I bought the game, and its fun. Really fun. But I feel there needs to be more depth… especially with opposition to your policies. Currently, you can simulate the fall of your hold on control (not too dissimilar to the Australian Constitutional Crisis, or the Australian Labor Party in general, and the recent midterms in Yankeeland) where your ministers no longer have faith in you and you have less political capital… that’s pretty much the extent of it, I feel.
It would be interesting if unicameral- and polycameral-type systems were added into the game, and contained a different a number of unnamed seats/electorates (all of this can be randomised, if selected, before the game begins on the country selection screen), and the seats each have different priorities and political views (similar to voters). Electorates might also resent something the player has done (introduce new taxes, for example) that they will hold against the player and elect a person to the seat if they promised to do everything they could to reverse it.
If the player was trying to push a ‘major change’ (something that costs more than ‘x’ political capital), then it would be run through the cameral/s where it would be put to vote by the senators. This way, if for example, you held the lower cameral (eg: house of representatives) but not the higher cameral (the senate), then your proposed changes wouldn’t be put into effect. This adds actual deliberate blockades, and represents a challenge for the player to overcome. For the sake of simplicity, seats would change during elections instead of running on its own election terms.
But what about unicameral systems, like the UK? Where if one party holds more seats than others, they’re in power anyway?
Prepare yourselves for this: Multiparty systems!
The UK, Australia, etc have multiple parties, each vying for their seats in parliament. Similar to individual seats, parties have different priorities that appease voters and electorates - a mostly conservative electorate is more likely to vote for a mostly conservative party, even if your liberal motorist party appeases their motoristic ideology, mostly because they are more conservative than motorist and that’s what matters to them the most. This means, even though you might have more seats than any other party, parties who share similar interests are more likely to band together and form coalitions against you, which brings me to my next suggestion:
COALITIONS. A multiple party system would be no fun without them.
Basically, if the controlling party attacks the (similar) interests of several smaller parties, they may feel more compelled to join together so they have more representative capital in the capitol. If the two parties have wildly different identities (eg: one might be Liberal Socialist, the other Liberal Capitalist), it might upset their electorate enough to force them to vote for a new party (!) to the parliament.
Of course, the player can form coalitions as well with parties with similar views, though they might alienate the voter base if they’re not careful with who they join forces with. Coalitions can be broken with political capital. Parties are more likely to form coalitions if the current government is seen as ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ (on the political compass), putting their minor differences aside to stop radical change that threatens .
In the above paragraph, I mentioned the player can form coalitions, which might sound like an exceptional case (since the player is already in control, they might not need to form coalitions with the others unless its an extraordinary situation), whereas I would like to propose an entirely new gameplay side to the game:
A state where the player is not in control, and uses their seats in the cameral to oppose the ruling party - shaking hands, kissing babies, forming coalitions, bribing election officials (not really, tho this should be an option 
with severe penalties if you get caught), opposing all changes the ruling party makes because its not your party, or forming a coalition with the ruling party (if they accept) that brings you into power again.
Suddenly, it becomes harder to lose - almost impossible unless you literally call yourself Hitler and threaten to max all tax rates and cut all social spending, though this can be seen as a good thing - the game goes on while you try to make up for the mistakes that made you lose an election in the first place… or did you start out not being in power? Let me expand on this.
In the start game screen, where you pick your country, there would be the following expanded options:
Camerals
Disable Camerals [x] (Basically a normal democracy 3 game as it is now)
Randomise number of Camerals [x] Custom number (max n) [x]
Randomise number of Seats in Camerals [x] Custom number (max n) [x]
Party Creation
Party Name:
Party Primary Priority: (Eg; Socialist, locks out Capitalist)
Party Secondary Priority: (Eg; Unionist, locks out Self-Employed)
Add Secondary Priority: (If you couldn’t tell so far, picking one voter group will lock out its opposite voter group)
Random [Play as a random party and play as they would… sounds fun, right?]
Compass (Optional): Pick a spot on the political compass that represents a rundown of where you stand (of course, certain voter groups might cancel into sections of the compass for picking)
Position: (What playstate you start in)
- No Seats: win them next election, gain popularity, rise to the top!
- Some Seats: you are a minority party in the game, play your cards right and become the new majority!
- Most Seats: You are major party in the game, but not yet in power; usurp power from the current administration!
- In power: You just won an election. Try to keep power in the face of the opposition parties.
I had a tonne of other ideas, like random political crisis or international crisis that happens in a random country (like change to a radical new leader harms international relations)… I guess I’ll post them as time goes by.
What do ya’ll think? Ya’ll are experts at this?