Jump to content
270soft Forum

Feature You'd Most Like to See


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've got a handful...

- DEBATES!

- Multiple balloting systems within the same package. (Right now, if you want IRV, you need the Australian one, if you want Ridings, you want the Canadian one, etc. If they could umbrella these, it would make it much easier.)

- More than 4 parties

- More than 4 colours

- Voter Turnout as a factor... If more Democrats than Republicans get to the polls, etc.

- Along with voter turnout, Get Out The Vote operations

- Block Voting... National groups that are influenced as a group, but distributed among several regions in varying levels ("The Black Vote", "The Gay Vote", "The Chartered Public Accountant Vote", etc.) and almost always vote with their block regardless of what region they're in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a thought, could you play by email if you saved a game then sent it to the next person?

By the way, you can play FPTP ridings on the Australian version. You just toggle something in the Scenario file.

Ability to switch between different electoral systems:

-Electoral vote

-Popular vote

-IRV popular vote

-IRV single-member electorates

-FPTP single-member electorates

-MMP proportional representation

-Multi-member electorates

Ability to switch titles for some things:

-President/PM/Premier/Governor/Senator/etc

-State/Province/Region/District/Country/etc

Ability to see both primary and 2PP votes in an IRV election at the end.

There's many different types of PR, but these two are the main ones (MMP and multi-member). The first is used in Germany and NZ, the second in Tasmania, ACT, Australian Senate, Ireland, and now being adopted in BC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory about the colour thing, based on something I picked up from the game Civ II. I'll play around and see if I'm successful in making a purple.

my list:

give us the background graphic for the map and logos

allow 8 parties to run. This should cover all the basics. in the UK you'd get the 3 big's, the 3 regionals, the UUP, and the UKIP.

allow for different electoral systems. keep it simple. FPTP and AV (Australian), but give us MMP-PR as well (a combo of either FPTP or AV, and proportional representaiton. can be explained if needed. real simple)

allow multiple races. each race gets 6 CP's, end of story :) keep a single candidate though, making you really have to think about where to go. Allow some province/states to elect no one, so you can simulate US senate elections.

carrer mode. my thoughts on how to do this:

start with an election. If your the winning party, you make the decision when to call the next one. if not, the computer does based on some crummy algorythem. in short, what happens is that you get a message saying you are in government. there are 4 "turns" in a year. spring, summer, fall, winter. Each season, the poll numbers in every province change. the government is smart to call the election while they are strong. each party makes a decision on what 3 issues to campaign on during the season. the profile is hidden. there will be some randomness that will come into play in determining the poll movements. as well as your issues. for an opposition party, there's a 1 in 32 chance that you will get a new leader. you'll be given the choice between 2 or 3 randomly made candidates. for governments, its a 1 in 64 chance. every once in a while there should be a "crisis" and the government will have a few options on how to deal with it. when the election is called, or after 5 years (or in the US system, every 2 years) new elections begin, and you get to campaign again. your money will depend on how much you had left last time, as well as your party's position in the polls. governments, and official oppositions should get the average, what is it, 10 million? 3rd parties should get money based on some kind of formula. With each progressive election, parties become 1 more established. For parties that dont run in each province, they should be given the option to expand into various provines in exchange for money. the reverse should be true. For parties less then 5 established, they should only be able to field candidates in a %age of ridings in provinces they have below a certain polling number in. The names of the candidates in ridings, as well as strength should be randomly made.

there!

thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to have a list of electoral systems you could use, we should have:

-Popular vote (AV or FPTP) - for simulating direct elections. Most directly-elected offices use one of these systems. Shouldn't be hard to do.

-Electoral vote - already done.

-AV - the Australian model. Already done.

-FPTP seats - the Canadian/British model. Already done.

-MMP - German/NZ model. Shouldn't be that hard. Have ridings, and then you can use the final percentages to calculate the other seats. You'd need to expand the parties.

-Modified STV - Not actual STV, that's too damn complicated. But if you just had it as a sort of party list system with preferences, it could work. This would involve having multi-member electorates, like in Ireland, Tasmania, Aus. Senate.

-Party list - Just keep it simple. Set number of seats, split them up between the parties. It would be much like the popular vote system.

On the party system, as well as maybe 8 parties, you should be able to have up to 2 independents per seat. These people can be very important in elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Coalition negotiations. This would be simple: If no majority happens, you go into negotiations to work out a majority. If parties' ratings are high (say, 85+ or 90+), they don't need much in the way of concessions to work together(possibly nothing, as in the case of the Liberal-National coalition). But if the highest ratings are in the 60s or 70s (or even lower), you've got to offer concessions on the platform level (or a number of ministers in the gov't) in order to get a majority. Offering too many concessions hurts your score, but getting a majority coalition raises it (representing the reduced chance of a forced election occurring). I know this is an oddity, but in some of those other systems (party list, for example, or possibly MMP or STV), coalition-building would be a necessity.

I like the career mode idea...two adjustments I'd make are:

1) As an opposition party, you could try and bring down a government if it's a minority gov't. Of course, bringing down the government could make your popularity rise...or drop(;-)) in the process.

2) You automatically rise up until you reach a level three of establishment. After that, if you don't win a significant number of seats, you might fade (parties that have formed gov'ts/become Official Opposition would be partially immunized from this; say cut the chance of it in half). Also, if you tumble from power and stay out, you might fall down to level 2 or 1 (essentially what happened to the Socreds in the 80s).

Also, make the number of ridings you can focus on:

A: Variable

and

B: Somewhat independent of the level at which a party is established (instead, perhaps tie it to the number of candidates being run, the amount of money you start with compared to other parties, or totally independent of any in-game factor and set by the scenario designer)

It's just frustrating to have it be 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 in every scenario, that's all. I'd like to be able to adjust it up or down a slight bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I'd love to see some kind of feature that takes into account class warfare and demographics (blacks, gender, 'gray vote'). I know it probably goes against the way the engine is built but it would add a lot to gameplay IMO. You'd probably have to limit the number of groups and the level of detail to keep it playable. Maybe make these 'voter groups' customizable... so if you're doing a campaign in 1950 to 60's Argentina or Chile you'd have the social class dynamics, a campaign simulating modern India would be much more focussed on linguistic and religious factions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I just think it would be a nice touch to have more parties in the game. Although any additional parties would probably be fairly obscure ones. I can understand why some people might not see it as a pressing concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be interesting to have a wider range of choices for each issue:

Far Left

Left

Center-Left

Center

Center-Right

Right

Far Right

Or maybe have more than 18 issues, since there are often many minor issues that can account for a large part of a party's platform, such as the legalization of marijuana.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it would be interesting to have a wider range of choices for each issue:

Far Left

Left

Center-Left

Center

Center-Right

Right

Far Right

Or maybe have more than 18 issues, since there are often many minor issues that can account for a large part of a party's platform, such as the legalization of marijuana.

Good points Sask about issues.

I think it would be great if there was an option to have less issues. So you could say in the scenario info file how many you wanted. For small elections and specific election 18 issues is too many and you either add in non-issues that are unrealistic or repeat the same issue twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace regions in British version with counties

Regions are pretty meaningless - even irrelevent - outside European elections (and who cares about them?) they are never used electorally, nor are they ever used in the popular press. They can be huge - the populatoion of the South East (a ludicrus creation that goes from Oxford to Dover) is over 10 million, they offer no subtlty (lumping all of Scotland and all of Wales together) and finally most people in the England at least would probably not even know which region they lived in!

The realistic option of having all 646 contituencies as separate entities, but I guess that may be beyond what the game can do, so how about a middle way - counties?

UK-wide there are only about 70 or so (and PM4E's limit is about 100?) and they are meaningful units, well understood by the public, and with strong support. Some are also rural where rural matters (say fox hunting) counts, some are more urban. What plays well in Cumbria will not play well in Merseyside - but as both are the North West that is difficult to simulate with regions.

Counties (in England at last) also tend to have similar populations - generally a million or so.

And finally it would allow potential similations of county elections - again regions are useless as (Scotland and Wales aside) there are no regional governments or elections.

If P4E can work with 50 states, why can't PM4E (UK) work with 70-odd counties?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The realistic option of having all 646 contituencies as separate entities, but I guess that may be beyond what the game can do, so how about a middle way - counties?

Not to mention a major head-fsck..

I think you have something there but Counties is just way too much. Most people wouldn't be able to keep track, very few English people and hardly any non-Brits. I think Counties should be lumped together. Three or Four constituencies that are similar make one 'Region'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention a major head-fsck..

I think you have something there but Counties is just way too much. Most people wouldn't be able to keep track, very few English people and hardly any non-Brits. I think Counties should be lumped together. Three or Four constituencies that are similar make one 'Region'.

Here would be my suggestions... just for England. It's pretty rough but it gives you an idea.:

new-regions.jpg

So you have Cornwall and Devon separate from SouthWest England proper. The 'South' is split into the actual SouthEast (Kent, Sussex, Surrey), South Central (needs to be expanded (Berkshire, Hampshire, maybe a bit off SouthWest). Essex is split off from East Anglia which it has little to do with. It should be smaller than on the map because London isn't taken into account. You have a smaller actual East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk and Peterborough). You have a Central England area (from Huntingdon to Oxfordshire).

You have West and East 'Midlands'. You have a Liverpool-Lancashire limited NorthWest region, Yorkshire and I lumped the remaining NorthWest (Lake District) and NorthEast together.

It's not perfect but this was done in a couple of minutes. One change I'd now make is a Central England based around the Cotswolds, taking a bit off the SouthWest but separate from the Midlands. Not going up to Stoke-on-Trent and stopping short of Bristol. No border with Wales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of deciding how many issues you have, and how many issue positions. I guess in some circumstances 7 (Far Left to Far Right) would be needed while on others 5 (Left to Right) would do.

Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...