Everyone knows it: The fact that it’s even possible to sustain >70% approval rating is ridiculous and usually makes everything after the early game hardly challenging. I think the reason for that is that the opposition is only getting votes when you eff up. Currently, voting intention seems to be fundamentally based on voter approval of implemented policy. Voters don’t actually take into account what the opposition promises, because, well, the opposition doesn’t promise anything. So if you have successfully improved society a bit, you get 70% of the vote and get reelected easily indefinitely.
So here’s how to fix it: Have the opposition regularly, throughout your term, make policy proposals; sometimes simply the opposite of what you’ve been doing, but not always. At the election, voters treat the opposition’s proposed policies, and your implemented policies, on equal terms. If they like the opposition more, then they vote for them, if they like you more, they vote for you. Of course voters also have to take into account directly expected effects (like the debt, but also others), otherwise the opposition would always have an advantage. And with all that, of course current effects (like GDP, situations, etc) still determine whether you get an incumbency advantage or disadvantage, but that also depends on the voter (capitalists care more about the GDP than say socialists)
So since the opposition makes its policy proposals dynamically, you don’t just have to run a reasonably successful society (GDP, health etc) with popular policies. You have to implement policies that are more popular than what the opposition proposes.
With that, as I see it, ridiculously lopsided election results would be cast onto the dustbin of history! What do you think?