Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kay12]

Well, the country I live in does not share such bipartisanship, and to be honest, I though American politics were somewhat moved by smaller subparties as well (such as the Log Cabin Republicans, in LCS terms conservatives with liberal gay views). However, what Jon suggested is good in my opinion, and I don't believe it ruins the satire; It'll not only be a parody of bipartisanship, but populism as well. That's something even Europe can afford!

[G-Flex]

Well, the country I live in does not share such bipartisanship, and to be honest, I though American politics were somewhat moved by smaller subparties as well (such as the Log Cabin Republicans, in LCS terms conservatives with liberal gay views).

Some of the satire might be a little lost on you if you don't live in the US, I guess, and you can't be blamed for that. LCS is a farcical, satirical pastiche of two-party, heavily-bifurcated American politics. It is supposed to be that way, and is not supposed to be realistic. There's a reason why "liberal" and "conservative" are bandied about the way they are in the game, and treated almost like D&D alignments (if not even more harshly); it's a bit of social commentary and is intentionally absurd in how partisan it is.

Liberal Crime Squad is not meant to be an accurate representation of politics in the US or anywhere else. It represents a satirical, warped version of American politics as Americans tend to treat it, and also satirizes political terrorist/activist groups, with the LCS itself being something of a parody of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I agree with the issue you're trying to address, which is that the issues change together instead of separately. My solution would be to have politicians who aren't C or L consider public opinion when voting. Maybe they have a 1/2 chance of slaving to public opinion (use the same roll as a voter in a popular vote), and a 1/2 chance of voting according to their alignment. Moderates could vote with public opinion 2/3 of the time, the other 1/3 of the time they would vote in favor of whichever side is closer to centrist. In this way, causing a big fuss on one issue would trigger the laws reacting.

Correction: I would have politicians who are C or L consider public opinion. The C+ and L+ would be hardliners who ignore the polls.

[Kay12]

^ That's what I thought.

And yes, as people have been saying that the bilpolarity of LCS politics is intentional for a few days now, I think I'd be idiot if I hadn't understood that yet. From a pure gameplay point of view, variety would be nice, and as I've said a few times already, Jon's suggestion will provide such variety without hurting the satire.

[G-Flex]

Fair enough, and it's definitely suitable that moderates would be treated as effectively clueless on-the-fence populists.

[Servant Corps]

It would effectively kills off any talk of a Moderate Military coup, which had previously been suggested on the boards, by giving moderates already more prominence as the swing vote.

The main question for me is how do we communicate this mechanic to the player, so that he knows why the bill to improve pollution regulations failed miserably in an L+ congress*.

My idea is to have the game calculate who's going to vote to popular opinion and then report to the player that "X Representatives and Y Senators have voted based on popular opinion instead of ideology." Presidents are already influenced by their Cabinet, so I see no reason to add this mechanic in there, and the courts are "supposedly" insulated from popular opinion, so this mechanic wouldn't apply over there either.

*And yes, this happened. Somebody once did a Sleeper Run where all issues except pollution was L+ in popular opinion and only pollution was C+; this was done because there are no sleepers that can impact the pollution issue directly. And yes, it was annoying for the person in question who was playing said run.

[Kay12]

It must've been quite a long ago, because I think currently if a sleeper has no specific issue attached they will impact a random issue. Also, as I said, having a single issue C+ while the others go L+ is very improbable because the Congress has double the power of public opinion. Especially if the Supreme Court is no longer C+, having the pollution laws consistently remain C+ is nearly impossible.

[Svirfneblim]

Why not add the different political alignements in a satirical way?
Until the electoral reform would be L or L+, they'd all be doomed and hopeless, getting only a few seats.
Encountering members of these beliefs would be rare as well and they could say amusing things about how they are annoyed they are unknown and not respected.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

It would effectively kills off any talk of a Moderate Military coup, which had previously been suggested on the boards, by giving moderates already more prominence as the swing vote.

The main question for me is how do we communicate this mechanic to the player, so that he knows why the bill to improve pollution regulations failed miserably in an L+ congress*.

You could still have such an ending, though my views have drifted somewhat from that opinion. I would expect a Conservative coup if anything, especially now that the military has a permanent Conservative presence in the game.

I think the idea that popular opinion is liberal on an issue, and congress voted that way, is pretty intuitive. I strongly suggest making L+ and C+ politicians steadfast in their views, ignoring popular opinion. An L+ Congress should never refuse to liberalize an issue, no matter how strongly the people feel about it.

[G-Flex]

I think the idea that popular opinion is liberal on an issue, and congress voted that way, is pretty intuitive. I strongly suggest making L+ and C+ politicians steadfast in their views, ignoring popular opinion. An L+ Congress should never refuse to liberalize an issue, no matter how strongly the people feel about it.

Right, although they should certainly stand a greater chance of being voted out of office because of it.

[Kay12]

I think that politicians occasionally taking a peek at public opinion is more intuitive than the current system.

[Servant Corps]

I'm going to attempt to start programming in this system, but I do have another suggestion. At the moment, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party can only nominate people of their ideology...as well as Moderates. The problem is that the Moderates are likely to lose if they run in an extremist environment that favors the C+ or L+ world. Since parties does appear to exist more for gaining political power for their members rather than just to mindlessly promote their ideology, is it alright to allow Liberal Party to nominate C Presidents, and Conservative Party to nominate L Presidents? Doing so could help to prevent the extremist C+/L+ politicians from coasting to an easy victory by deriding the Moderates and securing the swing L/C vote...

EDIT: And, uh, by start, I mean download Visual C++ very slowly. If anybody can implement this proposed change before me, then good.

[nenjin]

is it alright to allow Liberal Party to nominate C Presidents, and Conservative Party to nominate L Presidents? Doing so could help to prevent the extremist C+/L+ politicians from coasting to an easy victory by deriding the Moderates and securing the swing L/C vote...

Considering how hyper-partisan most of LCS is, I think that would strike players as a bug if they saw it happen. And while it fits with LCS' "any means necessary" philosophy, it's at odds with its "no compromise" philosophy on the other.

[PTTG??]

While I agree with the OP's understanding of the deep matrix that is true political science, Liberal Crime squad has always been, at least from my perspective, less of a rational and thoughtful examination of political discourse, and more of a glimpse into the fevered and delusional world of a talk-radio pundit's sedated and hallucinogenic dreams.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

At the moment, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party can only nominate people of their ideology...as well as Moderates. The problem is that the Moderates are likely to lose if they run in an extremist environment that favors the C+ or L+ world. Since parties does appear to exist more for gaining political power for their members rather than just to mindlessly promote their ideology, is it alright to allow Liberal Party to nominate C Presidents, and Conservative Party to nominate L Presidents? Doing so could help to prevent the extremist C+/L+ politicians from coasting to an easy victory by deriding the Moderates and securing the swing L/C vote...

Well... these nominees aren't the pragmatic selection of a group of cigar puffing politicians sitting in a back room somewhere, they're the popular selection of the party's base. Primary voters will be pragmatic, but only to a point; they desperately want to rally behind someone that will bring change they can believe in, referencing Obama's 2008 campaign slogan. A Liberal Party primary won't produce a Conservative candidate because the Liberal Party voters won't get excited about a Conservative.

This is a flaw in the presidential primary system. With some kind of preferential voting system, you could get a Conservative defeating an incumbent Arch-Conservative, by getting help from the Liberals with their second/third/fourth choice. Perhaps this could tie in with the Election Reform topic. But with primary nominations, it's very unlikely, since the Liberals will run someone they prefer more, and yes, inevitably lose.

This is seen in a lot of lopsided House districts around the country; it's ironclad locked for one party or the other, and their opponents won't nominate someone who stands a chance, because to do that, they'd basically have to nominate a member of the other party.