• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #45 - Elections

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome once again to a Victoria 3 Development Diary! Today’s topic is elections. We’ll be covering the various laws that enable and affect voting, as well as the progression of Election Campaigns and how they affect political power in your country. We'll briefly be mentioning Political Parties in this dev diary, but they’re not the focus of this week - more on that next time! For now, I’ll just say that Political Parties in Victoria 3 exist in democracies and are made up of alliances of Interest Groups.

A country has Elections if it has any of the Distribution of Power laws that enable voting:
  • Landed Voting: Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Officers hold essentially all voting power, gaining a huge bonus to the Political Strength they contribute to their Interest Groups.
  • Wealth Voting: There is a Wealth Threshold that determines a pop’s eligibility to vote. Pops that can vote have more Political Strength.
  • Census Suffrage: The Wealth Threshold is significantly lower than in Wealth Voting. Literate pops contribute much more Political Strength to their Interest Groups.
  • Universal Suffrage: There is no Wealth Threshold for voting. Pop type and literacy do not grant additional Political Strength. Though of course a pop’s wealth will continue to contribute to their Political Strength, and Literacy will make pops more politically engaged.

Under the Wealth Voting Law, political power is held by the pops (and their Interest Groups) who can accumulate the most wealth, and largely denied entirely to the destitute. This naturally favors Aristocrats and the Landowners in more agricultural economies, while favoring Capitalists and the Industrialists in more industrialized economies.
votinglaws.png

All of these laws are compatible with any of the Governance Principles laws. A country with the Monarchy law for instance could be an absolute monarchy with no voting system at all, or it could have Universal Suffrage - likewise a Republic might very well be a presidential dictatorship. If you are so inclined, you could even create a Council Republic or Theocracy that uses Wealth Voting (though it would be bound to create some political conflict, to put it lightly).

There are three factors that, when applicable, will prevent pops from voting entirely:
  1. Discrimination. Discriminated pops cannot vote in Elections.
  2. Living in an Unincorporated State. Only pops living in Incorporated States can participate in Elections. Pops living in, for example, a growing colony cannot vote.
  3. Politically Inactive pops do not vote, regardless of whether they are “legally” eligible. These pops are not part of any Interest Group, and tend to have low Literacy and/or Standard of Living. Peasants working in Subsistence Farms, for instance, are almost always Politically Inactive.

In 1913, suffragette Emily Davison was killed by the king’s horse during a race. A passionate believer in her cause, she had been arrested repeatedly by the British government and force-fed while on hunger strikes.
suffrage.png

This is a good opportunity to talk about the women’s suffrage movement. In Victoria 3, passing the Women’s Suffrage Law will greatly increase both your Workforce Ratio and your Dependent Enfranchisement. This means that a greater proportion of pops will be eligible to work in Buildings, and a much greater proportion of Dependents will now count towards the voting power of their pop. There will be very little support among Interest Groups to pass this Law in 1836 however. After researching Feminism (or having the technology spread to your country), politicians will begin to appear with the Feminist ideology, which causes them to strongly approve of Women’s Suffrage and disapprove of less egalitarian laws. Once you research Political Agitation, the suffrage movement will begin in full force. The ‘Votes for Women’ Journal Entry will appear, and events will trigger from it that will give you the opportunity to grow or suppress the Political Movement. You can complete the Journal Entry by passing the Law and having your first Election Campaign with women eligible to vote; alternatively you can ignore or suppress the movement until it loses its momentum and withers away.

Why, you ask, would you want to suppress the suffrage movement? If you’re striving for an egalitarian society you certainly wouldn’t. But if instead you’re trying to preserve the aristocracy and maintain a conservative nation then not only will your ruling Interest Groups strongly disapprove of Women’s Suffrage but it will also be very harmful to their political power. Greater Dependent Enfranchisement inherently benefits larger pops more than smaller pops (especially under more egalitarian Laws like Universal Suffrage where wealth counts for less), and it is inevitable that there are vastly more Laborers, Machinists, and Farmers than there ever will be Aristocrats or Capitalists. Pops may begin to wonder why the Lower Strata, the largest class, does not simply eat the other two.

The Whigs took a catastrophic hit in the polls after I repeatedly fired a negative election event to test the system.
electioncampaign.png

Elections happen every 4 years in countries with voting laws. An Election Campaign begins 6 months prior to a country’s Election date. Each Political Party is assigned a Momentum value at the beginning of the Campaign, which is a measure of the success of their campaign and is a major factor in determining how many Votes they will garner on election day. During this campaign, Momentum will fluctuate for each of the running Political Parties and impact the final result. Since Parties, Leaders, and many other aspects of the political scene in your country are likely to have changed in the years since the previous election, the Momentum from previous elections does not carry over and is reset. Momentum can be affected by chance, events, and the Popularity of Interest Group Leaders.

The Tories’ success in the last election empowered the Landed Gentry, though the sheer wealth of their aristocratic supporters is still the largest contributor to their Political Strength under Great Britain’s Wealth Voting law.
electionvotespower.png

When the Election Campaign ends, the votes are in and the results are set in place until the next election. Interest Groups receive additional Political Strength from their party’s Votes, which will be a major factor determining your Legitimacy and therefore the effectiveness of your government. The actual makeup of your government is still up to you; just like the electoral systems of most modern countries, winning the popular vote does not automatically mean that a certain party or coalition of parties gets to form a government. But the post-election strength of your Interest Groups and their Party affiliations should be a major consideration, especially if you’re forming a minority government.

In Victoria 3, Elections can be a powerful force for political change but also a source of volatility. Dealing with (and if you’re so inclined, manipulating) Election results will be a major consideration when you form your governments. In this dev diary I’ve mentioned Political Parties, and we know you’re eager to hear more about them since the last time we communicated on the topic. You’ll be pleased to discover that in next week’s dev diary we’ll be covering our design for Political Parties in more detail, so watch this space!
 
  • 187Like
  • 48Love
  • 18
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
The point is that lobbying and gerrymandering and whatnot exist only in the imagination of the player. If they were actual game mechanics it would be fine, but it's all abstracted into clout and legitimacy, then abstracted again into "player does what he wants".

Again, there's nothing wrong with abstraction as long as it is clear what is being abstracted and the abstraction serves a purpose. The clout abstracts all the way power can function in society, and the reason for the abstraction is because it is nigh impossible to accurately model it all individually.

The reason why I sometimes move to try and contextualise (what you call "fanfiction") how this would manifest on the ground is that seem people appear to have trouble understanding what exactly the system is getting at, and an example might make it clearer. What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that since EU4, Hoi4 or Vicky 3 do not simulate every individual soldier, it means it cannot possibly have war beyond player imagination!

The second point is just made up. The player doesn't do what he wants, the player is heavily restricted in what he can and cannot do depending on the power of the Interest groups in the country.
 
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
Italian elite theory is not a fan fiction, you know what could be called a fan fiction in some way? An incredibly hyperbolic example about a party that gains 1% being put into power, alone, without any support by interest groups or other parties, and still being able to do anything in power or not cause a reaction. This is clearly not what the devs will allow.

I can understand the necessity of arguments from hyperbole and I agree that there needs to be some sort of minimum (maybe 25/30%), but these are ridiculous responses to a model that demonstrates reality.

I'd wager that half the people here laughing at the idea of interest groups as some "spooky shadowy conspiracy" are complaining on a daily basis about "money in politics" or "lobbyists". Fundamentally that is what the system models.

Best way to stress test a system is with ludicrous edge cases. People specifically asked in this thread if the player could install any government they wanted and there was no answer. I'm just asking the question here, I assume the answer is as you say, that there is some sort of minimum but it is also quite possible for developers to overlook the stupid idea of putting a 1% party into power because it is so stupid. Wouldn't be the craziest design flaw to ever make it into a published game.

Again, to stress the point so perhaps it is understood: I have NO PROBLEM with minority governments. It is historical and happens today too. But there is a line somewhere, as seemingly everyone who has posted in opposition to me has admitted. Where is that line? What is the rationale for it? Is it a sliding scale of trouble as opposed to a go/no go switch? We do not have answers for these questions right now.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Best way to stress test a system is with ludicrous edge cases. People specifically asked in this thread if the player could install any government they wanted and there was no answer. I'm just asking the question here, I assume the answer is as you say, that there is some sort of minimum but it is also quite possible for developers to overlook the stupid idea of putting a 1% party into power because it is so stupid. Wouldn't be the craziest design flaw to ever make it into a published game.

Again, to stress the point so perhaps it is understood: I have NO PROBLEM with minority governments. It is historical and happens today too. But there is a line somewhere, as seemingly everyone who has posted in opposition to me has admitted. Where is that line? What is the rationale for it? Is it a sliding scale of trouble as opposed to a go/no go switch? We do not have answers for these questions right now.
Understandable, my intention was not to ridicule you. As I said, I agree that there should be a limit of some kind, the way I think it will work is that the discontentment, lack of legitimacy, and strong opposition would make you unable to do anything with the party functionally, but we can only guess until an answer is provided.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Best way to stress test a system is with ludicrous edge cases. People specifically asked in this thread if the player could install any government they wanted and there was no answer. I'm just asking the question here, I assume the answer is as you say, that there is some sort of minimum but it is also quite possible for developers to overlook the stupid idea of putting a 1% party into power because it is so stupid. Wouldn't be the craziest design flaw to ever make it into a published game.

Again, to stress the point so perhaps it is understood: I have NO PROBLEM with minority governments. It is historical and happens today too. But there is a line somewhere, as seemingly everyone who has posted in opposition to me has admitted. Where is that line? What is the rationale for it? Is it a sliding scale of trouble as opposed to a go/no go switch? We do not have answers for these questions right now.

I would consider that if you installed a government with such low legitimacy, the other IGs would instantly start movements to change laws, and if you reject them they radicalise (in addition to presumably growing discontent from the lack of legitimacy). On the other hand, if you give them concessions to maintain your government, then you are literally doing their bidding, so why not just put them in the government anyway?

I suppose what I am saying is that there is no need to stop an edge case that neither the player nor the AI has any interest in doing. It is once again like the example of a Hoi4 country dissolving its entire military and letting its enemies roll over them, there is no need to have a system preventing that because it's an automatic loss. I support having minimal clout for the government (perhaps depending on the distribution of power law, in a monarchy, it could be unlimited or something low like 5%, while in a fully-fledged democracy it would range 15-20%).
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I would consider that if you installed a government with such low legitimacy, the other IGs would instantly start movements to change laws, and if you reject them they radicalise (in addition to presumably growing discontent from the lack of legitimacy). On the other hand, if you give them concessions to maintain your government, then you are literally doing their bidding, so why not just put them in the government anyway?

I suppose what I am saying is that there is no need to stop an edge case that neither the player nor the AI has any interest in doing. It is once again like the example of a Hoi4 country dissolving its entire military and letting its enemies roll over them, there is no need to have a system preventing that because it's an automatic loss. I support having minimal clout for the government (perhaps depending on the distribution of power law, in a monarchy, it could be unlimited or something low like 5%, while in a fully-fledged democracy it would range 15-20%).
I think the issue with this is that it leaves the game wide-open for players to cheese the situation to force radical changes to the country that they could not get otherwise. Similar rationale to why PDS seems to be leaning towards game-over if you lose a revolution rather than a simple tag switch.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the issue with this is that it leaves the game wide-open for players to cheese the situation to force radical changes to the country that they could not get otherwise. Similar rationale to why PDS seems to be leaning towards game-over if you lose a revolution rather than a simple tag switch.

I suppose? I mean, if the interest groups which overthrow you are powerful enough to overthrow you, you could have just forced their changes through legal means without destroying half your country. So again, I feel there is no circumstance in which a player would want to force through an illegitimate government, just like there is no circumstance for the player to demolish all their buildings.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I suppose? I mean, if the interest groups which overthrow you are powerful enough to overthrow you, you could have just forced their changes through legal means without destroying half your country. So again, I feel there is no circumstance in which a player would want to force through an illegitimate government, just like there is no circumstance for the player to demolish all their buildings.
Again, to use a modern example, it's like the people who prefer things to get a lot worse so we get some sort of revolution which brings drastic changes immediately rather than taking years to force them through the system.

Those interest groups actually become more powerful by installing an illegitimate government because of the anger of the people, who thus become more radicalized which allows you to make changes that would not have been possible had you simply put the more popular people in charge at the start. Deliberately making things worse to allow you to make the changes you want is, I believe, a time-honored playing tradition from Vicky II.

I don't play this way, but some people do and I know from past experience that Paradox gets pretty concerned about MP cheesing.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Those interest groups actually become more powerful by installing an illegitimate government because of the anger of the people, who thus become more radicalized which allows you to make changes that would not have been possible had you simply put the more popular people in charge at the start. Deliberately making things worse to allow you to make the changes you want is, I believe, a time-honored playing tradition from Vicky II.

I don't play this way, but some people do and I know from past experience that Paradox gets pretty concerned about MP cheesing.

Do they? It makes the existing IGs more radical, but it doesn't give them the ability to implement more changes than they otherwise could.

That being said. After reading the Party dev diary I share your concern since the system isn't clear right now about what being in government even means.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do they? It makes the existing IGs more radical, but it doesn't give them the ability to implement more changes than they otherwise could.

That being said. After reading the Party dev diary I share your concern since the system isn't clear right now about what being in government even means.
It's basically the difference between winning with, say, 50% support and 60% support. The player decides that the 50% support isn't good enough to do everything they want, so they deliberately choose the illegitimate option which means the IGs they really wanted get to come into power with 60% support instead--later of course and with damage done to the country in the short-term. Obviously rough figures being used here, but if I am sure of one thing it is that players will experiment with this idea if it is possible on release. People always find the weird edge cases that allow you to cheese the game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It's basically the difference between winning with, say, 50% support and 60% support. The player decides that the 50% support isn't good enough to do everything they want, so they deliberately choose the illegitimate option which means the IGs they really wanted get to come into power with 60% support instead--later of course and with damage done to the country in the short-term. Obviously rough figures being used here, but if I am sure of one thing it is that players will experiment with this idea if it is possible on release. People always find the weird edge cases that allow you to cheese the game.

Again, if the opposition has 50% clout and they overthrow you, they still have 50% clout and now half the country is in ruins.
 
Again, if the opposition has 50% clout and they overthrow you, they still have 50% clout and now half the country is in ruins.
I think their clout would have increased actually. Pops who formerly supported the illegitimate party and its IGs shift due to both the illegitimate government and the terrible state of the country. And of course they shift away from the IGs the player put in power and towards the IGs the player wants to boost. Unless of course the game puts 0 weight on the current state of the country when it comes to elections, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned off-hand in one of these diaries that part of the election decision is based on the Pop's current state. If that's wrong than we have bigger problems than this discussion going on.

None of this happens instantly of course, it takes an election cycle, but I think you'll find that if all of this is possible, a clever player can potentially cut years off of a political goal. Actively tanking your country to shortcut your way to reforms was very much a prime Vicky II strategy. Again not one I used, but it was there.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
A country has Elections if it has any of the Distribution of Power laws that enable voting:
  • Landed Voting: Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Officers hold essentially all voting power, gaining a huge bonus to the Political Strength they contribute to their Interest Groups.
  • Wealth Voting: There is a Wealth Threshold that determines a pop’s eligibility to vote. Pops that can vote have more Political Strength.
  • Census Suffrage: The Wealth Threshold is significantly lower than in Wealth Voting. Literate pops contribute much more Political Strength to their Interest Groups.
  • Universal Suffrage: There is no Wealth Threshold for voting. Pop type and literacy do not grant additional Political Strength. Though of course a pop’s wealth will continue to contribute to their Political Strength, and Literacy will make pops more politically engaged.
I think, there should be an additional voting law Proletarian Voting, which would disallow Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Shopkeepers from voting, and greatly reduce their Political Strengh. This will represent countries like early USSR, and should be a law that Communists would want to enact
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: