I understand it as you being in a position to influence a lot of different things. Maybe that would be best captured by a political capital cost coefficient modified by a federalism policy?
1 Like
A few things based on my 5 term game:
-
Why on Earth does the USA of all places start out with an uncompetative economy?
-
Is it even possible to get rid of fake news without having to resort to internet censorship? Even with maxed out state broadcast and max education fake news seemed undefeatable. Couldnât find another other policies that affect it besides internet censorship.
-
USA should start out with health tax credits (Thatâs literally what Obamacare is).
-
USA also should start out with university grants. Pell Grants would correlate with the âgrants for the poorâ level of university grants in game.
-
Should definitely start out with tax shelters too, thatâs in fact a very hot topic in left-wing American politics.
-
Starting child benefits seem pretty high for American standards. To my knowledge, the only direct per-child benefit in America is the ability to claim dependents for tax credit, and an increase in food stamps, which would fall under the food stamps policy.
-
It really doesnât make sense for handgun laws to have no effect on violent crime for the USA. America has vastly more gun violence and problems with active shooter incidents than any other western country, and itâs because of law gun control laws. It just doesnât make sense.
2 Likes
I remember this mod that changed the electoral system of the US a bit. I was also reading that France itself has an electoral college just like the US. Rather than have election results be decided on whoever gets the popular vote, in both the US and France, there should be an electoral college system that would determine this dynamic. Keep in mind after all, a prime example of this contrast was the 2016 election. The game âTwo Seventy US Electionâ explores this a bit. Granted they donât explore the nuances of safe states in the Blue Wall and Red Sea. 
Even better, make it a policy that can only be canceled with the apex amount of political power points. Make it popular with right-leaning voters (conservatives, capitalists and patriots) and unpopular with left-leaning voters (liberals, socialists and trade unionists).
1 Like
Why would being a capitalist or a trade unionist make someone care about having an electoral college?
Also, France hasnât had an electoral college since the 60s.
2 Likes
Lol we need policy, that changes apathy of voters.
Suppressing voters would be at one end of policy - increasing apathy of those likely to vote for opposition.
At other end there was something decreasing apathy of all voters.
4 Likes
other than tanking tech, as of right now, nope. Itâs quite annoying like that. Luckily itâs not actually a big deal because population is also way too easy to please.
Still, itâs annoying that thatâs so hard to get rid of. The other thing is Rare Earth Crisis. And I think Water Shortage might equally be an unsolvable issue eventually. Those two are pinned on Year and so increase over time. Water Shortage grows quite slowly though, compared to the power of policies which mitigate it, so it probably takes a very long time before it actually remains unsolvable.
(Things like these are why I consider âYearâ a really weak approximation, although it does make sense for Rare Earth Crisis to be ultimately unstoppable short of space miningâŚ)
But anyway, Fake News definitely needs more ways to deal with, I feel.
IMO some stuff that currently reduces religious membership ought to increase their apathy instead, representing them still believing what ever they believe in, but not making it a voting issue anymore. - Getting rid of religious membership should be practically impossible.
2 Likes
Because since capitalists are typically part of the right, it would make sense for them to care about right-wingers having the one thing that keeps them in power. Since trade unionists are typically part of the left, it would make sense why they would want it gone. But Iâm flexible. If thatâs too much of a reach, leave them out. 
And France doesnât have it anymore? My bad for not getting my facts straight, but alas, thatâs omitted on this Wikipedia article I was looking at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college#Worldwide
And if thatâs the case, Iâll walk that back and just say give it to America.
1 Like
Left/Right is a very reductive take on politics.
In fact, so is the Political Compass, which adds an extra dimension.
The whole point of this many voter groups, as far as I can tell, is to decompose these limited takes further.
That being said, Iâm not sure voter groups in this game are correlated even remotely close to how they would be in real life. And that might well be an issue: It seems like pretty much no matter what voter group you piss off, so long as itâs not too many voter groups all in all, any given voter of that group is in enough other groups that, eventually, they will still love you, no matter which extremes you seek.
1 Like
True. That should really change, because it just breaks the game. 
1 Like
IMO the solution would be to adjust apathy accordingly:
If a particular voter group loves the current state of affairs very very much, itâs less likely to vote. People who feel their views and lives are being oppressed are the ones who vote the most. (These last eight or so years have been a clear case study of that in the US)
And importantly, if somebody has two different beliefs, one of which is taken care of really well right now, the other being neglected, they will more likely vote for a party that takes care of the neglected stuff, unless that party is at the same time extremely against the currently met belief.
Vote Splitting is also way more dangerous irl than in this game. Right now, the three parties are set up as one polar opposite to you, one half way in between you and the other extreme, and you. But in reality, the danger of third parties, under the most commonly used (and in many ways worst) voting systems is, that they often arenât meaningfully that different from big parties, potentially stealing just enough votes from you that the extreme opposite party will win more votes even though a majority of voters would prefer either you or your near-clone to the party that now somehow wins.
Really, thatâs probably the area in this game that could use the most work.
1 Like
Iâm not sure you understand the game mechanics- to say capitalist/patriot/conservative are right wing and therefore should all have x opinion is basically working backwards from how it is meant to work.
Shouldnât it be basedâŚMORE in reality though for a more immersive experience? 
Why not change that? But if itâs actually more realistic than I understand, what am I missing? lol
An adjustment should be made most definitely. And because of the dynamic of the American electoral college, this should primarily be a factor in the OP swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. ESPECIALLY Florida where they can even decide Hulk Hogan to be president.
This is assuming of course it gets put into the game.
I have given this a lot of thought but decided to leave it in becauseâŚ
The US economy IS actually stupidly uncompetitive. This is masked wonderfully by huge tech innovation, which compensates for it in terms of GDP, but in terms of competitiveness:
China wins due to lower wages
China wins due to less health and safety regulation
China wins due to lack of worker-organisation/trade unionism and workers rights
China wins due to more infrastructure spending compared to military spending.
There is a good reason the phenomena of outsourcing (whether to china, bangladesh, indiaâŚ) exists. Chinese employees donât need US-level wages, healthcare costs and pensions. Land is cheaper.
Note that its perfectly possible to have an uncompetitive economy, and technological advantage. The US is in that position right now. Silicon Valley basically compensates for the relative disadvantage the US (or any western nation) has against places like China and india. All those call centers moved to India for a reason 
3 Likes
If China and India are the gold standard here, in that case Uncompetitive Economy is almost too easy to get rid of.
I mean itâs actually one of the hardest things to manage if youâre not relying on Tarifs. But itâs totally possible while still maintaining really high wages and worker protection.
1 Like
Democracy level should give you political capital.
Maybe boost it by 50%, if its at 0.
1 Like
Youâre not understanding what a voter group actually means. It is a position someone holds independent of the other distinct positions they hold. If someone is capitalist, that means they like the free market. It doesnât mean anything beyond that. What youâre suggesting is that being capitalist should guarantee that they like the policy. That makes no sense. They might still like the policy, because they might belong to a relevant voter group (like conservative, I guess) or dislike it if theyâre liberal, but their opinion has no reason to be informed by the fact they like the free market.
I recommend you read the âVotersâ section of the player guide (in the main menu), it explains how voters work.
2 Likes
You mean, like, low democracy? I guess thatâs what emergency powers are forâŚ
Yeah, so I guess low democracy could trigger emergency powers 
I converted quickly from ancom to ancap
Why there is poverty if everyone is filthy rich?
1 Like
I feel like thatâs not necessarily right because, just as much as you get way more power that way, you also arenât unlikely to open yourself up to, say, coups.