• 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 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.
And we will get it.
Yes it would be nice to have it now, but I am willing to wait for certain expansions of game mechanics in order to get a working game soon.

A lower house might give us an easier way to enact laws.
Instead of swaying IGs you could try to bribe or coerce just the members of parliament
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Haha
  • 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 non-elected officials having any sort of influence whatsoever is the equivalent of a military coup and it means the country is no longer a democracy then oh boy, have I some news for you!
 
  • 5Haha
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If non-elected officials having any sort of influence whatsoever is the equivalent of a military coup and it means the country is no longer a democracy then oh boy, have I some news for you!
"Have influence" /= "ruler of the country". My specific example was the player installing a political party that got 1% of the vote as the ruling party--no coalition involved, no "influence", just flat out the ruling party of the country.

Again--the example here is not Donald Trump, shadowy interest groups, or whatever fun rabbit hole you want to dive down to explain modern society. The example is Jill Stein becoming President of the United States in 2016 after getting 1% of the vote. Not in a coalition government, just the straight ruling party of the country. If the game allows something like this to happen, I consider that a mechanical failure. Look, they vote for President in Russia, so the concept of voting=democracy is obviously ridiculous, but we all understand there is a vast difference between sham elections and elections that do not purely represent the actual will of the majority of the electorate due to all sorts of interfering forces--which is what occurs in most modern democracies.

There is literally no abstract explanation you can give that involves shadow elites actually running the country, corrupt government officials, shaky electoral systems, or anything else that involves the Green Party ruling the United States in 2016 in a democratic country. I invite you to try and let me know how this would happen without extra-legal activities (in other words a coup of some sort). Powerful non-elected officials of course have powerful elected friends who get more than 1% of the vote. We do not have an answer yet on if this is possible. If it is not possible, than that means there is some sort of restriction on what the player can do after an election in a democracy. If it is possible, that means there isn't and truly absurd examples like this are possible, which I believe strains all credulity.
 
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
"Have influence" /= "ruler of the country". My specific example was the player installing a political party that got 1% of the vote as the ruling party--no coalition involved, no "influence", just flat out the ruling party of the country.

Again--the example here is not Donald Trump, shadowy interest groups, or whatever fun rabbit hole you want to dive down to explain modern society. The example is Jill Stein becoming President of the United States in 2016 after getting 1% of the vote. Not in a coalition government, just the straight ruling party of the country. If the game allows something like this to happen, I consider that a mechanical failure. Look, they vote for President in Russia, so the concept of voting=democracy is obviously ridiculous, but we all understand there is a vast difference between sham elections and elections that do not purely represent the actual will of the majority of the electorate due to all sorts of interfering forces--which is what occurs in most modern democracies.

There is literally no abstract explanation you can give that involves shadow elites actually running the country, corrupt government officials, shaky electoral systems, or anything else that involves the Green Party ruling the United States in 2016 in a democratic country. I invite you to try and let me know how this would happen without extra-legal activities (in other words a coup of some sort). Powerful non-elected officials of course have powerful elected friends who get more than 1% of the vote. We do not have an answer yet on if this is possible. If it is not possible, than that means there is some sort of restriction on what the player can do after an election in a democracy. If it is possible, that means there isn't and truly absurd examples like this are possible, which I believe strains all credulity.

Again, you seem to assume that being in government = having formal power. Which is obviously not the case. There are very obvious cases in-game where you would have an IG with 0% of the vote, an IG that didn't even run perhaps in the government!
 
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
How does the women’s suffrage movement work in absolute monarchies like Japan? Will I be able to still enact it, to have Female Empresses beside just Emporer and also get woman in the workforce, while still not allowing any voting whatsoever?
I wonder the same thing, as I feel like it would make sense in a monarchy to be able to vote or change how your succession law works and if women are allowed to inherit or not; as that feels like a big part of the movement other than just if women can vote or not.
 
Again, you seem to assume that being in government = having formal power. Which is obviously not the case. There are very obvious cases in-game where you would have an IG with 0% of the vote, an IG that didn't even run perhaps in the government!

I'd still like the explanation for how Jill Stein's Green Party becomes the ruling party after the 2016 election in the US after getting 1% of the actual vote. Feel free to use whatever abstract game mechanics you'd like to explain how they aren't the "official" winner of the election (presumably some other party won the most votes) but due to how power actually works in the country, they are in control with some sort of puppet "real" government. Again, they managed to get only 1% of the people to vote for them. Your scenario, if I understand correctly, is that the player decides, for whatever reason, to install the Green Party as the ruling party, even though they only got 1% of the vote, but the game abstraction here is that of course the Green Party didn't win the election, some other groups did and they are officially running the country. But the reality is that behind the scenes, the interest groups that support the Green Party are really in control, despite their being so inept at exercising political power that they only managed to get 1% of the population to support them openly. My stance is that this is not possible--the winning party would laugh them out of the room--unless you are overthrowing the elected government. Not to mention you have the same extremity argument problem: a system with no guardrails allows me to do with any interest group I want, even one that has no political power and no popular support. An extreme example (again modern) would be that after that same 2016 election I decided that I wanted the Communist Party to be the sole ruling power in the United States. Like, the literal Communist Party, not a pejorative against someone else. They didn't even run a candidate in 2016. To use a less extreme example, in your system I could put into power in 1832 in the USA a group that wants to abolish slavery immediately. Obviously they did not win the election, in 1832 in the United States there simply was not widespread enough popular support among eligible voters in the entire United States to abolish slavery. We know this because parties ran on this exact thing and got nowhere, really, until the 1850s and even in 1860 Lincoln did not win on such a thing, although abolition groups were part of his coalition. But this version of the game allows me to skip all of that and simply put the anti-slavery group in power.

IMO interest groups that successfully accrue political power exercise that power through successful political parties in democracies. Obviously at times this runs counter to the will of the majority of the people, but even in a situation like 2016 in the US you have a political party exercising control by winning a minority of the votes--except that the minority was over 45%. I can buy that, obviously it happens far too often.

But there are three ways in which the people's will does not translate to actual government power in election results. The first is that people don't actually end up voting for what they want or they don't get what they want from the people they vote for. In other words, people making poor choices based on their actual desires or politicians either lying or failing to deliver on promises. Most importantly, all of this is baked into the actual vote, none of it has anything to do with Jill Stein's 1%. People may have been tricked into NOT voting for Jill Stein (or tricked into voting for her) but the degree to which there is a mismatch between actual desires and real outcomes is already baked into the cake. If Victoria wants to represent this, then of course it must do so in the election results, NOT in the selection of the ruling party or parties or interest groups based on that result.

The second way is seemingly what you are proposing: that the elected politicians completely ignore the people who voted them into office and proceed to do the bidding of shadowy interest groups instead. This of course happens all the time (as you pointed out). But again, this happens in political parties that can translate to some actual voting power. In other words, as I already said, these powerful interest groups don't back loser 1% political parties. In actuality, what is happening is a large part of the first way I already described: people are lied to and thus are convinced to vote for a particular party that doesn't really stand for what the people want.

The other way will does not transfer is of course much of what has already been discussed here. The United States is so chock full of poorly designed election systems that it isn't worth getting into but the sum result is that the minority of voters get their way all the time and the fact that Victoria will allow this does make sense. It also doesn't just happen in the United States and things were worse in many ways in the 19th century. But the crucial distinction again is how small is that minority.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I'd still like the explanation for how Jill Stein's Green Party becomes the ruling party after the 2016 election in the US after getting 1% of the actual vote. Feel free to use whatever abstract game mechanics you'd like to explain how they aren't the "official" winner of the election (presumably some other party won the most votes) but due to how power actually works in the country, they are in control with some sort of puppet "real" government. Again, they managed to get only 1% of the people to vote for them. Your scenario, if I understand correctly, is that the player decides, for whatever reason, to install the Green Party as the ruling party, even though they only got 1% of the vote, but the game abstraction here is that of course the Green Party didn't win the election, some other groups did and they are officially running the country. But the reality is that behind the scenes, the interest groups that support the Green Party are really in control, despite their being so inept at exercising political power that they only managed to get 1% of the population to support them openly. My stance is that this is not possible--the winning party would laugh them out of the room--unless you are overthrowing the elected government. Not to mention you have the same extremity argument problem: a system with no guardrails allows me to do with any interest group I want, even one that has no political power and no popular support. An extreme example (again modern) would be that after that same 2016 election I decided that I wanted the Communist Party to be the sole ruling power in the United States. Like, the literal Communist Party, not a pejorative against someone else. They didn't even run a candidate in 2016. To use a less extreme example, in your system I could put into power in 1832 in the USA a group that wants to abolish slavery immediately. Obviously they did not win the election, in 1832 in the United States there simply was not widespread enough popular support among eligible voters in the entire United States to abolish slavery. We know this because parties ran on this exact thing and got nowhere, really, until the 1850s and even in 1860 Lincoln did not win on such a thing, although abolition groups were part of his coalition. But this version of the game allows me to skip all of that and simply put the anti-slavery group in power.

IMO interest groups that successfully accrue political power exercise that power through successful political parties in democracies. Obviously at times this runs counter to the will of the majority of the people, but even in a situation like 2016 in the US you have a political party exercising control by winning a minority of the votes--except that the minority was over 45%. I can buy that, obviously it happens far too often.

But there are three ways in which the people's will does not translate to actual government power in election results. The first is that people don't actually end up voting for what they want or they don't get what they want from the people they vote for. In other words, people making poor choices based on their actual desires or politicians either lying or failing to deliver on promises. Most importantly, all of this is baked into the actual vote, none of it has anything to do with Jill Stein's 1%. People may have been tricked into NOT voting for Jill Stein (or tricked into voting for her) but the degree to which there is a mismatch between actual desires and real outcomes is already baked into the cake. If Victoria wants to represent this, then of course it must do so in the election results, NOT in the selection of the ruling party or parties or interest groups based on that result.

The second way is seemingly what you are proposing: that the elected politicians completely ignore the people who voted them into office and proceed to do the bidding of shadowy interest groups instead. This of course happens all the time (as you pointed out). But again, this happens in political parties that can translate to some actual voting power. In other words, as I already said, these powerful interest groups don't back loser 1% political parties. In actuality, what is happening is a large part of the first way I already described: people are lied to and thus are convinced to vote for a particular party that doesn't really stand for what the people want.

The other way will does not transfer is of course much of what has already been discussed here. The United States is so chock full of poorly designed election systems that it isn't worth getting into but the sum result is that the minority of voters get their way all the time and the fact that Victoria will allow this does make sense. It also doesn't just happen in the United States and things were worse in many ways in the 19th century. But the crucial distinction again is how small is that minority.
I guess the devs could add a law, or maybe just a tech, called "ministerial reprensentation" or something, reprensenting the shift in many constitutionnal monarchies from a time where the sovereign could form a governement from factions that didn't had popular support or actually losed the elections, to the modern recognition of constitutionnal conventions that forbid him to do that. If they made it a law, I'd just lock the ability of reforming the governement and switch it for the ability to call an early election (at some cost, like infamy or radicalism). The player would have to rely on promoting/suppressing factions. If they made it a tech (or many tech), I would increase by a lot the legitimacy gained from having the winning party in governement and the legitimacy lost from not having it.

I generally like the concept behind the system proposed by the dev team, because it is really good at reprensenting many political situations in the early years of the era. However, I think some consequence of it does seem anachronistic in, like, America, or late 19's century Britain.
 
The second way is seemingly what you are proposing: that the elected politicians completely ignore the people who voted them into office and proceed to do the bidding of shadowy interest groups instead. This of course happens all the time (as you pointed out). But again, this happens in political parties that can translate to some actual voting power. In other words, as I already said, these powerful interest groups don't back loser 1% political parties. In actuality, what is happening is a large part of the first way I already described: people are lied to and thus are convinced to vote for a particular party that doesn't really stand for what the people want.

This is exactly why, in-game terms (as well as in power-political terms, if we are being Machiavellian about it) the Green party only has 1% or so of the vote, exactly because none of the major interest groups in the US (and believe me, they exist, even if they are not as neat and coherent as the ones in Victoria 3) supports them. The ones that would support them are all supporting the democrats. It is worth bearing in mind that there are only 8 interest groups and it should be nigh impossible to get them to 1% clout or even 1% support among the population.

Now let us consider an example which may actually happen in the game. Say you are playing as the German Empire, let us say that the SPD (Unions and the Intelligentsia) somehow got 60% of the vote, this would be fairly hard to pull off in the German electoral system but let's roll with it. The Centre (Say the Devout and the Petite Bourgeoisie, this is not to start up any discussion about the historical support base of these parties, I am trying to come up with a random example) gets 30% and the rest is won by miscellaneous.

The industrialists, who are fairly influential (say 20% clout) due to their wealth and connection either did not support any party, or their party bombed for whatever reason are in government together with the Landowners (The old aristocracy) who are barely clinging to relevance at 5% clout. The rise of the "Socialist menace" is concerning enough so the Military, which is very influential (20-30% clout) thanks to a massive military buildup out of fear of a two-front war against France and Russia are brought in while the Landowners are kicked out because they are too irrelevant and the player is done with their policies if the player wanted to sweeten the deal he could bring in the PB or the Devout who both received a boost to their clout thanks to the 30% electoral results.

Aight, all of that was fairly abstract. What did actually happen? Did the Kaiser bring in a military man without party affiliation to fill the government? Was a Military-Industrialist party formed at the last minute and receive the majority of the vote due to election shenanigans? Maybe, but probably not. The Socialists may have very well formed the government of the country, but since the Industrialists and the Military are very influential, they have allies within the civil service, and they can get their men appointed as political advisors, they can bribe, extort and threaten social democrat MPs, they can use politician's natural fear of negative news stories (the press just happens to be owned by the industrialists) to pressure them into not passing their preferred policies.

The end result of this is, that despite being formally in government, the ruling IG alliance still decides on all the important matters (the sort of thing the player would care about, war and peace, the fate of the monarchy, female suffrage, military and bureaucracy reforms, taxation...).

I will also note that this doesn't require some sort of shadowy conspiracy, as long as we recognise that the military and the industrialists are distinct groups with interests (or Interest groups, for short) then it follows naturally that they would do all in their power to push forward their interests, even if their power doesn't come from electoral victories but the wealth of their members and institutional power.

Alternatively, the player could decide that this is the perfect opportunity to implement more progressive policies and put the Unions+Intelligentsia in power, what this translates to narratively is that the SPD oils all the right wheels, fills all the right positions fire the right bureaucrats, finds allies in the imperial court, and translate their stunning electoral victory into actual power, this is represented by the fact that after the election the player can change interest groups more easily than he could otherwise (which is a major benefit to democracy in game and fairly believable).

Now, to go back to the Green party. Assuming we are playing some sort of modern-day mod and there is an 'Environmentalist' interest group which has, let's say, a meagre 5% clout, it probably couldn't run the country on its own, but it could form a part of the right ruling coalition and push well above the weight a 1% vote result would suggest. Which I think is realistic, say what you will about them, but the Green-energy lobby is much stronger than their checks notes zero congress seats would imply.

As a side note, I would say that the ruling IGs of the US in real life have been fairly stagnant since FDR and the election results only push the clout of certain IGs to various degrees without impacting much. But that is a discussion for a different time and a different forum.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
This is exactly why, in-game terms (as well as in power-political terms, if we are being Machiavellian about it) the Green party only has 1% or so of the vote, exactly because none of the major interest groups in the US (and believe me, they exist, even if they are not as neat and coherent as the ones in Victoria 3) supports them. The ones that would support them are all supporting the democrats. It is worth bearing in mind that there are only 8 interest groups and it should be nigh impossible to get them to 1% clout or even 1% support among the population.

Now let us consider an example which may actually happen in the game. Say you are playing as the German Empire, let us say that the SPD (Unions and the Intelligentsia) somehow got 60% of the vote, this would be fairly hard to pull off in the German electoral system but let's roll with it. The Centre (Say the Devout and the Petite Bourgeoisie, this is not to start up any discussion about the historical support base of these parties, I am trying to come up with a random example) gets 30% and the rest is won by miscellaneous.

The industrialists, who are fairly influential (say 20% clout) due to their wealth and connection either did not support any party, or their party bombed for whatever reason are in government together with the Landowners (The old aristocracy) who are barely clinging to relevance at 5% clout. The rise of the "Socialist menace" is concerning enough so the Military, which is very influential (20-30% clout) thanks to a massive military buildup out of fear of a two-front war against France and Prussia are brought in while the Landowners are kicked out because they are too irrelevant and the player is done with their policies if the player wanted to sweeten the deal he could bring in the PB or the Devout who both received a boost to their clout thanks to the 30% electoral results.

Aight, all of that was fairly abstract. What did actually happen? Did the Kaiser bring in a military man without party affiliation to fill the government? Was a Military-Industrialist party formed at the last minute and receive the majority of the vote due to election shenanigans? Maybe, but probably not. The Socialists may have very well formed the government of the country, but since the Industrialists and the Military are very influential, they have allies within the civil service, and they can get their men appointed as political advisors, they can bribe, extort and threaten social democrat MPs, they can use politician's natural fear of negative news stories (the press just happens to be owned by the industrialists) to pressure them into not passing their preferred policies.

The end result of this is, that despite being formally in government, the ruling IG alliance still decides on all the important matters (the sort of thing the player would care about, war and peace, the fate of the monarchy, female suffrage, military and bureaucracy reforms, taxation...).

I will also note that this doesn't require some sort of shadowy conspiracy, as long as we recognise that the military and the industrialists are distinct groups with interests (or Interest groups, for short) then it follows naturally that they would do all in their power to push forward their interests, even if their power doesn't come from electoral victories but the wealth of their members and institutional power.

Alternatively, the player could decide that this is the perfect opportunity to implement more progressive policies and put the Unions+Intelligentsia in power, what this translates to narratively is that the SPD oils all the right wheels, fills all the right positions fire the right bureaucrats, finds allies in the imperial court, and translate their stunning electoral victory into actual power, this is represented by the fact that after the election the player can change interest groups more easily than he could otherwise (which is a major benefit to democracy in game and fairly believable).

Now, to go back to the Green party. Assuming we are playing some sort of modern-day mod and there is an 'Environmentalist' interest group which has, let's say, a meagre 5% clout, it probably couldn't run the country on its own, but it could form a part of the right ruling coalition and push well above the weight a 1% vote result would suggest. Which I think is realistic, say what you will about them, but the Green-energy lobby is much stronger than their checks notes zero congress seats would imply.

As a side note, I would say that the ruling IGs of the US in real life have been fairly stagnant since FDR and the election results only push the clout of certain IGs to various degrees without impacting much. But that is a discussion for a different time and a different forum.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but you are not engaging me on what I actually wrote. I fully support the idea of using various parties to form coalition governments and the idea that the sum of the coalition does not have to be a majority. If you wanted to argue that the player should be able to establish a coalition government that included a 1% party (like the Greens in my modern example): I'm with you.

My unanswered question is what is the limitation on this system. Let's use your example. In it you have extremely sound rationales for creating various coalitions of parties. My question is admittedly more inelegant: what happens if I just want to put one party in charge, not in a coalition with others, that has the backing of just one, very impotent, interest group/party? In this case it would be your 5% Landowners. No coalition with the industrialists or the military or the Unions or anything else. Just the Landowners. Is that allowed by the game mechanics, and if it is, what happens in a country with advanced suffrage laws? Or perhaps your Centre party gets 10%. Can I still put them in charge? 5%? 1%? Is there a line?Or do I have to create a coalition with a minimum amount of support (in some way, either measured by direct electoral results or something else)? Or is it impossible for a political party with such low support to even exist as a voting option-parties are of course combinations of multiple interest groups. Is there some minimum standard of interest group power required to create a party? If so, does that constitute the sole requirement for power or does a party have achieve a majority of all votes in order to govern by themselves without coalition partners?

That is what I want: some sort of restriction that forces me to create a government with a minimum amount of support (does not have to be a majority). Otherwise we get into the silly territory I've been discussing, where the landowners in your German example can be the *sole* ruling party in Germany despite anemic support, or the abolitionists in the US too early (again by themselves).

For our silly modern US discussion (that I admittedly started), yes, nearly all powerful environmental interest groups or green-energy lobby is much stronger than the actual Green party because the powerful ones dabble in the Democratic party instead. And we aren't discussing representation here, we are discussing rule. Of course Victoria seemingly doesn't simulate the rigid American party system at all so I am probably doing an even greater disservice to the discussion to keep harping on it, it was just an easy point to latch on to.

If I could sum it all up in one sentence it would be this: marginalized interest groups with low levels of power and support should not be able to installed by the player as the prime ruling government in real democracies without extreme consequences (or at all perhaps). By far the easiest way to do this is require any coalition to have a majority of the votes. You can construct however you'd like but you must reach 50%. But if we want to allow for minority governments (which again I'm not opposed to), there needs to be a floor that whatever coalition or sole party must reach. Where exactly that floor is, that is why I said requiring a majority is just easier. Because I *think* we all can agree that a cumulative 1% for all parties in the ruling coalition is ridiculous. And if anyone wants to allow for minority rule than 49% is of course obviously allowable. So where does the line get drawn?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but you are not engaging me on what I actually wrote. I fully support the idea of using various parties to form coalition governments and the idea that the sum of the coalition does not have to be a majority. If you wanted to argue that the player should be able to establish a coalition government that included a 1% party (like the Greens in my modern example): I'm with you.

My unanswered question is what is the limitation on this system. Let's use your example. In it you have extremely sound rationales for creating various coalitions of parties. My question is admittedly more inelegant: what happens if I just want to put one party in charge, not in a coalition with others, that has the backing of just one, very impotent, interest group/party? In this case it would be your 5% Landowners. No coalition with the industrialists or the military or the Unions or anything else. Just the Landowners. Is that allowed by the game mechanics, and if it is, what happens in a country with advanced suffrage laws? Or perhaps your Centre party gets 10%. Can I still put them in charge? 5%? 1%? Is there a line?Or do I have to create a coalition with a minimum amount of support (in some way, either measured by direct electoral results or something else)? Or is it impossible for a political party with such low support to even exist as a voting option-parties are of course combinations of multiple interest groups. Is there some minimum standard of interest group power required to create a party? If so, does that constitute the sole requirement for power or does a party have achieve a majority of all votes in order to govern by themselves without coalition partners?

That is what I want: some sort of restriction that forces me to create a government with a minimum amount of support (does not have to be a majority). Otherwise we get into the silly territory I've been discussing, where the landowners in your German example can be the *sole* ruling party in Germany despite anemic support, or the abolitionists in the US too early (again by themselves).

For our silly modern US discussion (that I admittedly started), yes, nearly all powerful environmental interest groups or green-energy lobby is much stronger than the actual Green party because the powerful ones dabble in the Democratic party instead. And we aren't discussing representation here, we are discussing rule. Of course Victoria seemingly doesn't simulate the rigid American party system at all so I am probably doing an even greater disservice to the discussion to keep harping on it, it was just an easy point to latch on to.

If I could sum it all up in one sentence it would be this: marginalized interest groups with low levels of power and support should not be able to installed by the player as the prime ruling government in real democracies without extreme consequences (or at all perhaps). By far the easiest way to do this is require any coalition to have a majority of the votes. You can construct however you'd like but you must reach 50%. But if we want to allow for minority governments (which again I'm not opposed to), there needs to be a floor that whatever coalition or sole party must reach. Where exactly that floor is, that is why I said requiring a majority is just easier. Because I *think* we all can agree that a cumulative 1% for all parties in the ruling coalition is ridiculous. And if anyone wants to allow for minority rule than 49% is of course obviously allowable. So where does the line get drawn?

I would imagine that an interest group (not a party) with such low clout would create a government so illegitimate that it would produce a revolution. The situation where the landowners are the sole ruling party of Germany appears like is as if a small clique of unpopular court aristocrats are using all of their remaining privilege and influence to block any reforms of the elected government. (Note that this would probably work even in a democracy if they had like 30% clout since that would mean that they might be seen as legitimate enough for enough people to not care)

Now, for one, since the majority of the interest groups have radically different ideas about how to run things, they would instantly start movements to change laws, if they didn't get appeased they would eventually start a revolution (and it would be quite a fast one, more like a coup). Alternatively, if you followed their every whim you could as well put them in government and spare yourself the legitimacy loss (and all the negative aspects that might bring, presumably unrest).

I would also be very careful about using terms like "coalition government" and "minority government." Since that implies parliamentary politics and formal party negotiations. While the example I constructed has us making a ruling regime with 50% clout, which doesn't even have a political party (so 0% vote). It represents a situation where the same group of elites run a country no matter who is in government, which is a common complaint even in modern-day democracies, to the point it is somewhat of a trope ("The United States is a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them")

What would our other example of modern-day US politics having a government solely composed of the 5% environmental lobby? Presumably, this means many important positions (not necessarily political positions like secretaries, but more like bureaucrats and advisors, both in government and in the private sector, especially media companies and the sort. The party in power might be the democrats, possibly even a very environmentally-minded wing of them) are people sympathetic to the environmentalist cause and the government in the coming years' plans to focus solely on environmental issues (it is worth noting that which IGs you chose is largely there to select which policies you want to pass in the future).

A government which single-mindedly focuses on one issue and one issue only will most likely be very unpopular, forcing any somewhat intelligent player to pick some other interest group to add to his coalition (surely there are others that would agree with environmental policies? The intelligentsia perhaps?) so putting just one IG in power is a stupid and counterproductive move, it is the sort of thing someone does a misclick.

But I do not see why the player should be prevented from doing it. To go back to my earlier example, in Hearths of Iron 4, if Stalin decided to disband the entire Soviet army and let the Germans march to Moscow, he would get coupled by the general staff, surely? Yet the game lets us do that decision, the game should also let us do a bad and counterproductive decision when it comes to managing our political situation (which is one of the three main things you have to manage in Vicky 3, the other two being diplomacy and economy. Your diplomatic ministry doesn't block you from making bad allies or declaring war against all the great powers at once as Luxembourg either.)

That all being said. It is probably true that some minimal threshold for IG clout could be required for a government to even be formable, 10% perhaps? To represent the fact that some groups are just too influential to even control the levers of power at all.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
The level of fanfiction people are going through to pretend "player picks government always" has some hidden depth is astounding.
I called it, man.
Again, you seem to assume that being in government = having formal power. Which is obviously not the case.
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."
 
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:
It's literally called "in government" and "in opposition" ingame, dude.

Is the terminology the only problem? Would calling it "the regime" be better? Or perhaps "ruling" and "non-ruling" or "in power" and "not in power." For the record: I think these would be better, but if the only issue with the system is the phrasing then we are 99% there.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Wait... so "ruling" IGs are entirely different to the actual government? Then why do elections impact them at all, and create the opportunity to switch them around? And where is the actual government? Pretending the actual government doesn't matter might earn edgy internet points, but that's just not historically literate.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
The level of fanfiction people are going through to pretend "player picks government always" has some hidden depth is astounding.

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.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Wait... so "ruling" IGs are entirely different to the actual government? Then why do elections impact them at all, and create the opportunity to switch them around? And where is the actual government? Pretending the actual government doesn't matter might earn edgy internet points, but that's just not historically literate.

The elections do matter, because they give the victors legitimacy in the eyes of the populace, and elected positions like members of parliament have some power. They just do not have all the power in a country.

I would say this is fairly intuitive, as well all agree that IGs are good for representing informal court power in absolute monarchies. For no matter what the king might claim, no man rules alone. But people seem to have trouble realising that neither does parliament.

We all agree that in an absolute monarchy the IG the king supports shouldn't automatically get 100% of the clout (or even be in power at all). So why is it so hard to accept that sometimes the faction that has the majority in parliament doesn't control a democracy?
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
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.

Don't forget biased media and unelected bureaucrats (Any Yes, Minister fans? I don't think that presents a full picture of how governments operate either, but it can be instructive about how these things can operate on a ground level).
 
  • 6
  • 1
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.

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".
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
  • 2Haha
Reactions: