Early elections

I think it would be an interesting game mechanic to allow for early elections.

  1. It could be game triggered based on low popularity. If playing with 3 parties and the player is in a coalition, this could be represented as a vote of no confidence. The player could be forced to give something big to the coalition partner in order to avoid the early election. If playing with 2 parties or if the player has a majority, it could be represented as a recall election (and this could be something the government could ban). This should require really low popularity (much lower than the no confidence vote), but there would be no option to compromise to avoid it.

  2. it could be player triggered. If the player is doing very well in popularity, they could choose to trigger a snap election.

If the early election is triggered, either way, it should still be a few turns away. Basically the writ has been dropped, and the player can start the electioneering phase.

The player triggered one I think would be especially interesting, because it can be beneficial to trigger a post election boost, but if you trigger it too early it should probably make voters cynic and cost extra money.

What do others think? Would you find this mechanic interesting, or would it just be confusing? What other effects do you think triggering a snap election should cause?

2 Likes

I have considered this in the past but I suspect it may well make the game too easy. The actual electioneering part of the game only occurs over a short period, so we are not in-depth enough with stuff like campaigning on specific issues, or covering whats in the media at election time.

This means that you are unlikely to see vast changes in opinion in the two turns before an election, and thus it could be seen by the player as an easy way to simply extend their election term by calling a snap election every time their popularity is high.

Funnily enough the UK used to allow snap-elections, then we had a coalition government briefly, which changed the law to have fixed terms. The minute a party won a full election, it then repealed that law. I have to admit, that as a voter, I prefer fixed term elections for the exact reason that it stops the current ruling party from gaming the system.

1 Like

Ok Cliff I had a good laugh at this one. A player can’t significantly change their popularity in a short period of time? I’ve had several occasions where I see the notification that speeches are available, check my popularity, “oh crap, it’s red”, put tools down on the governance and focus on electioneering, get a majority.

I would like to see the possibility of snap elections as well. If the player calls them then there should be a hard hit to “trustworthy”. If the player’s popularity is ever red during a coalition then a snap election should be a near certainty. In that case it should be a start of turn event, the player gets to use their one turn’s worth of PC on electioneering, since there is still a campaign and all even in snap elections, then go to the polls with what you have.

Another option could be the coalition partner demands a policy change, only instead of offering PC they threaten a snap election.

Regarding the concept of snap elections, I certainly share the concern. However, seeing the American system next door of government shut downs, I think I prefer snap elections.

2 Likes

I like the idea of snap elections during a coalition, maybe you can only turn down one coalition offer per turn, the next time it would mean a snap election? that offers up the interesting choice of giving into coalition demands to keep them happy to you can ‘bank’ their continued support for a bit longer of your popularity is low.

Actually thinking more about coalitions, maybe there is an argument that any player choices that lead to a drop is trustworthiness should be mitigates slightly because you can claim you had to take unpopular decisions because of your coalition partners :smiley:

3 Likes