making demographics decrease and the advantages


#1

Religious Voters
I have found that a successful tactic to win elections is to increase the amount of the population that is religious by teaching creationism only and installing twice a day prays. Even without using faith schools subsidies the percentage of the population that is religious rises and they become fanatically supportive. Neither of teaching creationism or school prays cost any money and therefor they are a very cheap demographic tom please as long as you oppose anything that would upset them. I have ended up with over 90% religious and they have really helped me get through the elections.

Poor Voters
I have found that reducing poverty harms the chances of re-election. This is because it reduces the number of poor voters who are supportive as long is there is some welfare provision. And instead they become middle income who are very hard to please.

Smokers, motorists and drinkers
I have a dilemma with these voters as they bring in huge amounts of tax revenues but are hard to please and often oppose my government. I managed to eradicate smokers which prevented opposing votes but reduces income.

What tactics do you have to change the percentage of demographics?
And what are the advantages and disadvantages of it?


#2

I’ve had good luck with reducing the number of poor voters, actually; the various social programs available make them easy to keep happy, but these programs are pretty much the biggest non-military expense out there (except for the smaller ones, like school lunches and eye testing). Last game I brought poor people down to zero, and was able to seriously cut back on housing, unemployment, pensions…
That same game I had that thing that’s been discussed before where the number of retired people skyrocketed up to like 70%, so I’ve been able to stay in office as long as I kept the bus passes well-funded :wink:

One thing about getting rid of drinkers is that you can have really strict drinking laws, which keeps productivity and lifespan high at the cost of enraging one fewer group than normal.

But yeah, the religious one is almost horrifying in its effectiveness.


#3

Actually, poor people don’t turn into middle income voters by default. If you replace the line

#,PovertyRate,Poverty,"One of the most widely used measures of comparison between nations. The poverty level is periodically reassesed, but all nations should strive to get their poverty rate as low as possible.",0.5,0,Low,Medium,High,,,,,,#,"Poor,0.3-(x^2)","CrimeRate,0+(0.2*x)","Poor_freq,-0.5+(1.0*x)"

with

#,PovertyRate,Poverty,"One of the most widely used measures of comparison between nations. The poverty level is periodically reassesed, but all nations should strive to get their poverty rate as low as possible.",0.5,0,Low,Medium,High,,,,,,#,"Poor,0.3-(x^2)","CrimeRate,0+(0.2*x)","Poor_freq,-0.5+(1.0*x)","MiddleIncome_freq,+0.5-(1.0*x)"

in the file simulation.csv, they will turn into middle income voters. The drawback is that eventually you might end up with 100% middle-income and still have 8% wealthy, but the way it is now is that you might end up with 100% poor people, 40% middle income and 8% wealthy.


#4

Dunno - I’ve never had problems with the religious.

I go for a super-atheist state, and (at least on the level I worked on, the default) the religious on the US went down to .41% - not a real concern.

The poor I got extraordinarily low through heavy welfare - but apparently reducing welfare brings them back up.

Smokers and drinkers seem to only be affected by drug, alcohol, and tobacco policies and taxes. I got them by eradicating the taxes and going to 18 and up on drinking and legalizing at least cannibas.

But I also have no coding experience, plus the mac version.


#5

Ive played two scenarios up to now and got 100% votes. The japan with [color=red]super debt, [color=red]asthma problem, and [color=red]imports. I get (lifespan, air quality, literacy, average income, productivity) ~95%, almost zero crime, zero poverty and unemployment, GDP 100%, internet 80%, car usage 15%. With positives
[color=green]technological advantage, [color=green]tourist boom, [color=green]high productivity, 0 motorist and smokers, diminishing religious group.

[color=green]Socialist, capitalist, retired, commuters, trade unionist, enviromentalists, parrents, farmers, state employess - all fanaticaly supportive liberals mildly satisf.

Wealthy and middle indifferent, patriot undecided, drinkers mlildly unhapy, conservatives unhapy

I do first max. tobaco tax as there are no long term cons and many pros as former 31% dropped to 0% Import tariffs is a must for me.
Min. military, almost max. inteligance and prisoner tag,.
There is astma problem so i do: rail subsidy to 3/4 bus subsidy to 3/4.
As the subsidy begins i toll roads max, car emisions max, car tax max, bus pases max - state pensions low. Zero roud building. Long term efect - 0% motorists, min air polution, life span and productivity increase, huge cash saved.

Secondly Max. all education, max all grants. Child care max. child benefit half, evolution only, free sholl meals low.

Taxes airlane tax half, internet tax low other taxes adjusted to apease most and save the budget. Legalise prostituion might be temporary source of huge cash.


#6

Ok, nothing special about 100% votes, but get 100% popularity and have surplus budget is real challange. I only get about 92,5% popularity with 100% votes.