• 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:
That's a blatant anglophone propaganda lie.

UPD: got a lot of downvotes for this, and I don't really get why. Is this a linguistic issue, where "winning the popular vote" refers to winning the plurality, and not the majority, as I had thought?
Because if not, the party that wins the majority is guaranteed to get the majority of seats under most voting systems. The Commonwealth and the US are notable exceptions for sure, but are not the norm.

"Winning the popular vote" means - according to my understanding - having the single most votes in comparison to other parties/candidates/whatever.
That does not imply having over all the most (ie >50% ) votes.
So having "won" the election does not necessarily mean to actually be part of the ruling factions (albeit in most cases it is).

Example:
Party A 40%
Party B 30%
Party C 30%
Party A has "won" the vote but Party B and C might form a coalition to rule together.

If you have more than 50% of votes it is indeed not very probable (albeit technically not impossible) that you're not the ruling faction.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions:
"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)" - it should be noted that it isn't the case under Landed Voting. In fact, it seems this will increase power of the ruling class. And it wouldn't be even something unimaginable, many conservative/reactionary countries had entire units of female soldiers, for example.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The reason an election doesn't simply cause "the winning" party to take power is because, outside of two-party states, we need to give the player a chance to build a ruling coalition. Say an election split the vote 50/30/20 between the Conservative, Free Trade, and Religious parties. I might not want the Conservatives in charge at all, and decide the Free Trade + Religious parties result in sufficient Legitimacy to get by - or I could sideline the Free Trade party entirely by putting the Conservative and Religious parties in charge. This is hardly even "gamey", these kinds of post-election negotiations that set the terms for what might be politically feasible during the upcoming mandate period are virtually the norm in almost all democratic countries. We also permit free Interest Groups unaligned with any party to support a ruling party, if for example the Armed Forces have decided to stand outside party politics entirely but still have considerable Wealth-derived Political Strength due to consisting mostly of Aristocrats and well-paid Officers and supported by high-ranking Generals. So player input into which coalition should form (and support) the government is necessary.

Normally, when kicking an Interest Group (or a Party, along with all its Interest Groups) out of government, it gains a bunch of Radicals who are displeased with being removed from power. Just after an election, this penalty is revoked for a single reformation of the player's government, incentivizing using this opportunity to optimize Legitimacy in light of these new election results.

On the subject of the fine details of electoral systems (length of mandate periods, proportional vs first-past-the-post, upper and lower houses, etc.) these details are very interesting and we've played with laws that govern some of this in the past. The problem was that they were hard to balance so they mattered as much as the other laws, and they did not feel impactful to enact. Not implying here that the details of electoral systems are unimportant - I've certainly had my share of lengthy debates of the impact of MMP vs FPTP - but in the simulation the impact isn't felt as tangibly and doesn't affect gameplay as much as, say, extending the voting franchise to more Pops or instituting a welfare program. So to do this justice we'd probably need a system of sub-laws or configurable laws, which isn't something we'll be able to do for release at least.
I dont quite understand why it cannot be implemented, of couse I dont have the code, but wouldnt it be possible to implemen stuff like FPTP and MMP by giving larger parties a bigger momentum bonus in elections, while a threshhold could be implemented in the way that a party needs a minnimum amount of political support (lets say 5% of the total support in a country). Also a presidential vs Parlamentary system (if that is included in yourposts with the etc.), is also very important, it should make passing laws faster or slower depending on presidential powers for example, it was for instance very improtant that the german President had lots of powers in the weimar repuiblic and its very important in the US today and even in smei presidential systems like France (for a presidential system couldnt the president be the party leader of the largest party to just simplyfi the porcess?)

I get why length and upper vs lower house are less important, but I think stuff like MMP and FPTP (and thresholds) would be very important, as it decides the entire Political landscape and would be a great tool to either enable smaller movements to gain more support or suppress them. same would go to a presidential vs parlamentary system, I get that not everything can be included and yes I get that there are probably more important things to work on, but it would be great at least to know wether or not we can expect such things to be included in later updates or expansions.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, the United kingdom is a Kingdom and not a democracy. Same goes for Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands.

The amount of real/true liberal democracies in the game's timeframe is rather limited. So basing the elections and gouvernment formation systems on a group of countries which pose a minority among all nations in the game would not be very fitting. At least from my perspective.
The UK (and other constitutional monarchies) had systems of government that removed the monarch's ability to determine who was put in charge of the government. The German Empire was still semi-autocratic, and the Kaiser still had significant control over who ran the government. Treating them as the same in this game would be wrongheaded to say the least; there should be laws that distinguish between the two cases.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Because they aren't the type of landed its supposed to represent. Landed Voting is pretty much for things like the Landed Gentry and other people of significant socio-economic means. Farmers typically neither have the wealth or status for what is essentially pre-1832 British voting.

In the US, they did.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Well, the United kingdom is a Kingdom and not a democracy. Same goes for Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands.

The amount of real/true liberal democracies in the game's timeframe is rather limited. So basing the elections and gouvernment formation systems on a group of countries which pose a minority among all nations in the game would not be very fitting. At least from my perspective.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty (and in particular, the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords) and of the general ability of a legislature to stymie the executive has a special place of historical significance independent of the numerical superiority of the various despotates and autocrats of the time period. Namely, it actually happened. The democracies (nominal though they were) were ascendant both at the beginning of the time period and at the end of the time period, and democratisation largely experienced a huge convulsion of popular support for the 100 years between 1836 and 1936. There is no numerical argument against this that doesn't pale in comparison to the argument that it actually happened. The historically significant entities might not have been numerically superior (for every ten nominal democracies there were one hundred imperial sovereigns, I am sure) but we don't remember any of their names, because they weren't important.

As Juanvito said earlier in the thread: this is the behaviour of a society sandbox, not a society simulator. All well and good to create a society sandbox, or a society simulator, and it may well end up being a fun and exciting society sandbox that satisfies everyone, but an accurate reflection of the realities of electoral politics it is not.

The UK (and other constitutional monarchies) had systems of government that removed the monarch's ability to determine who was put in charge of the government. The German Empire was still semi-autocratic, and the Kaiser still had significant control over who ran the government. Treating them as the same in this game would be wrongheaded to say the least; there should be laws that distinguish between the two cases.
Ditto on this. If Gladstone wins the election Victoria is absolutely making him the PM even if she personally dislikes him. There was no alternative, he commands the support of the Commons.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Will this system allow for calling snap elections?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting stuff! How moddable will election laws be, by the way? Will we be able to make some weird, specicific voting law where only e.g. clergymen are allowed to vote? Maybe put a "maximum wealth" barrier to voting, for some weird fantasy bogimilist republic?

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.

Something particularly interesting about this incident is that it was caught on film camera, from several different angles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emily_Davison_(Suffragette)_killed_by_King's_Horse_at_Derby_(1913).webm

It's towards the end of the report, starting at 5:50
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Will crippling opium addiction turn pops that would otherwise vote into uninvolved pops?

Look at this man, already looking up plots on how to win elections by addicting his opponents to life-destroying drugs.

Brilliant, I shall hire him whenever I run for election.
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
In Victoria 2 there were distinct benefits to not having certain parties in power, and not passing certain reforms depending on what strategy you used. Will this be the case here as well, per opposed to what seems to be indicated that you just want to get as many reforms as possible ASAP.
 
Bumping this, because it's pretty important. Tying women's suffrage to a direct economic boost is incredibly strange, backwards, and gamey. If you pass women's suffrage, it should be because you're feeling pressured to (whether due to strikes, unrest, demonstrations, etc, or because it will make it easier to placate an interest group and achieve your political goals) rather than because you want your GDP to go up.
I was under the impression women in the workforce and women's suffrage were different laws? You pass the former because you need the workforce and then you pass the latter because they have extra wealth and are suddenly more politically relevant.

Even if some pops are barred from voting, the player will still be aware of the polls or issues that those pops care about, right?
Even without the vote, they'll still participate in Political Movements.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
What does having a certain party in government mean, gameplay-wise?

Also, I hope a party having 100% of the votes is a situation that never happens in the final release. Even sham elections in the most dictatorial country rarely reach 100%
The principle that should be applied here (and in a lot more game mechanics than it is) is diminishing marginal returns.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I agree that giving the player more control in this case is progress. I regularly had to tank my economy in Victoria II to get the reforms I wanted. It was not fun game design so the change here is great.

The problem I see is that the choices players now have in forming a government out of interest groups is stale and it's a weird model of political behaviour.

If the only constraint on who is in power is keeping a lid on (il) legitimacy, then players will probably develop a really easy to follow rule of thumb around that. Just don't let legitimacy fall below x% and any combination is fine. There's a risk that that will lead to stale game play.

It's also kind of strange. Imagine that you're playing the USA with the Slave Planters in Government. The Republicans win 51%of the vote and eek out a bare majority in both houses while also taking the presidency. The player notes that forming another slave planter government would now reduce their legitimacy by X, but that's still well above the rule of thumb threshold for legitimacy so the player ignores the Republican landslide and forms another slave planter government.

What does that say about the agency of the Republican party who just won government? Abe Lincoln sighs "I'm powerless to stop the formation of another pro slavery government. I'm just the Chief Executive of the Federal Government with a double majority to pass laws governing these United States. Utterly powerless. I'll just sit quietly for the next four years because...
The spirit of the nation demands it?"

What might be more interesting is if the choice of interest groups in government was less generic than simply lower legitimacy. It would be better to have choices like two parties or interest groups falling out during the election and refusing to enter coalition together. A party leader dies and although their party has a majority it cannot form government until they settle the succession. One party refuses to join a coalition unless the other party commits to enact certain laws.

Those would be interesting choices and they would illustrate the agency of the political actors in a way that explains why they do or do not cooperate with each other.
What I think would make this interesting is, if after an election the government coalition you choose to put in power/leave in power got fewer votes than any one other individual party, then an event pops up where you have to choose why and how that happened - a choice that will give you extra penalties depending on what you pick (if you pick a plurality government coalition, but not a majority, I think that's perfectly fine, and I think the current legitimacy system would work well for that).

So, let's say you had an election in the US around 1900, and the Republicans got 41% of the vote, the Democrats got 25%, the Progressives got 22%, and the Socialists got 12%. And you wanted to put a Progressive + Socialist government in because you're pushing for a left wing US run, but since the Republicans got a lot more than both of them combined, that doesn't seem like it could've just happened naturally. I think you should be allowed to choose this, but in a democracy where the election should in theory directly choose the next government, there had to be something else that got these parties got into power.

If you're putting the incumbent back in power and you live in a country that has long had low legitimacy, you might just be able to choose "they rigged the election" and get out of it with very little consequences. Or you could choose, "they openly threw out the results of the election and dared anyone to come displace them" which might make everyone very mad, but maybe it makes it easier to govern since you're not worried about pesky things like "the democratic will."

I don't think every option should be available for every circumstance though. For example, if the election is very very close, maybe you could say "oh it was just a consequence of the technicalities of our electoral system" which probably wouldn't hurt you very much. And if you live in a constitutional monarchy, maybe you could say "well, this is who the monarch gave the right to form the government to," which would maybe work out in the short term, but also create a massive popular desire to turn the country into a Republic. You could also have things like "street violence and voter intimidation" that are only available to parties with lots of radicals or maybe like a "paramilitary" tag on them. But, I think, in all circumstances, the "coup" option should be available. It should be the option you always want to avoid, as it will make everyone very mad and will probably start a civil war if they don't have a lot of political strength, but any faction can try to do it in any circumstance - doesn't mean it will go well for them though.

Even if making one of these decisions doesn't hurt you very much, I think that the flavor aspect of it would be very nice - much better in my opinion to have to say "I think I could get away with a fascist coup here" rather than "I think I could handle the legitimacy hit of putting the fascists in power here."

I also think a sort of "you need to justify how this government with really low legitimacy got into power" mechanic would work well if you're switching governments outside of an election season also - maybe with just a lot fewer options (and, consequently, worse consequences).
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
If you really want a coalition of 34% of the votes while a single party outside it got 41% the simulation should push back HARD. I'm talking instant rebellion/civil war.
 
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
From the description of Momentum it seems like which parties were previously in charge is disregarded. It seems a bit weird to me that whether they did a good job or not last term would have no impact the current election.

I wished there would have been a bit more information about Momentum. Perhaps there will be next week? In the DD it says: "Momentum can be affected by chance, events, and the Popularity of Interest Group Leaders." but I hope there is more about that, especially an interrelation between Momentum and

  • Success in Implementing political wishes of POPs during the last election periond
  • Attidute towards the political wishes of POPs
  • Endorsement of Political Movements.
To measure such an interrelation maybe each party should establish an election program at the beginning of the campaign to determine a starting point for the Momenturm.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What I think would make this interesting is, if after an election the government coalition you choose to put in power/leave in power got fewer votes than any one other individual party, then an event pops up where you have to choose why and how that happened - a choice that will give you extra penalties depending on what you pick (if you pick a plurality government coalition, but not a majority, I think that's perfectly fine, and I think the current legitimacy system would work well for that).

So, let's say you had an election in the US around 1900, and the Republicans got 41% of the vote, the Democrats got 25%, the Progressives got 22%, and the Socialists got 12%. And you wanted to put a Progressive + Socialist government in because you're pushing for a left wing US run, but since the Republicans got a lot more than both of them combined, that doesn't seem like it could've just happened naturally. I think you should be allowed to choose this, but in a democracy where the election should in theory directly choose the next government, there had to be something else that got these parties got into power.

If you're putting the incumbent back in power and you live in a country that has long had low legitimacy, you might just be able to choose "they rigged the election" and get out of it with very little consequences. Or you could choose, "they openly threw out the results of the election and dared anyone to come displace them" which might make everyone very mad, but maybe it makes it easier to govern since you're not worried about pesky things like "the democratic will."

I don't think every option should be available for every circumstance though. For example, if the election is very very close, maybe you could say "oh it was just a consequence of the technicalities of our electoral system" which probably wouldn't hurt you very much. And if you live in a constitutional monarchy, maybe you could say "well, this is who the monarch gave the right to form the government to," which would maybe work out in the short term, but also create a massive popular desire to turn the country into a Republic. You could also have things like "street violence and voter intimidation" that are only available to parties with lots of radicals or maybe like a "paramilitary" tag on them. But, I think, in all circumstances, the "coup" option should be available. It should be the option you always want to avoid, as it will make everyone very mad and will probably start a civil war if they don't have a lot of political strength, but any faction can try to do it in any circumstance - doesn't mean it will go well for them though.

Even if making one of these decisions doesn't hurt you very much, I think that the flavor aspect of it would be very nice - much better in my opinion to have to say "I think I could get away with a fascist coup here" rather than "I think I could handle the legitimacy hit of putting the fascists in power here."

I also think a sort of "you need to justify how this government with really low legitimacy got into power" mechanic would work well if you're switching governments outside of an election season also - maybe with just a lot fewer options (and, consequently, worse consequences).

I would like to point out that there's always more power available in all countries, be their absolute monarchies, democracies or anything else, than the official governing body. The king in an absolute monarchy is not the be-all and and-all of political power, and neither is parliament in a parliamentary democracy.

A theoretical example that may illustrate this, is that let's say we have an old aristocratic monarchy, the Landowners and the Church are the ruling coalitions, in their infinite wisdom they decide to allow elections, and 60% is won by an Intelligentsia+Rural folk party. If the player despite this chooses to maintain the Church and Landowner coalition, that doesn't have to mean post-election shenanigans, the winning party may have taken power officially, however it turns out the state bureaucracy is still stacked with loyalists of the old regime, as are the courts, the military, the church and the king's court, add in rigged election laws that may have trimmed down the majority and bribery (since the church and the aristocrats still own most of the nation's wealth). All of these factors make it so that where it matters (foreign policy and important internal policies) are still de-facto determined by the old ruling coalition, so they can be said to still de-facto run the country. The victory of the reformists in the election makes it easier for them to seize power, and it makes it easier to pass reformist laws, but this is nevertheless the state of affairs.

TLDR, I believe the political system is trying to simulate de-facto power and not just de-jure power.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If you really want a coalition of 34% of the votes while a single party outside it got 41% the simulation should push back HARD. I'm talking instant rebellion/civil war.
Do you really think a 7% difference in a complicated 4-way election would automatically result in an instant civil war in real life?

In an FPTP system, if the parties' voters were geographically distributed in the right way, that could conceivably happen perfectly naturally and perfectly legally. Extremely possible in the US Electoral College system for example.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If you really want a coalition of 34% of the votes while a single party outside it got 41% the simulation should push back HARD. I'm talking instant rebellion/civil war.
US 2016. Trump got 46% of the votes and Clinton got 48%. Trump did become President with 304 electoral seats because Clinton only got 227. Why wasn't there a civil war/rebellion?
On the other hand we had Trmp who still claimed to be President and his victory besides only getting 47% (232 Electorals) vs 51% (306 Electorals) of Biden because he claimed Biden was faking the election. If Trump would have enough support it would have been possible for him to get to the government in 2020 if his cloud would have been large enough and influencial enough but he would lose A LOT of legitimacy because there would still be a majority don't believing in his claims.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It's funny that you guys are using the electoral college as an argument for why it's reasonable that the loser of the popular vote can win the election by being put in government, when not only is there no electoral college in Vicky 3, there is no government. There's no upper or lower houses, there's no judicial branch, there's no federalism, there's no difference in laws between states with the sole exception of slavery--everything is abstracted to the point where we have no clue what the government actually looks like beyond who the president is and who the 'leaders' of each 'interest group' is.

You can't use a second instance of abstraction to defend the same abstraction. We're already at an abstract enough point where votes, IGs, parties, and laws do not actually represent any government mechanisms, they simply represent end results. Being able to decide who "really" won the election afterwards is insane because all the considerations are already factored in. Everything to do with internal management has been reduced to the clout of IG groups. You can't further reduce it to literally just player choice. At that point, none of the mechanics have any meaning at all. There isn't actually an election being simulated, there's a vague suggestion on what the devs might think would happen if maybe an election was called at this point but ultimately it's up to you to just dictatorially decide what happened. You're reaching a point of abstraction where we've completely left simulation behind and we're just playing a Sid Meier game, where "democracy" means +2 Trade Value in every city.

You are counting the abstraction twice in the same calculation. It's getting absurd. At this point I expect the next layer to be "Actually, the amount of votes an IG got don't actually represent the number of votes cast in the election", and after that "Actually, the interest groups in government don't actually represent the government at all."
 
  • 13
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions: