My ideas for Democracy 4

[Larry the Cacodemon]

Here are some ideas that I feel should make it into a possible Democracy 4:

-seperate income taxes for each income class, not the lame tax system we have now where there is no way to control the taxing of each individual class.

-More welfare options. Why is there no option to just outright give money in the form of benefits to a class of your choice? I can't count the number of times where I have simply wanted to increase the income of the lower class without needing some kind of pre-text like food stamps, social housing or anything else which involves bigger government.

-Actual politics. There are no other parties so you are basically just a democratic dictator.

-Perhaps this is a pipe dream but...custom taxes! Give us the ability to create your own kind of taxes in-game!

Thoughts/other ideas?

[Bobby B]

Variety in the countries election process would be nice.
For example in the UK you need 326 seats in the house of commons out of 650 to form a government. SO adding this to game would be an interesting mechanic rather then the current system.

[Maple]

perhaps either cheats (infinite money, instant relection, 100% approval) to test the game, or perhaps even bribed mode when you are bribed and have to hide your approval towards the briber while you make a them have lower taxes ect.

[Assmode]

Custom taxes would be nice. Things like payroll taxes should've been in 3 in the first place considering how prominent they are in actual tax systems.

[Kissamies]

Some countries like mine have more than 2 parties than matter (or 2 predictable coalitions of parties). Here one party is unlikely to get significant enough fraction of the votes all by itself. Instead, the winning party negotiates with the others to form the cabinet. Usually some compromises must be made to get the majority in the parliament behind the goverment.

I'd love to see this implemented. It'd need some completely new mechanics, but one effect on the existing ones would be having some ministers from other parties you can't directly fire.

[somnolentsurfer]

Yeah, a multi party system would be the main thing I'd want from a sequel. My main interests in real life politics are in democratic reform, so I'd like to be able to implement some of those policies in a meaningful way, but they just wouldn't make any difference to a two party system.

• Electoral reform
  
• Proportional representation
  
• A right of recall (the more moderate alternative to the assassinations I keep suffering!)
  
• In the UK, House of Lords reform, republicanism
  
• Party funding reform

Of course, I can't even begin to think how the game might simulate coalition negotiations in a way that'd be fun, but still!

[Boldog Boci]

Coaltion partners could be just another "social class" that you have to make happy, and their ministers could resign if they are unhappy, which could lead to an early election. However that is politics, not governance, and the developers' said aim is to create a governance simulator.

[Saathiya]

(snip)

I had a long post here about what I'm working on, and how I'd like to see similar in the next sequel, but there's no point in making people read that much. My workaround to have math with more terms doesn't work apparently. My mod gives an "invalid neural function" error, and there's no information available at all about what causes that -- just that some mods do.

Oh well. Three games I've looked at modding recently, three I was eager to work on, three that I've had to back out of due to sparse documentation.

So, I'll just make that the change I'd like to see. Complete documentation regarding mods.

[Kissamies]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Boldog Boci:

Coaltion partners could be just another "social class" that you have to make happy, and their ministers could resign if they are unhappy, which could lead to an early election. However that is politics, not governance, and the developers' said aim is to create a governance simulator.

Ah, that's too bad because those sorts of things would really generate emergent stories and insert some drama in the game. In fact, and I fully realise it's beyond the scope of this series, I'd love a game where you don't necessarily be the prime minister, but a party leader. Could even be in the opposition or part of a coalition or whatever. Put some focus on the election campaigns too. Imagine: "The coalition partners want to raise taxes even though our party promised our voters that we wouldn't. Should I walk out or betray the voters in this issue but stay in the goverment where I can really make a difference?"

[swedenplus]

Oprindeligt skrevet af hakkarin:

Here are some ideas that I feel should make it into a possible Democracy 4:

-seperate income taxes for each income class, not the lame tax system we have now where there is no way to control the taxing of each individual class.

-More welfare options. Why is there no option to just outright give money in the form of benefits to a class of your choice? I can't count the number of times where I have simply wanted to increase the income of the lower class without needing some kind of pre-text like food stamps, social housing or anything else which involves bigger government.

-Actual politics. There are no other parties so you are basically just a democratic dictator.

-Perhaps this is a pipe dream but...custom taxes! Give us the ability to create your own kind of taxes in-game!

Thoughts/other ideas?

[swedenplus]

Varning this is a highly personal..wishlist


* A Economic simulator, with different companies to give tax output and see if the economy suffer tax X, maybe you could get away with higher taxes than usual dependent on economic strenght.

* A parlament simulator. Where you suck up to each parlament individual character
much like focus groups and voter groups now.
Replacee the policy introduction cost with you get policies throught by parlament voting.

*
Import Clean Energi option.
Politics to build and or import Solar Power in the equator.
*Ecars and wireless remote radio transmittet reful stations.
*
Hydrogen instead of oil companies policies.
*
actual other countries to simulate.
*
Genetic voter types. Intellectuals.
Genetic traits IQ,gender and stuff not just social class traits.
Especially the minority of gifted people who have above average IQ
and often born.
99% of all human hard scientific progress is created by this minority.
In reality the school dropout and unemployement of gifted people,
yes of geniuses (not nerds ) is a real social concern.
They dont like school and dont like workplace
becouse of their high intellect.

*
Bias science system, where political bias lower education and science effects.
The lower bias and the more democratic and open mind the better science.
Authorative academics and science community is penalized.
*
Science and research!
Anti intellectualism and pro intellectualism effects.
Evil scientists in movies, environentalist irrational fear of GMO
and ethical resistence to cloning etc.
Paranoia against drugcompanies, etc.

Versus gay nerd optimism and belief in benefits of science, the belief in the engingeer as a social miracle worker trust in medicine
and of course prestige from new medicines!

[somnolentsurfer]

Actually, what I'd really like is a find-as-you-type seachable policy index. The visuallisation is extreemly powerful, but there are loads of things I'd like to be able to just search for and see if they're there without checking each individual icon: nuclear disamament, tobin tax, solar freakin' roadways, nationalisation of various things, etc. etc.

[Graspod]

We need more drug options and fixes. For example: legalize cannabis significantly raises violent crime which is not accurate in real life

[Elfreet]

Inflation and economy'sectors like industry, agriculture, mining, and commerce.

[Saathiya]

Lowering the government funded pension should immediately lower the GDP by a multiple that amount first turn and a multiple (greater than one) of that amount in turns to follow. And then over two quarters it should reflect a proportional increase in poverty, increase in membership of the poor demographic, increase in homelessness, increase in crime, and decrease in the middle earner demographic.

This seems to be something that people often can't get their head around when it comes to government pensions (ie, Social Security), but that money is spent. The checks are usually too low to save anything, so cutting those benefits dollar for dollar takes money directly out of the economy.

Government pensions are in effect an economic stimulus, with investment primarily in products and services of necessity and the decision of where to invest delegated to people actually out there surviving. Therefore, the stimulus investment is empirical in its portfolio and that portfolio reflects necessities markets month by month. When that money is taken out of a supply side economy, there should therefore be a delayed but drastic inflation in the cost of living.

This is because Keynesian economies will always see prices of necessities jump to offset a decrease in revenue due to less spending. Those who still have money to spend have no choice; it's eat or die, pay rent or be homeless. So, those markets are not subject to normal selective forces among consumers.

None of this is understood by the majority of today's politicians, and none of this is modelled well in the game. It's as if people think that all that money going into necessities markets is make believe ghost money. It's hard cash.

Looking back at my second paragraph, if the expenditure is above a certain threshold such that checks are high enough that savings can occur, then reductions in that spending have a two-tier effect on the economy. Reducing spending first negatively impacts financial markets. Reducing it beneath the necessities threshold has the above-described effets.

[Larry the Cacodemon]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Gnostici:

This seems to be something that people often can't get their head around when it comes to government pensions (ie, Social Security), but that money is spent. The checks are usually too low to save anything, so cutting those benefits dollar for dollar takes money directly out of the economy.

Government pensions are in effect an economic stimulus, with investment primarily in products and services of necessity and the decision of where to invest delegated to people actually out there surviving.

There is one big problem with your argument: Taxes are needed in order to pay for pensions in the first place, which means taking money out of the economy.

If I take a 100 bucks out of the economy with taxes, and then give that 100 bucks to a person in the form of pensions, then I haven't actually put anything new into the economy, but rather I just re-invested the money into the economy which I already took from the economy in the first place. By argument I could fill a swimming pool by taking water from one end and then put it back into it on the other end until the pool is full.