Just a bit to add regarding the dev blog:
Glad that party membership unbalance under 3-party-system is going to be addressed soon. But I personally think that the moderate party should have much less members in the first place for some reasons.
- I don’t think moderate voters are that active at political participation. Why would they join a party and pay a fee when they don’t even hold a strong view or feeling?
- With a large enough party membership, they can also have a lot of party activists, effectively nullifying the voting probability penalty from lower Strength of Feeling with high Party Motivation. It might be okay if the moderate party made efforts to build that membership but it’s not (at least for players’ eyes).
- Also, party membership itself is more valuable for the moderates than the radicals since they are basically less likely to vote without it thanks to low strength of feeling. So, all 3 parties having some membership is more favorable for the moderates than all of them having less membership.
- I personally find it unrealistic that more than half of the voters have a party membership. I just want it to be much smaller.
- The moderate party already has an advantage of being in the center which is likely to include more voters than the other regions. The combination most populous region with high loyalty from membership makes coalitions in a close election even less likely.
Also Read: Voting Probability Simulator and Impacts of Voter Turnout