PMI, PI, and CI Full Scenarios

[Patine 444]

@willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders  @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero @Lyly @President Trenton Adams @FrancisXKennedy @MBDemSoc @Ido@Thunder@Wiw@Harris/Ernst 2020@jnewt@Ishan@manlex @LokiLoki22 @IonicAmalgam @jdm06ltd @Berg2036 @MBDemSoc @POLITICALBOMB @thr33 @Hestia11 @NYConservative

Another big project I have in mind, though one I'll likely just pick at, and don't even remotely expect to get them all done, is PMI, PI, and CI "Full" scenarios.  Basically, PMI "Full" means Canadian Federal elections from 1867 to the present day, all Canadian Provincial elections from Provincehood to the present day (or from the mid-1850's to the present day for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island), the Province of Canada from 1840-1867, Newfoundland from 1855-1932, the North-West Territories from 1898-1902, the Yukon from 1978 to present, the Kingdom of England 1640-1707, Kingdom of Great Britain 1707-1801, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801-1922, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1922 to present, India 1951 to present, Pakistan 1970 to present, New Zealand 1855-1993 (the last election before New Zealand adopted MMP), South Africa 1910-1989, Southern Rhodesia 1924-1962 and 1980, Rhodesia 1965-1977, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia 1979, Zimbabwe 1980 to present, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland 1953-1962, West Indies Federation 1958, and maybe a few other Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nations and dependencies with some form on the FPTP Westminster system; and for PI "Full" (and I've already asked @vcczar for permission expanding his historical PI scenarios, at least from 1872 onward); and CI "Full" would have every U.S. House of Representatives election from 1789 to present and every U.S. Senate election from 1914 to present - the thing here is, that, in each one I ended up doing (in no particular order or pattern), EVERY SINGLE party and Independent that historically ran in that election, not just the main parties and other notable vote-getters and potential spoilers, would be represented, and the issues for each (if built upon an existing scenario - not all, or even most, of these elections, even have one) would quite possible be expanded and tweaked, as would some events, endorsers, surrogates, etc.

[vcczar 1,224]

13 hours ago, Patine said:

@willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders  @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero @Lyly @President Trenton Adams @FrancisXKennedy @MBDemSoc @Ido@Thunder@Wiw@Harris/Ernst 2020@jnewt@Ishan@manlex @LokiLoki22 @IonicAmalgam @jdm06ltd @Berg2036 @MBDemSoc @POLITICALBOMB @thr33 @Hestia11 @NYConservative

Another big project I have in mind, though one I'll likely just pick at, and don't even remotely expect to get them all done, is PMI, PI, and CI "Full" scenarios.  Basically, PMI "Full" means Canadian Federal elections from 1867 to the present day, all Canadian Provincial elections from Provincehood to the present day (or from the mid-1850's to the present day for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island), the Province of Canada from 1840-1867, Newfoundland from 1855-1932, the North-West Territories from 1898-1902, the Yukon from 1978 to present, the Kingdom of England 1640-1707, Kingdom of Great Britain 1707-1801, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801-1922, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1922 to present, India 1951 to present, Pakistan 1970 to present, New Zealand 1855-1993 (the last election before New Zealand adopted MMP), South Africa 1910-1989, Southern Rhodesia 1924-1962 and 1980, Rhodesia 1965-1977, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia 1979, Zimbabwe 1980 to present, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland 1953-1962, West Indies Federation 1958, and maybe a few other Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nations and dependencies with some form on the FPTP Westminster system; and for PI "Full" (and I've already asked @vcczar for permission expanding his historical PI scenarios, at least from 1872 onward); and CI "Full" would have every U.S. House of Representatives election from 1789 to present and every U.S. Senate election from 1914 to present - the thing here is, that, in each one I ended up doing (in no particular order or pattern), EVERY SINGLE party and Independent that historically ran in that election, not just the main parties and other notable vote-getters and potential spoilers, would be represented, and the issues for each (if built upon an existing scenario - not all, or even most, of these elections, even have one) would quite possible be expanded and tweaked, as would some events, endorsers, surrogates, etc.

I have a massive book on the Senate and House elections from 1788-2004. However, it doesn't include the primaries. 

[Ido 0]

please do Canada, at least from 1982, i personally want to focus on making PI scenarios, since those are less tedious to make

[Patine 444]

35 minutes ago, Ido said:

please do Canada, at least from 1982, i personally want to focus on making PI scenarios, since those are less tedious to make

Oh, Canada, and it's Provinces, are definitely on this list (along with all the rest I listed), although historical scenarios (most of which will be pre-1982) tend to be the most interesting in Canada, with only a few major exceptions (like the infamous 1993 Federal election or the 2015 Alberta election, for instance).

[Ido 0]

yeah i just want Canada to be "complete" like the US now,

[Patine 444]

1 minute ago, Ido said:

yeah i just want Canada to be "complete" like the US now,

The U.S. elections aren't "complete" in the way I had mentioned (please read an important detail or two about my "full" versions in the opening post), and only the most recent House of Representatives and Senate elections have been seriously even given any versions at all (I can't remember how far back @TheLiberalKitten had gotten - 1990, I think, and I think someone else jumped back to a House or Senate election in 1960). Also, if you compare that I plan on taking Provincial elections in Canada into serious consideration - and the massive amount, comparatively, of U.S. State Gubernatorial and Legislative Elections - do not be so quick to declare the U.S. elections complete. There's more to an electoral system than electing one person to a national apex executive office for a four-year term.

[Wiw 91]

Wouldn't having a whole bunch of parties and candidates slow the game down massively? I mean, we're talking, for example, nearly 70 different parties for the '17 UK election alone.

[Patine 444]

38 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Wouldn't having a whole bunch of parties and candidates slow the game down massively? I mean, we're talking, for example, nearly 70 different parties for the '17 UK election alone.

You can drive a Ford or a Toyota. They both fulfill the basic functions of an automobile, but tend to attract different drivers.

[Wiw 91]

Well, sure, I guess, but...

[MBDemSoc 7]

I don't mind doing "Full" versions of the elections I was going to do I was just worried about the amount of time it was going to take to create them all unless you want to work together?

[Patine 444]

11 hours ago, MBDemSoc said:

I don't mind doing "Full" versions of the elections I was going to do I was just worried about the amount of time it was going to take to create them all unless you want to work together?

I know you are, relatively speaking, a newer active poster, but you mean to have latched onto the concept, which is not actually a real thing here, that there is a "first call" system on this forum, where a poster declares an intention to do a scenario for a particular election or elections, and then has "propriety"' to any sort of scenario, in any way, with any approach or viewpoint, to that election in scenario form, and anyone else who wishes to try the election as a scenario, in any way, shape, or form, even with a very different take on it in terms of parties, candidates, issues, events, endorsers, surrogates, etc., that is different and distinct from the one "calling," that the "permission" of the "caller" is required, and, if denied and such a scenario done anyways, should be treated like a patent violators and driven off the forums. Several recent posts you've made imply you have this point of view, or at least seem to, and I'm informing you, as someone whose been on these forums since 2007, this has NEVER been a convention or rule here. 

[MBDemSoc 7]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

I know you are, relatively speaking, a newer active poster, but you mean to have latched onto the concept, which is not actually a real thing here, that there is a "first call" system on this forum, where a poster declares an intention to do a scenario for a particular election or elections, and then has "propriety"' to any sort of scenario, in any way, with any approach or viewpoint, to that election in scenario form, and anyone else who wishes to try the election as a scenario, in any way, shape, or form, even with a very different take on it in terms of parties, candidates, issues, events, endorsers, surrogates, etc., that is different and distinct from the one "calling," that the "permission" of the "caller" is required, and, if denied and such a scenario done anyways, should be treated like a patent violators and driven off the forums. Several recent posts you've made imply you have this point of view, or at least seem to, and I'm informing you, as someone whose been on these forums since 2007, this has NEVER been a convention or rule here. 

Er that's not what I was trying to get across at all I was just genuinely asking whether you wanted to work together to create "full" scenarios to reduce the time it would take to create the full scenarios if they were done by one of us on our own.

[Patine 444]

15 minutes ago, MBDemSoc said:

Er that's not what I was trying to get across at all I was just genuinely asking whether you wanted to work together to create "full" scenarios to reduce the time it would take to create the full scenarios if they were done by one of us on our own.

I apologize for jumping to a false conclusion, but several of your posts very much SEEMED to imply that. I didn't mean to make a false assertation, but that's just how it came across.

[MBDemSoc 7]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I apologize for jumping to a false conclusion, but several of your posts very much SEEMED to imply that. I didn't mean to make a false assertation, but that's just how it came across.

No, no I would never do that, I am sorry if I used words which could be misconstrued believe me I know how things can be misread by people if they are going off just text on a screen as I made that mistake yesterday.

[jdm06ltd 0]

I can help with some modern Day PA and Texas races. More as a Consultant than anything. 

[bosco 0]

dead post?