Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Election discussion


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

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.

I still feel as if 2/3 of the seats should reflect the lean.  The lean is there for a reason.  That's why my proposal was so mild.  Not saying my proposal was perfect, just that while I acknowledge big states need a bone to throw to the opposition if they're a +2, that +2 is still there for a reason.  That's my rationale at least.

  • 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.

Generally speaking, I really like this idea.

Primary problem is that the game right now is (we hope) balanced to only have 1-3 Reps per state, averaging as 2 Reps per state, and a 100-person House of Representatives if we have a full 50 states (way more than that if you go on a successful conquering spree).  So there aren't any states that have 5 reps, and if we made the small/medium/big states be 1/3/5 reps instead, it might cause balance issues.

That said, I do agree that the Kevin McCarthy problem is a very real concern.

As I see it, "simplest" answer might be that dictate that every "large state" will have at least one notable rep from each party, with only the third rep swinging back and forth.  That said, it would guarantee that the minority party in each major state controls 33% of that state's congressional vote.  I don't know how historically accurate that would be.  

Right now, New York does indeed have about 33% of their Representatives as Republicans.  Texas also has about 33% of their Representatives as Democrats.  California's Representatives are about 20% Republican.  Hmm.  At least in modern terms, the "large states are guaranteed to have 1/3 of their Reps be from their minority party" might actually be a good rule.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Generally speaking, I really like this idea.

Primary problem is that the game right now is (we hope) balanced to only have 1-3 Reps per state, averaging as 2 Reps per state, and a 100-person House of Representatives if we have a full 50 states (way more than that if you go on a successful conquering spree).  So there aren't any states that have 5 reps, and if we made the small/medium/big states be 1/3/5 reps instead, it might cause balance issues.

That said, I do agree that the Kevin McCarthy problem is a very real concern.

As I see it, "simplest" answer might be that dictate that every "large state" will have at least one notable rep from each party, with only the third rep swinging back and forth.  That said, it would guarantee that the minority party in each major state controls 33% of that state's congressional vote.  I don't know how historically accurate that would be.  

Right now, New York does indeed have about 33% of their Representatives as Republicans.  Texas also has about 33% of their Representatives as Democrats.  California's Representatives are about 20% Republican.  Hmm.  At least in modern terms, the "large states are guaranteed to have 1/3 of their Reps be from their minority party" might actually be a good rule.  
 

I don't know if you should guarantee the minority party a seat. I think at the most you should make it swingy so they have a chance to win and hold it. Make it so it has to be a talented politician from the state if you want any chance.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Generally speaking, I really like this idea.

Primary problem is that the game right now is (we hope) balanced to only have 1-3 Reps per state, averaging as 2 Reps per state, and a 100-person House of Representatives if we have a full 50 states (way more than that if you go on a successful conquering spree).  So there aren't any states that have 5 reps, and if we made the small/medium/big states be 1/3/5 reps instead, it might cause balance issues.

That said, I do agree that the Kevin McCarthy problem is a very real concern.

As I see it, "simplest" answer might be that dictate that every "large state" will have at least one notable rep from each party, with only the third rep swinging back and forth.  That said, it would guarantee that the minority party in each major state controls 33% of that state's congressional vote.  I don't know how historically accurate that would be.  

Right now, New York does indeed have about 33% of their Representatives as Republicans.  Texas also has about 33% of their Representatives as Democrats.  California's Representatives are about 20% Republican.  Hmm.  At least in modern terms, the "large states are guaranteed to have 1/3 of their Reps be from their minority party" might actually be a good rule.  
 

I'm not sure how I feel about that either, though (sorry if I'm being persnickity, ha!).  I feel as if that removes some of the election aspect which I feel is important.  The large state problem wouldn't be a problem in states with only a +1 or 0 lean either.  I do see your points though.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of a "better rule" than the +2/+2/+1, but I'm low on brainpower this late at night, so I might need to sleep on it.  Maybe an alternative could be if all 3 rep slots in a large state are won by the same party, one of them is randomly selected to get a -1 on their next election or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the +2/+2/+1 idea. Have that third state have a big of a swing to it. Not enough such that the other party would be guaranteed the seat by any means, but it should at least be more competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...