Political parties

[Stuff2]

The diffrence between socialism and liberalism is actually not about importance of industrialism. It's mostly about public versus individual rights.

The liberal ideas are free market, individualism. The socialist is more for limited free market and solidarity.

In general socialists have higher taxes and a bigger public service. The liberalist are more in favor of lower taxes and less public services. This means that many private companies are running public tasks.
Liberalism is great for economic growth (although some people will get really really poor). The socialism is not that great for economic growth but there is less differences in how rich people are. And beacouse everyone can afford education your people will in general be more educated.

[Glak]

Stefu:

pretty good idea. There should be different types of organizations that you have to satisfy. Like there could be parlimentary, two party system, one where you have to please powerful nobles, etc...

Stuff2

"The diffrence between socialism and liberalism is actually not about importance of industrialism. It's mostly about public versus individual rights."

yep, though I would recomment against using liberalism in that way. Here in America somehow the terms have gotten reversed so it would confuse people.

"And beacouse everyone can afford education your people will in general be more educated."

I'd say that's a cultural thing. In a free society people decide if they want to be educated, so some will and some won't. In a socialist society things are more standardized so it is sort of decided for you (you could decide to get more but it wouldn't help as much since the additionaly earnings are taxed away, or you could decide to get less but you're already paying for it so you might as well go to school.)

[Stefu]

From the moment I saw Senate, I started to wonder - could the parties be included in some way? I thought, and finally, when reading V 2.0, it dawned. How about, in democracy, every time you make SE change, it first has to pass the parliament? And that won't be easy, as there are many parties competing in power.

Now, parties would symbolize political views - there would be Democratic Party, Socialist Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party and so on. Each of parties has an Agenda. Agenda mainly specifies what they want to do to SE factors. Their opinion to these factos is specified at range +3 to -3. For instance, Socialist Party's view to Economics would be -2 or even -3 - they are against Soc- Eng choices that increase the Economics factor. On the other hand, as they are all for rights of worker, Industry level could be +2 to +3 - they are very pro towards choices that raise Industry level.

But, in event of vote, how is it calculated which party will vote which? Simple. The chances the new Soc. Eng setting are each tken separate and each multiplied individually with the party's Agenda factor. For instance, if aforementioned Socialist party has -3 in Economics and new choice would cause increase of 1 in Economics, it gives Socialists -3 in that matter. Then all factors are added up and wheteher the sum is positive or negative, that decides whether our party votes Yes or No.

But what decides what party has how many seats? Well, still using Socialists as an example, if your industry is screwed up (You produce little to nothing) Socialist models get seen as relief from present crisis and Socialist party gets lot of votes. Note that if Industry level is -3, for instance, it doesn't automatically mean that Socialists get voten. Rather, if leader screws up in Industry, then Socialists get voten for. I suggest that as a balancing factor there is Presidential Party that votes Yes to every suggestion that president makes - after other parties have been tallied, reminder of seats goes to this party.

Also, random events could be in, in form of one party getting particulary charismatic leader, or one that makes major chance to their views. Also, if there is friendly state next to you and Socialists are going fine there, then Socialists in your country are bound to get votes too. If there's enemy country with Socialists on charge, on the other hand, your socialists are gonna get less votes (potential traitors, you see.)

[Stuff2]

First of all. My last post didn't include any other form of government than democracy.
I ment a free society that have chosen a socialistic politic. This means that a pure socialism is impossible, but in general my country is much more socialistic than yours.

Second. With education i ment higher education, not the nine-year compulsory school.

Where I live people are not forced to be educated. They are given the oppertunity, regardless of their social or economic status.(well...in theory they are). The thing is that education don't cost any money except that u need food and some place to live. But this can also be arranged with student grants and 'student loans'. Tax is not the only source where the universities get there money. The market is very interested in getting qaulified personnel and the research from universities and therefor they also give financial support to education.

Where u live education costs money so if youre parents are poor u don't have the freedom of studying on a university if you want to. Poor people don't have the same freedom as rich people. Are you saying that all poor people are not interested in getting a good education?

That's my point.

[tniem]

Political parties would be a great addition to the game. My problem is that this leaves out a great majority of the game, if you are in a different government. When I am in a war mood I almost always pick Communism. Would I then be left out of public opinion?

I don't think I should. There needs to be more input from the people to there leader. This could range for lords in Monarchy to the Communist Party in Communism to religious leaders in Facism (I think). Any way Democracy should not be the only government where you have to hear public opinion and respond or risk a revolution or not be able to change S.E.