Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[Murrman104]

the two playtests ive been apart of
1916- God cabinet with god shifts, the country is full of rainbows and butterflies (except party pref which is maxed red and wont move)

2016- some up some down, bout what you'd expect 

[OrangeP47]

I feel as if 1916 shouldn't count for analysis because red team are the chosen ones.

[10centjimmy]

@MrPotatoTed

Flagging in Summer 2021 and 1840s Playtests, there are efforts to pass an amendment to the constitution restricting voting rights BACK to only white property owning males, with no adverse consequences. 

Recommend that there be drastic domestic stability drops where voting rights (or really most constitutional amendments revert back to the original document in more modern historical eras) are restricted, as it's unlikely you would see real tangible benefits from such a move. 

[OrangeP47]

36 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

@MrPotatoTed

Flagging in Summer 2021 and 1840s Playtests, there are efforts to pass an amendment to the constitution restricting voting rights BACK to only white property owning males, with no adverse consequences. 

Recommend that there be drastic domestic stability drops where voting rights (or really most constitutional amendments revert back to the original document in more modern historical eras) are restricted, as it's unlikely you would see real tangible benefits from such a move. 

To be fair though in 1840 our dom stab can't go any lower right now haha.

[10centjimmy]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

To be fair though in 1840 our dom stab can't go any lower right now haha.

And even so, you shouldn't see an immediate benefit for doing that, and the AI should definitely not approve it. If they're weighted to automatically support Territories and States, they should also (depending on the Era) support expanding Civil Rights or maintaining the status quo. 

[matthewyoung123]

46 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

@MrPotatoTed

Flagging in Summer 2021 and 1840s Playtests, there are efforts to pass an amendment to the constitution restricting voting rights BACK to only white property owning males, with no adverse consequences. 

Recommend that there be drastic domestic stability drops where voting rights (or really most constitutional amendments revert back to the original document in more modern historical eras) are restricted, as it's unlikely you would see real tangible benefits from such a move. 

Again, where does it say that adding a Constitutional amendment that guarantees something eliminates that right from others?  Or was this interpreted somewhere else to say that??

Edited October 13, 2022 by matthewyoung123

[10centjimmy]

1 minute ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Again, where does it say that adding a Constitutional amendment that guarantees something eliminates that right from others?  Or was this interpreted somewhere else to say that??

Maybe I'm over interpreting the historical Era. I just can't picture 1850s America only saying property owning males can be citizens/vote, especially in the South with states rights nonsense. 

[OrangeP47]

7 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

And even so, you shouldn't see an immediate benefit for doing that, and the AI should definitely not approve it. If they're weighted to automatically support Territories and States, they should also (depending on the Era) support expanding Civil Rights or maintaining the status quo. 

My point was if you want to tank us you need to find some other way to do it cause we've already hit rock bottom haha.  I'm actually thinking things like party pref movement.

Edited October 13, 2022 by OrangeP47

[10centjimmy]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

My point was if you want to tank us you need to find some other way to do it cause we've already hit rock bottom haha.

That's not my desire at all lol I just noticed this trend and wanted to make players think about historical context and consequences of this move. It could make sense in Era of federalism or independence!

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

That's not my desire at all lol I just noticed this trend and wanted to make players think about historical context and consequences of this move. It could make sense in Era of federalism or independence!

I mean I'm fully on board with the consequences.  I treat my AI factions as my children, and children are notoriously stupid and do stupid things haha. I know, I was one once!

Edited October 13, 2022 by OrangeP47

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, 10centjimmy said:

@MrPotatoTed

Flagging in Summer 2021 and 1840s Playtests, there are efforts to pass an amendment to the constitution restricting voting rights BACK to only white property owning males, with no adverse consequences. 

Recommend that there be drastic domestic stability drops where voting rights (or really most constitutional amendments revert back to the original document in more modern historical eras) are restricted, as it's unlikely you would see real tangible benefits from such a move. 

Not sure about 1840s, but for Summer 2021 it's technically restricting voting rights back to white property owning men and women, given that women's voting rights is an amendment and the bill to add property restrictions isn't.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Not sure about 1840s, but for Summer 2021 it's technically restricting voting rights back to white property owning men and women, given that women's voting rights is an amendment and the bill to add property restrictions isn't.

I'm mildly busy atm so I can't check, but we did check previous one of the other times this tried to go through Congress in our playtest.  The states in our game are all at various different levels of voting rights, some more restrictive, some less restrictive.  I'd have to check the gov actions tab and check the starting dates for each voting rights action, we've not swapped any since default state of 1840, but not every state had the same law in 1840 I'm pretty sure.

[MrPotatoTed]

At the end of the day, it'll be up to @vcczar once he's able to return as I traditionally haven't messed with legislative proposals.  I just tweak rules.

My initial thought is that the simplest answer might be to put an expiration era on when the voting restrictions can be proposed because I agree that "just white male property owners" would be fringe insanity in 2022.  What year/era it should become fringe insanity though, I'd have to defer to Professor V.

[vcczar]

Can @Rezi @OrangeP47 @MrPotatoTed give me the exact name of the legislation in question. The one restricting voting rights back to whites only? I'm doing keyword searches and I'm seeing that I an Era in which they cannot be proposed any longer. I'm also not finding the name of legislation that is completely aligning with how you are describing the problem. 

[OrangeP47]

13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Can @Rezi @OrangeP47 @MrPotatoTed give me the exact name of the legislation in question. The one restricting voting rights back to whites only? I'm doing keyword searches and I'm seeing that I an Era in which they cannot be proposed any longer. I'm also not finding the name of legislation that is completely aligning with how you are describing the problem. 

I believe it is National Suffrage for White Male Property Owners Amendment (copy pasted from our thread, I didn't check the sheet).  We're interpreting it as a reduction of rights because PROPERTY whereas some states would have/do have universal male suffrage at this point, ie, no property requirement.

Edited October 15, 2022 by OrangeP47

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I believe it is National Suffrage for White Male Property Owners Amendment (copy pasted from our thread, I didn't check the sheet).  We're interpreting it as a reduction of rights because PROPERTY whereas some states would have/do have universal male suffrage at this point, ie, no property requirement.

I’d also add that in my game, we have voting rights to all races from the start of the constitution, so it would also be a restriction there too if we suddenly rolled voting rights back to just white people.

Id propose maybe that it’s not possible to take voting access backwards.  A prerequisite should be that a more advanced/inclusive voting law isn’t already in place?

Also, I think the game sees “white male property owner” as the default setting because that’s how all states were in 1788.  But that’s a holdover from before we created the earlier revolutionary war start date.  So there really is no default on who can vote until I guess the constitution.

[OrangeP47]

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I’d also add that in my game, we have voting rights to all races from the start of the constitution, so it would also be a restriction there too if we suddenly rolled voting rights back to just white people.

Id propose maybe that it’s not possible to take voting access backwards.  A prerequisite should be that a more advanced/inclusive voting law isn’t already in place?

Also, I think the game sees “white male property owner” as the default setting because that’s how all states were in 1788.  But that’s a holdover from before we created the earlier revolutionary war start date.  So there really is no default on who can vote until I guess the constitution.

I actually think rolling back should be possible, especially in a setting where it's one human and the rest AI, like if a player wants to try to undo something the AI did (or vice-versa), but I think it should have consequences/have reasonable limits.  To be fair, that is a lot harder to balance, though.

[vcczar]

46 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I believe it is National Suffrage for White Male Property Owners Amendment (copy pasted from our thread, I didn't check the sheet).  We're interpreting it as a reduction of rights because PROPERTY whereas some states would have/do have universal male suffrage at this point, ie, no property requirement.

Yeah, that' s not restricting votes to whites. So you're misinterpreting it. I'll have to add a requirement it can only be proposed if all states aren't allowing White Male Property Owners to vote. 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, that' s not restricting votes to whites. So you're misinterpreting it. I'll have to add a requirement it can only be proposed if all states aren't allowing White Male Property Owners to vote. 

Guess Matt gets a rare win 🤣

[vcczar]

@OrangeP47 and to add, I do restrict it so it can't be proposed starting from the Era of Normalcy. It can't be proposed if every state allows white male property owners to vote. I've added that it can't be proposed once blacks or women can vote. 

@MrPotatoTed (Weird, I had to copy+paste your tag because it refused to load). Anyway, I agree with what you are saying in regards to prerequisites. I just don't know when I'll have time to go through every voting bill and make that change. It will be mid-December at the earliest. I'm hoping during the Summer, I'll be making all sorts of improvements because of early release feedback. I'll probably make rollback on national voting laws possible for only specific hypothetical parties -- American Nazi, Party of Jesus (or whatever I named the Theocratic party), etc. 

[OrangeP47]

It's probably fine, if we were just misinterpreting.  Strange forum behavior is probably just whatever that upgrade that just happened was, I was experiencing it too and was about to post about it before the maintenance screen ate my post.

[matthewyoung123]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

Guess Matt gets a rare win 🤣

Holy crap!  I WUZ RIGHT!

[Murrman104]

There doesnt seem to be a way for major 3rd parties to debate at present during Presidential elections despite this happening twice, in 1980* and 1992. However, if you exclude the strange 1980 debate which Carter refused to attend this does drop to once so I can see why it might not be worthwhile changing the rules here.  I would suggest amending the rules to allow for this possibility (and possibly also allow for something like the 1980 debates to occur if only 2/3 candidates agree). Perhaps there could also be a roll for the 3rd party candidate can be allowed to attend the debates. 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Murrman104 said:

There doesnt seem to be a way for major 3rd parties to debate at present during Presidential elections despite this happening twice, in 1980* and 1992. However, if you exclude the strange 1980 debate which Carter refused to attend this does drop to once so I can see why it might not be worthwhile changing the rules here.  I would suggest amending the rules to allow for this possibility (and possibly also allow for something like the 1980 debates to occur if only 2/3 candidates agree). Perhaps there could also be a roll for the 3rd party candidate can be allowed to attend the debates. 

I'd consider this after early release feedback. I definitely wouldn't do a roll for 3rd party debate participation. It would have to be based on the possibility of that 3rd party candidate winning at least one state or something. 

[Murrman104]

Super low priority but DE has term limits on its Gov for the 2016 start and due to its low eligible pol start, we've needed to generate nominees for both parties by 2020. Adding an extra mayor or Lt Gov or two  could be worth looking into if possible (but I imagine making sure Delaware a more vibrant political environment isn't high on anyone's list of priorities)