Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts


I think crime could be really expanded. For example

You should be able to decide were to put your police forces.
If there are large numbers of inner city riots and street gangs in cities then if you build gated communites you can put in large numbers of police in those communites to make the rich or middle class fell safe but the poor would still hate you and people’s fear of crime will go down and so business in middle class communites will rise and the ecomony won’t be as badly effected by crime.

Or if you have a situation like Massive Inner City riots then you should be able to send in Troops to calm the area down. Then you would have to start a Inner City redelevopment policy if you want them cleaned up. As far as the army goes you would only be able to send in as many as you have set for in your Military budget. So if you only have 500 troops for ceremonies you won’t be able to do anything but if you have a Overwhemling force you could use the military to stop all crime. Of course this option is expessive and once you take the troops away and back to the reserves the crime can come back if you didn’t put in a large enough police force or have proper prisons.

And Riots and such should have different levels of severatey. So if it’s just one city in your country it would only take a small increase in police funding for that area. But if it’s a Nationwide riot bazana then you need to raise National Police funding up or send in the military which can deal with the problem faster. But if you send in the military the consequences are

Good:Conseravite, Middle Class, Patriot, Parents
Bad: Poor, Minorities, City dwellers

And the level of force you tell your army to use also determans how large these effects are. So if you tell your army to kill every rioter the Bad ones will hate you and the Good ones will find your severaity frighting. But you just say arrest the rioters and the operation goes well the Good will like you more and the Bad will appecrite your efforts.

With drugs you should be able to decide how much government regulation and taxation there is also.

And like in real life if I add a lot of cops but the prison system is crappy then you won’t get good results. The same should be for the game. If you have lots of cops, cctv cameras, armed police but a broken prison system and minumin dead penalty then crime should still be a problem in some forms.

Also I know the name of the game is Democracy but every democracry in the world isn’t far per say look at China. So I think that there should be more options when it comes to “crime” on the political front. So you could have a task force that elimates different points of view.

P.S Hey Cliffski how long until the next Democracry and what do you have in mind for it?


I have a question: what is the Battenburg Group? It is listed on the intelligence assessment.


Another policy to consider is workfare, it would work nicely with any long-term unemployment situation.

Unemployment benefits could upset conservatives, while workfare could make them happier and also reduce the unemployment rate.


I was reading this article about the dispute over condoms in Uganda and was wondering: could we insert sexual education into the game? I can easily see conservative and religious groups opposed to such a plan and perhaps liberal groups supporting it.



Lifespan and literacy should affect liberals positively while lacks border controls should affect literacy negatively.

Labour laws should also affect liberals in a similar but less extreme way, to how it affects socialists.


With a booming economy, my country attracts immigrants. Could it be made to influence the population of my country and cause other effects? Increased immigration can turn patriots against you, increase unemployment, crime, etc. Perhaps others have discussed this already.


Minimum wage should be a slider and it should affect unemployment, especially so if border controls are lacks


Perhaps after instituting a minimum wage, you could adjust it.


Big banks tend to lend to big businesses, and small banks tend to lend to small businesses. A policy situation where a big bank tries to takeover a small bank could be included in the game.

A distinction can be made between big bureaucratic corporations and small entrpreneurial firms


I dont think drugs legalizing should educre crime, drug addicts do more crimes, even tough it reduce crime by making an offence legal.
How about adding tourism? that depends on foreign relations, crime, air travel, diseases and this kind of things. and it would be a way to get money and raise the gdp.


A statutory bill of rights is another policy to consider. It would make liberals happy and upset the public sector because of increases in ligation and also upset conservatives because it would encourage a rights culture to develop.


Large levels of immigration should affect the way a country’s infrastructure can cope. In the game, immigration only affects hospital overcrowding, in the real world it affects much more like traffic and public transport congestion, expanding and overcrowded cities, housing ownership affordability and homelessness, demand for utility services.

A negative situation that could be included in the game is electricity blackouts.


I finally got around to buying this great game, the improved Canadian dollar helps to make it more affordable.

Just to help out, here’s a few bugs/peculiar things I have noticed that could be patched in the future:

  1. In the description of sales tax as a regressive tax, it incorrectly says that sales tax increases income equality when in fact it should say it decreases income equality (or increases income inequality), because that’s what regressive means. This is an easily fixed text edit.
  2. The model shows higher CO2 emissions positively affecting environmentalists. But this doesn’t make any sense because environmentalists would always want lower emissions (therefore shouldn’t the line be red not green?).
  3. Equality should positively (green arrow) affect Liberals. Right now it only affects socialists, yet equality (in terms of race, sex and culture, not necessarily income) is one of the central tenants of liberalism.
  4. GDP should not positively affect unemployment (arrow should be red not green). If GDP is high, unemployment should be low so they should have a negative relationship. Or perhaps unemployment needs to be renamed to employment if that’s how the model really works.
  5. Likewise, why does GDP negatively affect capitalists? Shouldn’t a higher GDP make them happy because the economy is bustling so people are spending more money on their products?


I like your ideas, rboni.


This is Heary I think that the University Grants should reduce productivity if set above a certain point, and perhaps even reduce scientific capability at the highest ends.
In the Canada, where until recently education has been free and students have received substantial grants, people have been shying away from the scientific courses in favour of the arts, resulting in lower production in the short-term they would be out working instead of studying. In a setting where people have to balance the costs of studying with the potential benefits that is, one where students are given less financial help, more people choose to study subjects that are likely to bring them higher wages, such as science, maths and engineering. As it stands, I think most of the game’s policies for increasing the country’s scientific capability are no-brainers in that they have too little negative impact.


Rights are at the center of conservatism, particularly things like a Bill of Rights. Conservatism is, if you will, Constitutional Literalism. In the US, for example, a principal difference between conservatives and liberals is how they define rights. Conservatives here properly define the bulk as protection FROM THE GOVERNMENT. “The Congress SHALL NOT…” All other rights not explicitly granted to the government are explicitly (and implicitly) held by the People. It’s called (here anyway) positive vs negative rights.

Not all rights are “Natural Rights,” obviously, some are statutory, so I’m not sure if you mean in addition to Natural Rights (rights held by the people by virtue of existence—like freedom of thought, etc). Of the US bill of Rights, 8 of the 10 limit government power, the last two make explicit that rights not mentioned are held by the people (or their State governments, but not the feds). Of the 8 that limit government, 5 are “negative” 1 is positive ("… the accused shall enjoy …"), and 2 are a little of both.

Liberals in the US tend to read rights—even those clearly written in the negative—as positive. They’d say that I have a right to free speech. I’d say I have a right not to have my speech interfered with by the government. They think that I have no right to own a firearm, I see “shall not be infringed” as pretty clear (the notion that it means the military is utter nonsense, it’s clear in writings contemporary to the period that it absolutely means the people at large).

I’m not sure what a “rights culture” is, and why business or conservatives would be unhappy with this. The people who would be unhappy would be statists, or others who wish to have excessive centralized power. “Classical liberalism” is in fact “conservative.”

Centralized power is always dangerous, IMO. Of course I read books like Death by Government (RJ Rummel, U. Hawaii Press).


So why does Goverment Control of Industry decrease and upsets trade union?

In Cuba for example the percentage of Trade Union membership is around 90%

And the trade union being upset I think is a bit trickier. In the Soviet Union were the bureocracy oppressed the workers it makes sense. But there are cases and at least in capitalist countries it seems to be the rule were Trade-Unions advocate for the nationalization of industry(Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador) So I think it would be fair to say that Trade Union support should go up, not down.


Shouldn’t liberals get rather upset when Organ Donation is set to “Universal (No opt-out)”? It seems to me that the government forcibly harvesting everyone’s organs would make them angry, though they wouldn’t really mind the other range of options.


Open borders should upset environmentalists. The more people their are the more prevalent environmental destruction is.


I’m not too sure about that. The actual world population doesn’t increase, so I would argue total environmental degradation doesn’t either. Furthermore, the people aren’t always made unhappy by things that should make them unhappy. I have honestly never seen an environmentalist draw a connection between immigration and environmental destruction. The environmental effect seem pretty negligible if you ask me. If one assumes your argument to be true, then it should decrease Air Quality, which upsets environmentalists by proxy, rather than directly affect them.