• 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:
I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the idea of "In Government" and forgetting what it actually _means_ for gameplay. Groups in government let the player direct the passing of laws that those groups like, but if you tank your legitimacy so much that passing a law will take forever anyways then this is all for naught. Meanwhile the other way to affect legal change, political movements, is expressly available to IGs _not_ in government, and given that in such a scenario those IGs may hold a lot of clout, then that further hampers the player's ability to pass a law while at the same time causing these IGs to lead towards using radicalism to pass whatever laws they want without player direction.

You may be able to get away with marginal cases; but putting a weak coalition in power and leaving out the real winners isn't those groups taking power, it's those groups obstructing the normal function of government so that _nothing_ gets done. And from a gaemplay standpoint it seems to not be an "I win button", and quite the opposite in fact.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
With that being said, I am curious about how the head of the government character is chosen. That is not really an abstracted system. They supposedly literally represent the president or whoever right? As such it would be weird if they aren't decided by the election directly, depending on the system. Like, in a presidential system such as the US, the president should always be from the most voted party. Even if, for whatever reason, the government is formed from the loosing parties, the president should be the most voted.
There's no reason the head of government couldn't be directly elected*. We've already seen that the leader can have an agenda different from their government or even their own party, such as during the Canada AAR where the PM was pro-women's suffrage even though none of the IGs really cared. Having a government that's actively hostile to the leader's policies is only a slightly greater degree of the same thing. (And is a well-worn cliche in American political thrillers; I don't know if that's a "thing" in fiction based on parliamentary systems.)

* Except for all the political systems for which this wouldn't make sense. I'm not sure how regular elections would or should work in an absolute monarchy, for instance.
 
Meanwhile the other way to affect legal change, political movements, is expressly available to IGs _not_ in government, and given that in such a scenario those IGs may hold a lot of clout, then that further hampers the player's ability to pass a law while at the same time causing these IGs to lead towards using radicalism to pass whatever laws they want without player direction.
I think the player still need to make the decision to pass a law, the movement may allow a law to be passed that wouldn't be allowed otherwise, but it can't pass it without the player direction. Still, if you ignore a powerful movement you start radicalizing your pops and further pissing off your IGs. And considering the situation will already be fraught by you deliberately snubbing a powerful IG, it still not a good place for you to be in.

There's no reason the head of government couldn't be directly elected*. We've already seen that the leader can have an agenda different from their government or even their own party, such as during the Canada AAR where the PM was pro-women's suffrage even though none of the IGs really cared. Having a government that's actively hostile to the leader's policies is only a slightly greater degree of the same thing. (And is a well-worn cliche in American political thrillers; I don't know if that's a "thing" in fiction based on parliamentary systems.)
Oh, yeah, I agree. It should be possible with the system. But we haven't been told anything, so I am curious. But maybe the subject is more closely related to the parties themselves and, thus, will be covered in the next DD.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know if that's a "thing" in fiction based on parliamentary systems.
Political thrillers based on the Westminster system tend to be about intrigue within the parliamentary party; see House of Cards (either the original Michael Dobbs novel or the BBC television adaptation).
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the practical difference in political makeup between landed or wealth voting, and no voting? It feels like wealthy pops would lose some clout and then immediately gain it back by being able to vote. Is there an expected difference in interest group clout?
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the practical difference in political makeup between landed or wealth voting, and no voting? It feels like wealthy pops would lose some clout and then immediately gain it back by being able to vote. Is there an expected difference in interest group clout?

Well, for landed and wealth it depends on the make up of the country. It aristocrats aren't doing too well, they might not vote with wealth voting, for instance. Conversely particularly rich engineers or shopkeepers might be wealthy enough to gain vote power in one law but not the other. Also, without the precise numbers it might be hard to tell, but even on a "base average", I would imagine aristocrats have more voting power than capitalists in landed voting while it is probably the opposite in wealth voting.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not sure I understood how the player actually picks the winner of the election.
Can players literally pick any party as the new ruling party even if they don't have any kind of majority?
If there is one Party with above 70% of the vote, can we pick a different party to rule?

Because if that's true, I would say that you failed at delivering the fantasy of playing as a democratic state. Abstraction is okay - you don't have to simulate every nuance of an election (districts, multiple houses and so on) or have tons of different voting system - but
1. multiple parties are running
2. there is some sort of result (percentages or seats or whatever) and
3. the winner is someone who has some sort of majority
is the base concept that has to be in there, if you want me to feel like I am playing as a democracy.


OR can players pick between every viable coaltion (every combination with about 50% of the vote)?
That would be a bit simplistic, but okay for me as a core concept to build upon in future updates.


My prefered solution would be that you get to pick what coalition you want to rule the country, but the parties each have opinions of the other parties, so that you can only build coalitions with parties who like each other OR who all hate a third party even more and want to keep that one out of power.
Like the vegan and the vegetarian party can always build a coalition, but they will only let the omnivores in, if the bacon party would end up in power otherwise.

(Also all the other stuff sounds great :))
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 4
Reactions:
Not sure I understood how the player actually picks the winner of the election.
Can players literally pick any party as the new ruling party even if they don't have any kind of majority?
If there is one Party with above 70% of the vote, can we pick a different party to rule?
The player can always pick what interest groups have the ear of the government.

If the interest groups you want generally align with the election results, the election is a one-time opportunity to put those groups in power while minimizing the impact on interest groups you're removing.

If the interest groups you want don't align with the results of the election, then the election results will reduce the legitimacy of your new government, making it more difficult to pass the laws you want and generally making people unhappy. (And there may be further consequences based on why the winning party won; if they have the backing of displeased interest groups or a powerful political movement, they will be further empowered by the election results.)

Because if that's true, I would say that you failed at delivering the fantasy of playing as a democratic state.
Obviously I can't speak to your idea of playing a democracy, but "party X got more votes, therefore they set the political agenda now" is, at best, a serious oversimplification of how power actually works in a democratic system.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I really love the mentioning of a minority government.
This sounds as if there will be some sort of government mechanic in the game
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we need to know if there is some sort of definitive bottom line here--most of the examples people are bringing up are reasonable gray areas or just combining different parties to reach a 50% threshold, but what we really need to know is if it is possible to put a party that got 1% of the vote in power, by itself, in a democratic state without causing instantaneous rebellion. Yes that's absurd, but if you want to truly stress test systems you have to start with the absurd. Because you can come up with all the cutesy real world explanations for minority rule in a democratic state, but a party with 1% of the election seizing power is a coup and that country is no longer a democracy. If that is possible in the game and the only repercussion is that your government doesn't work well, then the system needs some work. Yes this is a game, but it is supposed to be realistic. For everyone bringing up the 2016 US election, the actual parallel to worry about is the player deciding to install Jill Stein's Green Party into power (got exactly 1% of the vote) or Gary Johnson's Libertarian Party (3%), by themselves. This is simply not possible without a coup and then you don't exactly have a democracy anymore.

If 1% is not possible, then is it with 2%? 3%? In other words what is the precise line. And here of course we see the dangers inherent in this system because drawing a precise line is pretty difficult (why would 39% be impossible but 40% be OK? etc.). But there has to be some sort of minimum support from interest groups to qualify a particular governing arrangement and perhaps some penalties for the farther away you are from a majority--with some sort of hard line you cannot cross without triggering a coup attempt and response.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we need to know if there is some sort of definitive bottom line here--most of the examples people are bringing up are reasonable gray areas or just combining different parties to reach a 50% threshold, but what we really need to know is if it is possible to put a party that got 1% of the vote in power, by itself, in a democratic state without causing instantaneous rebellion. Yes that's absurd, but if you want to truly stress test systems you have to start with the absurd. Because you can come up with all the cutesy real world explanations for minority rule in a democratic state, but a party with 1% of the election seizing power is a coup and that country is no longer a democracy. If that is possible in the game and the only repercussion is that your government doesn't work well, then the system needs some work. Yes this is a game, but it is supposed to be realistic. For everyone bringing up the 2016 US election, the actual parallel to worry about is the player deciding to install Jill Stein's Green Party into power (got exactly 1% of the vote) or Gary Johnson's Libertarian Party (3%), by themselves. This is simply not possible without a coup and then you don't exactly have a democracy anymore.

If 1% is not possible, then is it with 2%? 3%? In other words what is the precise line. And here of course we see the dangers inherent in this system because drawing a precise line is pretty difficult (why would 39% be impossible but 40% be OK? etc.). But there has to be some sort of minimum support from interest groups to qualify a particular governing arrangement and perhaps some penalties for the farther away you are from a majority--with some sort of hard line you cannot cross without triggering a coup attempt and response.
"you need 30% of the population behind you" is I believe a quote I heard about successful rebellions so 30% < Party Popularity. Also works because in a three-party system if all have equal power all have a shot and the same for two-party systems which I would think is fairly accurate but in a much larger bracket like 7 Parties you'd need coalitions between parties (again only if they are all equally powerful) or there will be a select number that triumph and count as legitimate options to be put into power.
 
Reminded that stuff like gerrymandering, first past the post districts, and even parliamentary negotiations were present (although in a very simplified way) in Vicky 2. Vicky 3 is abstracting them into "lol nothing matters player does everything".
 
  • 9
  • 7
Reactions:
I like the overall framework, but I would seriously urge some sort of DLC down the line (since we already know we'll have these) which could include how many chambers there are in the legislature, the laws governing elections and, in general, the modularity offered by Vic 2. Some sort of parliamentary house graph would also be appreciated, even if it is almost completely cosmetic.

I don't have a clue on how these could be combined in a way that doesn't compromise the integrity of the vision, but I would appreciate if some balance could be struck that included them.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Regarding Discrimination, does the game distinguish between 'de jure' and 'de facto' discrimination? For example, there was definitely discrimination against the Irish in the UK, but they were not (specifically) disenfranchised and there were Irish representatives in the UK parliament. IIRC a similar situation applied with Koreans in Japan post-1910 but I'm less certain about that.
It seems like the connection between Discrimination and disenfranchisement is based off the Jim Crow era US, but there was never any explicit state or federal prohibition against blacks voting (and indeed such a restriction would not have been permitted constitutionally); they just exploited a lot of loopholes for the same result.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Why is it hard coded that conservative groups will oppose women's suffrage? There were various points in 19th century France for example where conservatives favored women's suffrage and liberals opposed it, since women were perceived as more religious and so women voting was seen as an electoral boon for conservatives.

They didn't say it was hardcoded. Hardcoded means you cannot change it without editing the game exe. This is softcoded at worst
 
Regarding Discrimination, does the game distinguish between 'de jure' and 'de facto' discrimination? For example, there was definitely discrimination against the Irish in the UK, but they were not (specifically) disenfranchised and there were Irish representatives in the UK parliament. IIRC a similar situation applied with Koreans in Japan post-1910 but I'm less certain about that.
It seems like the connection between Discrimination and disenfranchisement is based off the Jim Crow era US, but there was never any explicit state or federal prohibition against blacks voting (and indeed such a restriction would not have been permitted constitutionally); they just exploited a lot of loopholes for the same result.
I agree, same thing with french canadians. It should vary depending of your discrimination law, I think, with the most discriminating law prohibiting discriminated pops from voting and more progressive laws imposing a decreasing malus on political activity.
 
I am glad, even overjoyed that we still have this.

I would love for there one day to be visual lower house, upper house and head of state, with number of seats that are allocated to parties based on the results.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions: