Jump to content
270soft Forum

Feature You'd Most Like to See


MattyN
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only reason I favor FPTP Popular Vote being the highest priority is that I can make a New Zealand or Australia election scenario now while not being entirely realistically, theres nothing that ruins the whole experience. If I made a Brexit Referendum scenario, I have no popular vote option for the scenario and therefore, the whole scenario is ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lok1999 said:

In the PMI series of games, I would like to be able to place more than one independent in a district, rather than having one party for each independent member running.

The problem with that is that Independents are not a 'party' together within a given election, and they do not share or pool funding, organization, or resources, or share a platform (a big issue when MMP is finally instituted, as that caused big skewing of results in my West Germany 1949 scenario by K4E where Independents won a large number of seat on party list when they shouldn't be eligible at all to win those seats, only basic constituency seats). Each Independent is, effectively, their own one-candidate party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lok1999 said:

In the PMI series of games, I would like to be able to place more than one independent in a district, rather than having one party for each independent member running.

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, CalebsParadox said:

I agree fullheartedly. These debates shouldn't be cookie cutter either. Every choice should be 'right' in a way, with perhaps one of those textboxes when you float over the option that says something like this on choosing a pro environmental policy decision in a debate
+++Environmentalists 
++Conservationalists
+Liberals
--Free Traders
--Wealthy
-Conservatives

This way, we can pander towards certain voting blocs, but it will cost us. Perhaps if you were consistently pro fossil fuels, this same decision would be less effective, something like this: 
++Environmentalists 
+Conservationalists
---Free Traders
---Wealthy
--Conservatives

This way, it's more costly to flip flop, but it can still pay off at times. Thoughts @LokiLoki22?

Absolutely agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

In many of my older PM4E scenarios for UK, Canadian, and Canadian provincial elections, what I often did was have several 'Independent' by loose leaning (especially given the cap on parties in one scenario in that old engine). For instance, I often had 'pure' Independents (the 'letter I' icon often used for Independents in TheorySpark games with the 'I' coloured in gray), Independent-Conservative (the 'I' coloured in light-blue, or sometimes aqua), Independent Liberal (the 'I' coloured in light-yellow in UK elections or pink in Canadian ones), Independent-Labour (in the UK or in Canada prior to the formation of the CCF - the 'I' coloured in pink in UK elections or light-yellow in Canadian ones), and Independent-Irish Nationalist (in the UK) or Independent-Progressive or Independent-Farmer, or later chronologically, Independent-Social Credit (in Canada) (the ''I' coloured in light-green). Even so, this tactic was usually only used by me for older (pre-1950's or 1960's) elections in the UK, Canada, or Canadian provinces, in any case, because after that one tends to see a sharp increase in the number of actual organized and registered parties in those elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

In Australia, all independent candidates are not allowed to have any links with any party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no Aussie, but I think it works like this(correct me if I'm wrong):

In my county, there was a candidate for one of the minor county seats whom ran as an independent. Yet, this man was a member of the Democratic Party-attended meetings for the Democratic Party- but ran as an Ind. because he knew running with a "D" next to his name in the south is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. 

Now with the way @lok1999 is describing, it sounds like that would be illegal, and would not have happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I am no Aussie, but I think it works like this(correct me if I'm wrong):

In my county, there was a candidate for one of the minor county seats whom ran as an independent. Yet, this man was a member of the Democratic Party-attended meetings for the Democratic Party- but ran as an Ind. because he knew running with a "D" next to his name in the south is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. 

Now with the way @lok1999 is describing, it sounds like that would be illegal, and would not have happen. 

In Canada, we occasionally have a candidate who belongs to a main party (usually the Liberals or Conservatives - I almost never see NDP or BQ in this light) who either is not nominated by their party for that constituency (for whatever reason) or has some other reason not to run for their effective party, and thus, despite being an effective member of that party, usually with a near-identical platform, who will run in a constituency as an 'Independent' - even against the official candidate of their party and, sometimes, even using their party colour (but not name) in their campaign ads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, lok1999 said:

Yes, but the rules are much more strict over here.

So, how are these rules enforced, exactly? If an Independent is elected and proves to vote and have rhetoric too much like a major party, are they legally mandated and strongarmed  to give up Independent status and formally join the party they so resemble, whether they like it or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Variable turnout based on the candidate would be cool, e.g. Bernie Sanders would probably turn out more voters in a general election than Hillary Clinton would in 2016, Barack Obama would turn out more voters in a GE than John Edwards in 2008, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bruce Fischer said:

Variable turnout based on the candidate would be cool, e.g. Bernie Sanders would probably turn out more voters in a general election than Hillary Clinton would in 2016, Barack Obama would turn out more voters in a GE than John Edwards in 2008, etc.

I'm for certain that anthony is working on this as we speak- favorability. Take Donald Trump, he barely won Pennsylvania-not because college educated whites barely voted for him- by winning noncollege educated whites. There were counties in Wisconsin that went 5% for Obama in 2012, that swung hard for Trump going nearly 15% for him. 

The current voting system feels too static and does not accurately reflect the diversity in the voting populace. Hillary came close to winning Georgia because college educated whites were turned off of his anti-free trade stance, and voted with minorities/liberals(whom opposed Trump for different reasons). And take West Virginia, that state was Trump's best state, and would easily benefit from the favoribility mechanic. A state high in noncollege educated whites overwhelmingly backed Trump, and opposed Clinton(in large part cause she opposed expanding coal mining/going green). I bet by the end of this year- assuming there are no other surprise elections- that the 270soft should have favorability released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'm for certain that anthony is working on this as we speak- favorability. Take Donald Trump, he barely won Pennsylvania-not because college educated whites barely voted for him- by winning noncollege educated whites. There were counties in Wisconsin that went 5% for Obama in 2012, that swung hard for Trump going nearly 15% for him. 

The current voting system feels too static and does not accurately reflect the diversity in the voting populace. Hillary came close to winning Georgia because college educated whites were turned off of his anti-free trade stance, and voted with minorities/liberals(whom opposed Trump for different reasons). And take West Virginia, that state was Trump's best state, and would easily benefit from the favoribility mechanic. A state high in noncollege educated whites overwhelmingly backed Trump, and opposed Clinton(in large part cause she opposed expanding coal mining/going green).  And, she stated that she would cause lots of miners to loose their jobs I bet by the end of this year- assuming there are no other surprise elections- that the 270soft should have favorability released. 

Close is probably a little of a stretch.

But, you are right that a favorability mechanic is necessary to be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the following in order

1.making coalitions

2.assigning seats based on proportional representation in nationwide popular vote if someone gets 55% of the vote they get 55% of the seats

3.proportional seating representation in electoral college 

4.incumbency features

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Popular vote so I can do a congressional scenario (I know this is on the way).

2. Ranked-Choice-Voting, which could be done similarly to a 2-round system.

3. Ability to have someone drop out and run as an independent after losing primary.

4. A political spectrum that isn't "left-right", and instead something like the Nolan spectrum, which has the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum as well.  That way libertarians aren't listed as moderates, since we're not.

(Love the game already)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TheFlame8 said:

1. Popular vote so I can do a congressional scenario (I know this is on the way).

2. Ranked-Choice-Voting, which could be done similarly to a 2-round system.

3. Ability to have someone drop out and run as an independent after losing primary.

4. A political spectrum that isn't "left-right", and instead something like the Nolan spectrum, which has the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum as well.  That way libertarians aren't listed as moderates, since we're not.

(Love the game already)

The Nolan spectrum wouldn't be applicable to all scenarios (especially fan-made - then again, neither is the modern view of left-right politics). Maybe some flexibility in the terminology instead of just wholesale changing from spectrum to another across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...