. (BLOC, REFORM, Independents)

Both the NDP and PC Governments have been terrible for Canada. Vote for real change with the Liberals. (LIBERAL)

The PC government has brought along great success with free trade, tax reform, and improving quality of life. (PC)

@

[matvail2002 803]

Your issue is perfect as it is.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

I'll do some tinkering with the ridings (Hurtig keeps on winning his seat, and the PC is given too much of an advantage from incumbency- plus not enough backlash against NDP).

[EGaffney 17]

If this is being based off the old "1993 - Habsfan" scenario, then those are the three important problems that should be fixed. What I did with my copy was to code in bigger momentum hits for the PCs and NDP, and to reduce Hurtig's stars. In retrospect, if I were spending more time on it, I'd have just set all candidates at 2 stars, regardless of incumbency. Stars are a really powerful tool and I only normally use them to fix extreme outlier results.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

Stars/candidate profiles are a powerful too, but they should matter for strong or weak incumbents, solid challengers, and party leaders/cabinet ministers.

Yes, this is based off Habsfan's scenario. He will receive co-authorship.

[EGaffney 17]

I would probably use stars more in a Canadian scenario than in a British one. In Canada, there's some evidence that incumbents have a strong advantage that helps them hold on, but not so in the UK - or, at least, it's not important enough to model, outside giving each MP their historical percentage.

[matvail2002 803]

In the Canadian system, the candidate rating is somewhat important especially in more rural areas, as you sometimes see big swings when a popular candidate is retiring.

In 1993, almost all of the tiny the NPD caucus and the couple of PC MP were basically elected only because of their personnel power and connections in their riding.

An exemple for 2006 and 2008, would be André Arthur (a popular libertarian radio host in Quebec City), who had won his seat with 39% (in 2006) and 33% (in 2008).

Another exemple, will be in 2008, where Bill Casey (as a long-serving former conservative MP turned independant) had won his seat with more than 69%.

I personaly don't know very much about the situation in the British system, but one case where that I think this situation was possible is that when some third parties (Liberals in the 60's and 70's, SNP and Plaid in the 80's) are very low, and their only representation in seats comes from MP which are well known and connected in their riding.

[EGaffney 17]

There is a philosophical point here - we already model the sum of all factors by choosing the initial numbers in ridings_data, right? Stars themselves give the candidate not a once-off boost for incumbency, but an accumulating small bonus every day, comprising the extra bonuses that star power gives a candidate, like more foot soldiers. So is it right to include the effect of incumbency twice?

That is why I would only use it in the situations described above, including when the correct numbers cause incorrect results (e.g. due to a strong third party always outperforming their result against a popular incumbent). What's more, I would only use it as a "personality bonus" in scenarios set in the future.

[RI Democrat 15]

One other possible use of stars might be for candidates who are in a "pocket" of their region with a very different partisan/ideological tilt than what's reflected in the regional centers. For example, in the U.S., Alabama is generally a pretty conservative state, but the 7th Congressional District is safely Democratic, and it wouldn't be realistic for a Democrat to lose that seat because of a statewide attack ad against liberal policy positions.

[EGaffney 17]

Good spot.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

One other possible use of stars might be for candidates who are in a "pocket" of their region with a very different partisan/ideological tilt than what's reflected in the regional centers. For example, in the U.S., Alabama is generally a pretty conservative state, but the 7th Congressional District is safely Democratic, and it wouldn't be realistic for a Democrat to lose that seat because of a statewide attack ad against liberal policy positions.

Well you can also give them ridiculous margin or put the challenger at a 1 star rating. But yes, I will keep everyone's advice in mind when I scrutinize the current scenarios I'm working on.

[TeenTory 3]

How's the scenario coming along GOP Progressive? Do ya need any more input at all?

Well you can also give them ridiculous margin or put the challenger at a 1 star rating. But yes, I will keep everyone's advice in mind when I scrutinize the current scenarios I'm working on.

[gopprogressive 1,063]

I'll jump to it now that I've wrapped up UK 1992...and 2005 is almost done (just need to do endorsers).