MattyN

Feature You'd Most Like to See

718 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

This should not be your top priority, but if you ever get the chance to: do nationwide proportional representation. So we do scenarios such as the Israeli Knesset election of 2015. 

Also I would love to be able to form coalitions in PMI, since in one game I was Labour Party and managed to prevent the Conservative Party from gaining a majority, and felt confident I could've formed a government with SNP. 

What I would like to see also (and it SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY) is the MMP system that was already possible in K4E brought back. The majority of national legislative bodies in the world in nations with free-and-fair contested elections use this system, where as FPTP legislative bodies are mostly found the British House of Commons, British local government bodies (but not the three devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the three Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey), British Overseas Territories, the Canadian House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures, the US Congress and State Legislatures, some Anglo-Caribbean Countries, and India at the federal and state levels, the Parliament of the French Fifth Republic, as well as many historical national and self-governing regional and colonial legislative bodies in Europe, Latin American, Asia, South Africa (and other parts of Africa), Australia, and New Zealand. The only two really noteworthy pure-PR national legislatures are the Israeli Knesset and the post-Apartheid South African National Assembly. Most other legislative bodies of note today with free and fair contested elections are MMP, STV, or some other such variant that mixes elements of FPTP and PR but could not be done real justice by either pure FPTP or PR, an electoral system that had, in fact, already been done for K4E. This SHOULD be a priority, I'm sorry. It's an opinion I won't back down from or stop repeating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Patine said:

What I would like to see also (and it SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY) is the MMP system that was already possible in K4E brought back. The majority of national legislative bodies in the world in nations with free-and-fair contested elections use this system, where as FPTP legislative bodies are mostly found the British House of Commons, British local government bodies (but not the three devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the three Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey), British Overseas Territories, the Canadian House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures, the US Congress and State Legislatures, some Anglo-Caribbean Countries, and India at the federal and state levels, the Parliament of the French Fifth Republic, as well as many historical national and self-governing regional and colonial legislative bodies in Europe, Latin American, Asia, South Africa (and other parts of Africa), Australia, and New Zealand. The only two really noteworthy pure-PR national legislatures are the Israeli Knesset and the post-Apartheid South African National Assembly. Most other legislative bodies of note today with free and fair contested elections are MMP, STV, or some other such variant that mixes elements of FPTP and PR but could not be done real justice by either pure FPTP or PR, an electoral system that had, in fact, already been done for K4E. This SHOULD be a priority, I'm sorry. It's an opinion I won't back down from or stop repeating.

Australia uses IRV, and New Zealand uses MMP, btw.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lok1999 said:

Australia uses IRV, and New Zealand uses MMP, btw.

I know, and I implied their inclusion in "the majority of national legislatures today." What may have confused you is my statement of the two counties in historical (pre-1996 in New Zealand, and colonial pre-1901 Commonwealth in Australia, in their cases) legislative bodies, so I'll clarify that now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I favor FPTP Popular Vote being the highest priority is that I can make a New Zealand or Australia election scenario now while not being entirely realistically, theres nothing that ruins the whole experience. If I made a Brexit Referendum scenario, I have no popular vote option for the scenario and therefore, the whole scenario is ruined.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually want to make a recommendation that for once, isn't for a new voting system.

Exit polls

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more involved contested convention in the US would be cool, as delegates are gradually unbound to do their own thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the PMI series of games, I would like to be able to place more than one independent in a district, rather than having one party for each independent member running.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lok1999 said:

In the PMI series of games, I would like to be able to place more than one independent in a district, rather than having one party for each independent member running.

The problem with that is that Independents are not a 'party' together within a given election, and they do not share or pool funding, organization, or resources, or share a platform (a big issue when MMP is finally instituted, as that caused big skewing of results in my West Germany 1949 scenario by K4E where Independents won a large number of seat on party list when they shouldn't be eligible at all to win those seats, only basic constituency seats). Each Independent is, effectively, their own one-candidate party.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lok1999 said:

In the PMI series of games, I would like to be able to place more than one independent in a district, rather than having one party for each independent member running.

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, CalebsParadox said:

I agree fullheartedly. These debates shouldn't be cookie cutter either. Every choice should be 'right' in a way, with perhaps one of those textboxes when you float over the option that says something like this on choosing a pro environmental policy decision in a debate
+++Environmentalists 
++Conservationalists
+Liberals
--Free Traders
--Wealthy
-Conservatives

This way, we can pander towards certain voting blocs, but it will cost us. Perhaps if you were consistently pro fossil fuels, this same decision would be less effective, something like this: 
++Environmentalists 
+Conservationalists
---Free Traders
---Wealthy
--Conservatives

This way, it's more costly to flip flop, but it can still pay off at times. Thoughts @LokiLoki22?

Absolutely agree

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

In many of my older PM4E scenarios for UK, Canadian, and Canadian provincial elections, what I often did was have several 'Independent' by loose leaning (especially given the cap on parties in one scenario in that old engine). For instance, I often had 'pure' Independents (the 'letter I' icon often used for Independents in TheorySpark games with the 'I' coloured in gray), Independent-Conservative (the 'I' coloured in light-blue, or sometimes aqua), Independent Liberal (the 'I' coloured in light-yellow in UK elections or pink in Canadian ones), Independent-Labour (in the UK or in Canada prior to the formation of the CCF - the 'I' coloured in pink in UK elections or light-yellow in Canadian ones), and Independent-Irish Nationalist (in the UK) or Independent-Progressive or Independent-Farmer, or later chronologically, Independent-Social Credit (in Canada) (the ''I' coloured in light-green). Even so, this tactic was usually only used by me for older (pre-1950's or 1960's) elections in the UK, Canada, or Canadian provinces, in any case, because after that one tends to see a sharp increase in the number of actual organized and registered parties in those elections.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

Patine is probably right, the better way to get round that problem is just to add some minor parties to accommodate the multiple candidates. In most elections these days, it is quite rare to find two notable independent candidates in one constituency , one of them would usually have a party affiliation of some kind that isnt significant enough to record on the list (even if it just 'Speaker'). Just add some of the more minor parties, and reserve the independent slot for genuine independents. 

In Australia, all independent candidates are not allowed to have any links with any party.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lok1999 said:

In Australia, all independent candidates are not allowed to have any links with any party.

What do you mean? An independent is by definition  someone without party attachment, surely that is true in any country? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no Aussie, but I think it works like this(correct me if I'm wrong):

In my county, there was a candidate for one of the minor county seats whom ran as an independent. Yet, this man was a member of the Democratic Party-attended meetings for the Democratic Party- but ran as an Ind. because he knew running with a "D" next to his name in the south is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. 

Now with the way @lok1999 is describing, it sounds like that would be illegal, and would not have happen. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I am no Aussie, but I think it works like this(correct me if I'm wrong):

In my county, there was a candidate for one of the minor county seats whom ran as an independent. Yet, this man was a member of the Democratic Party-attended meetings for the Democratic Party- but ran as an Ind. because he knew running with a "D" next to his name in the south is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. 

Now with the way @lok1999 is describing, it sounds like that would be illegal, and would not have happen. 

In Canada, we occasionally have a candidate who belongs to a main party (usually the Liberals or Conservatives - I almost never see NDP or BQ in this light) who either is not nominated by their party for that constituency (for whatever reason) or has some other reason not to run for their effective party, and thus, despite being an effective member of that party, usually with a near-identical platform, who will run in a constituency as an 'Independent' - even against the official candidate of their party and, sometimes, even using their party colour (but not name) in their campaign ads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

What do you mean? An independent is by definition  someone without party attachment, surely that is true in any country? 

Yes, but the rules are much more strict over here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, lok1999 said:

Yes, but the rules are much more strict over here.

So, how are these rules enforced, exactly? If an Independent is elected and proves to vote and have rhetoric too much like a major party, are they legally mandated and strongarmed  to give up Independent status and formally join the party they so resemble, whether they like it or not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now