Election results - suggestion

from Stardock Forums
I like the current election system with the interplay between moral, happiness and government type.

I do feel that it is still a bit too easy to totally ignore the election results. Sure you suffer from negative consequences, but there is no DRAMA associated with those consequences.

There needs to be more a sense of 'It don't matter if you conquer the galaxy if your own people depose you'!

What I would love to see is a situation where 2 negative results in a row causes even more serious consequences. 3 negative results in a row loses the game!

For example, if as a democracy, if you lose an election for the second time, a screen pops up informing you of mass riots to depose you. You can either accept them (-20 moral on all planets until the next election and some riots), or downgrade to imperialism (possible civil war).

Lose for a third time and you're out!

Paul.
400 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
As a party in a democratic society you can lose power for many years. After all if you are at the Federation level all the parties are democratic, even the "War Party" which I think of as Americans.

Having the President belonging to one party and everybody else a different policy just means it is harder for the President to control policy. I think in the US they call such a President a lame duck President though I could be wrong. If the party Bush is in, lost control of the House and Senate it would make it harder for him to start a war.

If you lose an election twice it would be good if the President would be elected out and control would fall in the hands of the winning party.

A message could come up President Bush of the War Party has lost the Presdidential election, the new President of the Federation of Human worlds is Mr Clinton the leader of the Pacifist Party.
You lost you lose your War Party bonus and gain the Pacifist bonus.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Too easy.

You still get to control the empire and continue ignoring your citizens and making whatever decisions you want.

There needs to be more urgency to winning elections if you lost the last one. I agree that a ruler can remain in power if the senate is against him (with the negative bonuses), but not indefinitely. Keeping in power should mean either reverting to Imperialism or keeping the people happy.

Paul.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Actually, a "lame duck" president or governer in the US is one that is serving out the last couple of months of his/her last term (someone else has been elected to replace him/her).

In GC/OS2 if you didn't control the senate you could not declare war. If you controled the senate by a narrow margin getting a war declaration past the senate was chancy. (Both of these wre for other than an Imperium, that is.) I had a suspician that the same was supposed to be true for GC/Win, but I have not tried it yet.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
"As a party in a democratic society you can lose power for many years." - Ensign Technician

This is particularly true in a republic where, as Technician points out:

"Having the President belonging to one party and everybody else a different policy just means it is harder for the President to control policy."

Lucky Jack's suspicion about OS2/Win carry-over is correct, several times I've lost control of the senate and been prevented from going to war. (Bloody peaceniks! Don't they understand I'm acting on their behalf?)

On the other hand, I could see losing a series of elections under a federated form of government bringing about the dissolution of the federation. Penalties could range from reverting to the next lower form of government with accompanying morale and economic upheaval to loss of the game (though three strikes and your out seems a bit harsh).

I do like the idea of gaining the bonuses of the party in power, but I take Solitair’s point about this being too easy – maybe it would be appropriate at Star Democracy. This could reflect the advancement of your political structures and count as an added in-game incentive to go for Star Democracy.

As far as penalties affecting play, I've come to dread losing an election, as it seems that's when the AIs start talking about my suitability for the death furnaces.

End transmission.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Note that in the history of U.S. politics, presidents rarely control both houses of congress. People who belong to the party opposite the president's are often more motivated to vote tend to vote the for congress members in the opposite party to counter the president's power.

Recent events would seem to contradict this trend, but keep in mind how close the count is still in both houses.

I think the game captures the penalties pretty well--after all, the world doesn't end when a couple of presidents in a row don't have the congress.

-Robert
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Whoops, remove "tend to vote" after "to vote" for that second sentence.

Re-reading some of the above discussion suggests to me that if you lose a couple of senatorial elections and are subsequently voted personally out of office, an AI would take over, representing another party's leader and you have to watch the AI destroy all your hard work (or prove you wrong by fixing all your problems) until you are voted back into office and can take over the game again. Of course, what if you are never voted back into office? At least you have a nice computerized ant hill for a while.

-Robert
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Don't forget what the documents in the "encyclopedia" say. You are "president for life". Forcing you to loose the game would remove one of the challenges you could run into in playing the game. Also I think if loosing control of the senate for a few elections caused you to loose the game many people new to the game would become very fustrated and would object.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
"if you didn't control the senate you could not declare war" false on GC/win you can't declare war when you play with pacifist party in order to get war with this party i have to loose the elections... because the war party take over the senate...

i try only one time so i didn't know if it's true every time...
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I think I agree with Jack. Any sort of "instant loss" on something that is peripheral to the game's main point will turn people away.

The only change to elections that I think might improve game quality would be a more European system. If you don't have a clear majority (not just a plurality, which I believe GC does now), you need to form a coalition government with as many parties as it takes to get 50% plus one vote. That may have impications beyond losing bonuses. For example, the Peace Party might insist on no wars, and maybe even on no new military project starts. Mercantiles might insist that the next tech you research be Cultural Trade, etc. Then it becomes incumbant on the player to decide which option to take.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
I suppose I have to concede that president for life means that, even if your entire population dissaproves of you.

Having a multiparty government system would require some major changes to the coding though, so it's unlikely to happen in the initial release. It would also need a rethink on the whole point of you choosing a party in the first place. Just work with whoever is in control of the senate.

Paul.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
There are lots of Presidents for life that guy in Cuba and Iraq to name two.

I do not think adding a change for multiparty govenment would be too hard.

If you lose a presdential election you have to pick a new name for the President and a new party.

Then you have to rethink your game strategy for the new party.