I love this game, but electoral democracy is not being modeled - governance is though - and rather well.
I feel that there are way too many swing voters in the game! One shouldn’t be able to get above 45% with a major party in the UK - in order to be the largest party with less than 50% of the vote another column could be introduced to deal with “other” parties’ support.
In the UK the two main parties should get support at the start of the game from roughly 28-43% of the electorate, with “others” and non voters making up a significant rest of the electorate. Hypothetically, over time perhaps ones core vote could be increased so one gets up to 50% (by shaping society over many terms), although this is highly improbable of course! I don’t understand how one can win elections in this game with 90% of the vote when only a small proportion of the electorate in the UK are “swing” voters?
If I controlled Labour or Conservatives I would be delighted with: 40% for me, 35% main opposition, 25% other parties! I want to celebrate every 1% I win over. As it is, elections are ridiculous.
I must stress I love other elements of this game, but I really think the electoral side needs an over-haul, to allow for a solid core vote for each party, a small group of swing voters, an “other” voters column (to allow for victory when one has less than 50% of the vote as in ALL UK elections), and realistic levels of support for the two main parties.
Even in the (two-party) United States, support levels should not go above 60% for a party (very generous) or below 40% for the loser! I would love elections to operate in a much tighter band - around 1-10% difference between main parties, 15% in extreme cases! What do you guys reckon? Sorry for giving UK as the main example - I am a British swing voter! LOL