Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Election discussion


Recommended Posts

@vcczar @Rezi @Hestia @10centjimmy @themiddlepolitical @Arkansas Progressive @Cal @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 and anyone else who wants to weigh in.

I'm hoping to start reviewing and making suggestions/edits to the election rules within the week.  I'm especially thinking about House elections, given that it's a simplified version of how the House really works (not having all 435 seats/races, just "the 1-3 most important Reps/races" for each state. 

Currently, in states with more than one "important Rep/seat" (due to population of that state), you specify which seat you're running for.  So a candidate running for GA-1 is never in competition against anyone of either party running for GA-2.

This can also lead to situations where the incumbent for GA-1 and the incumbent of GA-2 decide to run against each other for the GA-1 seat, while outsiders run for the GA-2 seat.

Does this make sense?  Should it be more of a free-for-all...there's still two GA seats, but now it's the top two contenders overall without primaries at all?  Or there still are primaries, but all GA Rep candidates are competing in both races simultaneously?

I open the floor for discussion on elections in general, but especially about whether the House races are working for you as-is or should be changed in some way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The districts make sense from a realistic standpoint; however, we don't use geography for those (which is a major part of the real-life situation). 

So, from a practicality standpoint, running candidates together and figuring the top (insert number of house reps) does make sense. Maybe have a default to still using primaries/conventions with a Gov action to eliminate primaries and have all candidates on one general ballot (like Louisiana/California/Alaska use).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

This can also lead to situations where the incumbent for GA-1 and the incumbent of GA-2 decide to run against each other for the GA-1 seat, while outsiders run for the GA-2 seat.

For this problem, as long as the AI is programmed so that incumbents run in their own district, it should be fine. If the human player with the GA-2 incumbent chooses to run them in GA-1, that's the human's fault for making poor choices.

  • Haha 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rezi said:

For this problem, as long as the AI is programmed so that incumbents run in their own district, it should be fine. If the human player with the GA-2 incumbent chooses to run them in GA-1, that's the human's fault for making poor choices.

Agreed, or there can be a restriction placed on the statesman, human or ai - once they run/win in a district, they are required to stay in that district unless the population shifts and districts increase/decrease, giving the rep an opportunity to move. 

  • Like 3
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.  So far, it looks like preference is for GA-1 to stay in GA-1's lane and GA-2 to stay in GA-2's lane, no crossover.  (Keep in mind number of reps in each state will fluctuate with era changes, etc, so there may be times an incumbent's "district" disappears, then I guess GA-2 would be eligible to run in GA-1's district if Georgia is cut down to just one Rep.

I've hesitated to do this because they're not literally districts...it's possible for Bill Clinton to be elected to AR-1 and Hilary Clinton to be elected to AR-2 despite them living in the same house. Ha.  But it might be the simplest way forward.

Any other thoughts on House elections or any other election business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ok.  So far, it looks like preference is for GA-1 to stay in GA-1's lane and GA-2 to stay in GA-2's lane, no crossover.  (Keep in mind number of reps in each state will fluctuate with era changes, etc, so there may be times an incumbent's "district" disappears, then I guess GA-2 would be eligible to run in GA-1's district if Georgia is cut down to just one Rep.

I've hesitated to do this because they're not literally districts...it's possible for Bill Clinton to be elected to AR-1 and Hilary Clinton to be elected to AR-2 despite them living in the same house. Ha.  But it might be the simplest way forward.

Any other thoughts on House elections or any other election business?

In that situation, and for other spouses like the Adams', can't the statesmen/women just have alternate states and they can relocate willy nilly? 

Hillary for example could be New York, Illinois, and Arkansas

Edited by 10centjimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar @Rezi @Hestia @10centjimmy @themiddlepolitical @Arkansas Progressive @Cal @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 and anyone else who wants to weigh in.

I'm hoping to start reviewing and making suggestions/edits to the election rules within the week.  I'm especially thinking about House elections, given that it's a simplified version of how the House really works (not having all 435 seats/races, just "the 1-3 most important Reps/races" for each state. 

Currently, in states with more than one "important Rep/seat" (due to population of that state), you specify which seat you're running for.  So a candidate running for GA-1 is never in competition against anyone of either party running for GA-2.

This can also lead to situations where the incumbent for GA-1 and the incumbent of GA-2 decide to run against each other for the GA-1 seat, while outsiders run for the GA-2 seat.

Does this make sense?  Should it be more of a free-for-all...there's still two GA seats, but now it's the top two contenders overall without primaries at all?  Or there still are primaries, but all GA Rep candidates are competing in both races simultaneously?

I open the floor for discussion on elections in general, but especially about whether the House races are working for you as-is or should be changed in some way.

I won't have time to really consider this --or read this post in full--until I have some downtime. Got a thousand things going on both with AMPU and not. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

In that situation, and for other spouses like the Adams', can't the statesmen/women just have alternate states and they can relocate willy nilly? 

Hillary for example could be New York, Illinois, and Arkansas

Politicians that moved in real life (including Hillary) already have their appropriate alternate states.  Abigail did not move to my knowledge, and so she's always MA.  I was just using the Clinton's as an extreme example, it applies the same to other politicians who lived in the same town/city/etc in the same eras.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I won't have time to really consider this --or read this post in full--until I have some downtime. Got a thousand things going on both with AMPU and not. 

Not a problem, I'm just looking for ideas as I begin to make my suggestions in the election rules document for your consideration.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The incumbent president has sway for endorsements for a primary when they are term limited right?

Also I feel like non-primary primaries could be slighly redone. I feel like this is where a persons Attributes could be taken into account, so a 1 rated gov with 1 kingmaker in the state vs a 4 gov with 0 kingmakers Could be decided like this. Also for reps (leg) and sen if no primary yet.

1 six sided die per kingmaker + ability, then obviously more than 1 kingmaker is almost an auto win (unless the wild chance they both roll a 1) 

So it still is highly likely they win, but still in the chances where the person rolls a 1,or 2 that 4 gov wins

What do you think? I think it'd make things more fun.

@MrPotatoTed 

Edited by themiddlepolitical
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

The incumbent president has sway for endorsements for a primary when they are term limited right

No idea, I haven't dove into the primary rules yet as we haven't needed them in the olden-days playthrough.  But will review them within a week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

No idea, I haven't dove into the primary rules yet as we haven't needed them in the olden-days playthrough.  But will review them within a week.

Yeah would def make sense, I'm asking cause 1960 is up and Eisenhower would def have sway haha. And I mean look at Trump now, he wasn't popular before hand and his primary endorsements are wildly important 

Edited by themiddlepolitical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 12:21 PM, jvikings1 said:

The districts make sense from a realistic standpoint; however, we don't use geography for those (which is a major part of the real-life situation). 

I keep wondering if there is a way to incorporate geography- or at least the concept of certain strongholds In some states for one party or the other.  Example is modern day California which is 80% Blue, but still has strong red areas like Southern Cal and gives us guys like Kevin McCarthy (who could be the next Speaker).     In the current game structure, how possible is it that he would be able to make it to Congress as one of the 3 California key reps?

another example looking at our 1960 playtest.   The south is pretty solidly Jim Crow Blue,    However, for over 100 years, East Tennessee (the old State of Franklin) voted red,   This area was anti-plantation, anti-slavery, anti-secession (although there was a movement to break away from the rest of the state just like West Virginia did) and they voted consistently for the party of Lincoln bucking the trend the rest of the South followed.     They actually start with a Representative in the 1960 test (Howard Baked Sr) and we will soon see if they are to retain a spot at the table as they historically did (maybe proving my concerns a moot point)

to me, it’s less about the seat and vote in Congress and more about possibly voiding a key historical figure because their overall state has a strong +2 leaning to the other party.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin McCarthy is a fair point -- though realistically within our allotted timeline, I don't think anybody is going to go through and assign geography to every single one of the like 8,000 politicians, nor assign ideology/party preference to every single possible congressional district (especially for all the foreign territory that can potentially be conquered and incorporated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Kevin McCarthy is a fair point -- though realistically within our allotted timeline, I don't think anybody is going to go through and assign geography to every single one of the like 8,000 politicians, nor assign ideology/party preference to every single possible congressional district (especially for all the foreign territory that can potentially be conquered and incorporated.

I will do it... For 1 million dollars! 😛

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Kevin McCarthy is a fair point -- though realistically within our allotted timeline, I don't think anybody is going to go through and assign geography to every single one of the like 8,000 politicians, nor assign ideology/party preference to every single possible congressional district (especially for all the foreign territory that can potentially be conquered and incorporated.

This is a half formed thought and I have a migraine today, but maybe in large states that go +2 one way or the other, make it +2/+2/+1 for the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

This is a half formed thought and I have a migraine today, but maybe in large states that go +2 one way or the other, make it +2/+2/+1 for the house.

I actually considered this as well, just a second ago.  I looked at how many states have bipartisan delegations versus having unipartisan.  At a glance, a good number of them are bipartisan today (though not all of them).  I don't have the time to do a historical comparison though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I actually considered this as well, just a second ago.  I looked at how many states have bipartisan delegations versus having unipartisan.  At a glance, a good number of them are bipartisan today (though not all of them).  I don't have the time to do a historical comparison though.

I've found a cool map recently https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/congress/#view=map&year=1896&xyz=0.654/0.429/1.792&show=winner

Shows a map of the house every year from 1840 to present.  A lot easier to compare cause you can just look.  I've been going through year by year just for my own amusement, before I got caught up in this.  Something I noted was even during the guilded age sometimes a republican would sneak in in TN or NC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

This is a half formed thought and I have a migraine today, but maybe in large states that go +2 one way or the other, make it +2/+2/+1 for the house.

I knew this was a million to one long shot for the current game. But your suggestion might help make it a reality with one district in certain split states carrying the advantage for the other party.    That website posted is sure a great visual 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I've found a cool map recently https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/congress/#view=map&year=1896&xyz=0.654/0.429/1.792&show=winner

Shows a map of the house every year from 1840 to present.  A lot easier to compare cause you can just look.  I've been going through year by year just for my own amusement, before I got caught up in this.  Something I noted was even during the guilded age sometimes a republican would sneak in in TN or NC.

That is really cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of in agreement that I feel like in big states there should be one seat set aside and represent a swing seat, to give players a chance to use some politicians in a state that is totally biased against them.

It doesn't matter how good a red draftee is if they are stuck in CA with no alternate state currently. They could be the perfect politician with 5s across the board, and it wouldn't matter because why draft him since he will never win. 

Instead of having one seat reserved, big states could instead be 1 seat represents that state's lean, the next is -2 or -3 to the opposing party, and the final one is another -2 or -3. That way seats get progressively swingier, so players will try to prioritize that first seat. 

 

The other option is to have an option to disable historical lean at the start of the game allowing states to develop naturally over time and give players some agency over how seats change. That way a good player can prevent the Kevin McCarthy issue from happening.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...