It doesn’t make sense that you’re able to win 100% of the vote so often, or even 80%. Even a very popular candidate running against an extremely unpopular party should not be able to manage it. Political polarization is not adequately represented in the game, and it’s too easy to get people to switch parties. There should be a percentage of people who cannot be persuaded no matter what, and there should be a percentage of people who might be willing to swing their votes but only in extreme circumstances. The true “dead center” voters who are very flexible should not be a very large share in most countries. Even when polarization was less prevalent in America, FDR for example still never won more than 61% of the vote despite getting elected four times in a row.
While I don’t think it should just be algorithmically impossible to ever convert some people to voting for you (see Margaret Thatcher somehow managing to convert a lot of the Working Class into voting for her despite a traditional-capitalist manifesto, due to her self-employment strategies), I do think there should perhaps be a consideration of certain policies being “deal-breakers.”
For example, maybe 40% of environmentalists will not vote for you no matter how much you’ve done for them, if you have Oil Drilling Subsidies. Or 25% of liberals won’t vote for you if you have certain Censorship policies.
That may be a better solution, showing ideological opposition to your government, instead of having some arbitrary code say “nah” despite your best efforts.
A way to do that organically is to have the impact of being in a particular voter group swing up at the high end.