A Non-Passive Opposition Could Balance Difficulty

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?

4 Likes

I feel that the opposition should also bother to actually campaign and rattle us the player than just standing there. Sure, it’s scummy, but political battle aren’t known for being peaceful.

I find it impossible either that the opposition is literally a test doll in the entire democracy series and doesn’t try to persuade at all.

1 Like

Hopefully when voter elasticity is a thing along with this, things will be more challenging.

1 Like

I feel the same way about the judiciary. Higher independence, means more pain in the ass. Higher independence means more PP required to pass unpopular policies. Higher independence means some of our policies get cancelled by the judiciary (atleast those which can be construed to be more unconstitutional). Lower independence would mean lower PP for passing unpopular policies, no policies would get cancelled by the judiciary, etc.

1 Like

So the current situation is pretty much this:

2 Likes

This game appears to please liberals mostly either because of the available policies or the countries themselves are liberal already.

1 Like

You can literally win as liberal south koreea and Japan

1 Like

Cliff knows that this is an issue, I think that he will address it at some point.

1 Like

I wonder how much of an impact voter inelasticity will have when implemented?

1 Like

I don’t think emigration is used for those people, it’s like conservatives and the religious are affected by the environment and say “Dam, it’s better to be angry at twitter rather than girls with lime hair” :joy: :joy: :joy:

1 Like

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

1 Like

I like this idea. Possibly voter intentions could also be changed so that voters don’t swap parties as easily. A hardline Republican or Democrat probably wouldn’t suddenly switch parties if they see the opposition not totally ruining the country. That would also make winning the game harder, along with your suggestion.

3 Likes

Great idea man! It is so true that it is currently too easy to win and that the opposition is too passive. I hope Cliff sees this.

4 Likes