What if countries could form international unions, similar to the European Union? Instead of countries only having individual alliances, players could create or join a permanent political/economic union with other countries. The union could have its own parliament and elections, where citizens of member countries vote for union-level parties or representatives. It could also have its own president or leadership system depending on how the union is structured. Countries could decide how much power the union has. For example, it could start as a simple economic/trade union and members could gradually give it powers over trade, immigration, defence, foreign policy, environmental laws, human rights, etc. The union could also have a common budget, with member countries contributing money and the union spending it on infrastructure, development, defence, research and other projects. There could be optional features such as free movement, common citizenship, a common currency, shared military forces and common foreign policy, depending on what the members agree to. Countries should be able to apply to join, vote on new members, suspend/expel members and leave the union. Major changes could require votes or referendums in member countries. The most important part would be making it customizable. Players could choose how decisions are made, such as majority voting, unanimous voting, population-based voting or one-country-one-vote, as well as how much authority the union has. This could allow players to create anything from a small economic bloc to an EU-style political union or even a full federation. I think this would make diplomacy, elections and international politics much more interesting. 🌍

lawmaker-dev 6 days ago

3

The proposals for internal maps/constituencies or international maps (in addition to the related concepts of war and intergovernmental organizations like the EU or ASEAN) are, as far as I can tell, one of the most demanded user requests, and yet it also seems to me to be one of the more complex implementations from a back-end perspective. I have extensive experience in the nation/political roleplay space and a little bit of game-dev experience, and I think I’ve come up with a feasible implementation plan as follows. Note that each idea builds on the prior, so the proposal is drafted to be read sequentially. REGIONS Like NationStates, for those of you who recall, countries existed in “regions,” which were essentially groups of nations that co-existed in a single canon universe. What I propose is that nations have the option to choose a region in which they can exist and interact with fellow nations and parties ONLY in that region. For example, imagine nations Aurania, Borania, and Calonia. Aurania and Borania are in Region A, while Calonia is in Region B. Aurania can only interact with Borania in the roleplay-gameplay element, while Calonia cannot interact with either. Similarly, the Auranian Conservative Party can only interact with the Boranian Conservative Party, not the Calonian Nationalists. If nation Demeria is formed and joins Region B, they can interact with Calonia but not Borania or Aurania. Nations would join a region upon their creation and would be able to move between regions only with support of a supermajority of players (not including players having joined in the last IRL week to avoid fake accounts being used to move regions). Private nations would be able to be moved only with consent of the creator. Further, private regions would be able to be created for persons who want a closed ecosystem of nations, perhaps for a friend group or similar such social circle. In such case, the private region creator would have to approve new nations joining or use a code similar to private nations. Public regions could be created by any nation similar to the current process for nation applications, where new regions would be created based on the crowdedness of currently-existing regions. NOW WAIT, you may be thinking that this doesn’t have anything at all to do with maps! Continue on and all will be explained. REGIONAL MAPS In this proposal, each region would be a canon and cohesive “world,” existing spatially and temporally together. Since regions would have somewhere between 3-20 nations (this is an arbitrary number that could be adjusted per-region), it becomes much more feasible to implement a map system than for the manifold countries that currently and could eventually exist in the game at-large. When a new region is created, I propose that a map be generated for that region, using a similar world generation formula to Sid Meier’s Civilization or Azgaar’s Fantasy Map Generator. For efficiency and modularity, I suggest a hex-based map, but a cell-based map like Azgaar’s could be implemented. When a nation is created or joins a region, it is given the option to claim a patch of land of the existing cells/hexes/tiles (referred to as tiles for continuity hereon out), at a value set during nation creation (similar to how nations choose population when they’re created). I envision four presets: City-state, Small State, Large State, and Transcontinental State, each of which would allow a certain percentage of the map to be claimed. For City-states, I propose no more than 2% of map tiles; Small states, no more than 5% of map tiles; Large states, no more than 20% of map tiles; Transcontinental state, no more than 45% of map tiles. Naturally, these va

leldy22 6 days ago

6

Hey! I have another feature suggestion that I think could make elections much more realistic and interesting. What if Lawmaker added a two-round voting system, similar to the French election system? In many elections with several parties, the winning candidate or party can receive a relatively small share of the vote. A second round would give voters another chance to choose between the strongest candidates. For presidential and other single-winner elections, if nobody reaches 50%+1 in the first round, the top two candidates could advance to a second round. Whoever gets the most votes in the second round wins.but I think this system would be especially interesting for assembly/parliamentary elections. Each constituency could have its own first-round election. If no candidate reaches the required threshold, a second round would be held in that constituency. The French-style system could allow the candidates who meet a certain vote threshold to qualify for the second round, rather than automatically limiting it to only two candidates. This could create situations where three candidates remain, while parties can decide whether to continue competing or withdraw in favour of another candidate.This would also connect really well with an endorsement and withdrawal system. After the first round, eliminated candidates and parties could endorse another candidate or withdraw their candidate. Their endorsement could influence some of their supporters depending on ideology, popularity and the relationship between the parties. For example, if Party A gets 38%, Party B gets 32%, and Party C gets 18%, Party C could withdraw and endorse Party B before the second round. Some of Party C's voters could then move toward B, while others could still vote independently. Endorsements could also exist outside elections, allowing political parties, politicians, unions or other political organizations to publicly support candidates. I think this would make assembly elections much more dynamic. The first round would show the real strength of each party, while the second round would create another stage of campaigning, negotiations, tactical voting, alliances, withdrawals and endorsements. It could also be optional, allowing countries to choose between first-past-the-post, proportional representation, two-round voting, or other electoral systems. Just thought this could make elections and coalition politics much more interesting!

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

1

I think adding pre-election electoral alliances into the game would introduce a cool new mechanic, which could lead to some countries having a party system with a lot of different parties but all organized into 2 or 3 blocs against each other (maybe following some irl electoral systems, parties in blocs could a bit of a bonus compared to if they werent in a bloc, but thats not necessary). You could probably send a request to another party to form an alliance (preferably being able to write why you want to form one). in elections, the parties are shown separately but visually grouped in with each other. any party can leave an alliance at any time. when it comes to voting on legislation and other things, they'd all vote together for the same laws, so coalition members might have to vote within it how they should vote. also if any party wants to introduce legislation they should prob have to consult the other members too. Alliances should probably have names and logos (any change to any detail has to be voted on). i think this would be a cool mechanic to add into the game, please consider it

edu 6 days ago

3

I think another feature that could make political parties feel much more like actual political organizations would be the ability to create internal party wings representing different groups within the party. Rather than every member of a party simply having the same interests, parties could have different organizations that represent specific sections of their membership and electorate. For example, a party could have: 🌹 Youth Wing 🛠️ Workers' Wing 🎓 Student Wing 👩 Women's Wing 🏢 Business Wing 🌾 Farmers' Wing 🏙️ Urban Wing 🏡 Rural Wing 🌳 Environmental Wing 👴 Senior Citizens' Wing 🏳️ Regional/Minority Wings 🎖️ Veterans' Wing The available wings could depend on the party and its ideology, or parties could simply be allowed to create their own custom wings. HOW PARTY WINGS WOULD WORK Each wing could have its own membership, popularity and policy priorities. For example, a Workers' Wing might strongly support higher wages, stronger unions and labour protections, while a Business Wing within the same party might prioritize lower corporate taxes and deregulation. The party leadership would therefore have to balance the interests of its different wings. Each wing could have a level of influence within the party based on factors such as: Number of members Support among party members Electoral importance Fundraising Activity Support from MPs Popularity among voters This would make internal party politics much more dynamic. PARTY WING LEADERS Each wing could have its own leader or elected leadership. Wing leaders could: Publish statements Propose policies Endorse candidates Support leadership candidates Organize events Recruit members Pressure the party leadership Negotiate with other factions For example, during a party leadership election, the Youth Wing could endorse one candidate while the Workers' Wing supports another. The leadership would then have to consider these endorsements when trying to win the internal election. WINGS AND POLICY Party wings could also influence the party manifesto. For example: Workers' Wing proposal: Increase minimum wage Business Wing proposal: Reduce corporate taxation Environmental Wing proposal: Introduce stricter emissions regulations The party leadership could accept, reject or compromise between these proposals. This could create genuine internal political debates instead of every party behaving as a single unified entity. WINGS AND ELECTIONS Wings could also become important during national elections. A party could ask its Youth Wing to focus on younger voters, its Workers' Wing to campaign among workers, and its Rural Wing to organize in rural constituencies. Different wings could therefore contribute to campaign organization and voter outreach. A strong Youth Wing could help a party increase support among young voters, while a strong Workers' Wing could improve the party's connection with working-class voters. INTERNAL CONFLICT The most interesting part could be what happens when a party leadership moves away from the interests of its wings. For exampl

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

What if citizens could directly vote on important political questions instead of every decision being made only through parliament? Referendums could be used for major issues such as constitutional amendments, controversial laws, major government reforms, or other important national decisions. There could be different types of referendums. A government-initiated referendum could be called by the government, while a popular initiative could allow citizens to collect signatures and force an issue to a public vote. Some major constitutional changes could automatically require a referendum. It could also be possible for parliament to pass a law and then allow citizens to challenge it through an optional referendum. This would give opposition parties and citizens another way to stop or reconsider controversial legislation. Parties could actively campaign during referendum campaigns, choosing to support YES or NO, spending campaign funds, making arguments, holding rallies and trying to influence public opinion. Polls could show how support is changing throughout the campaign. Different referendum rules could also be configurable, such as a simple majority, a required turnout threshold, or a higher majority for constitutional changes. Some referendums could be legally binding, while others could be advisory. I also think a recall referendum could be interesting, allowing citizens to vote on whether an elected official should remain in office. This could make politics much more dynamic because parties wouldn't only have to win elections and pass legislation. They would also have to convince the public directly on major issues. It would also fit Lawmaker's identity really well: players remain political parties, while referendums create another way for those parties to compete for public support and influence political decisions.

dartvader0158 6 days ago

What if, if you hold a major executive position in a country (such as president / prime minister / chancellor / monarch, etc), you could donate to parties in another country that could benefit you? In the pictures I attached above, you can see how I imagine the feature could look. Next to the ‘send message’ button, if you are in a major executive position, you could see a button to donate to political parties. If you clicked it, you’d see the dialog above. First, you’d pick how much money to send. Then, you could optionally pick a message to send with the donation. This shouldn’t have to be mandatory, but it could be optional. Then, you could pick between donating publicly and privately. If you receive a donation, you should first have to accept or reject the donation, and if you reject it, the donator gets their money back. If you accept it, the donator should be notified. Let’s talk about the distinction between private and public donations. If you donate publicly, that would immediately add to your authoritarian score (maybe +10, or it could be based on how much you donated) and possibly negatively affect how voters see you. If you publicly receive a donation, it could add a bit to your authoritarian score, but not too much (maybe half or a third of the authoritarian score added to the donating party). If you donate privately, this won’t immediately harm either party’s reputation. However, journalists are always on the lookout for these corrupt private donations. There’s a pretty good chance you’ll get away with it, but there’s also a chance that soon after you donated, you could get caught and since this was private, both parties will have a much higher authoritarian score (maybe 2 or 3x that of a public donation). If you rejected a public donation request, you could probably lose some authoritarian points from that since that proves you don’t take dark money. I also have another idea that could make this feature more dynamic: If you received a private donation request, you could not just have the options ‘accept’ and ‘reject’, but also ‘reject and expose’: If you pick the third option, not only do you reject the donation, but you immediately expose the donator, so the donator gets as many authoritarian points as they would usually get from getting caught, but you actually lose authoritarian points.

edu 5 days ago

2

I’d like to see some more name-lists for different cultures — which I believe would be relatively easy to implement and I even volunteer to do so. Further, I would be grateful if namelists had more variation within them, like rarer names and just more options (they get a bit repetitive.) As far as specific ones I’d like to see, personally I’d like (in order of preference) a Korean nameset, a Chinese nameset, a Nordic nameset (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian); an East Slavic nameset (Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian); a West Slavic nameset (Polish, Czech, Slovak); a Balkan Slavic nameset (Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian); and an Arab nameset (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc).

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

It'd be nice for multi-cameral (or uniquely minded unicameral states) to have the option to change how members of legislatures are chosen, similar to how in the United States the Senate is elected two members per state. I imagine this option would be a drop-down similar to the size of a house or its term. Here are just the ideas that I came up with for different ways election to a house could work. When an option has brackets, a second drop-down menu would have to open to make a selection for second criterion (like how the no-confidence threshold menu only opens when a no-confidence house is selected for directly-elected positions). Proportional Representation (current system) Evenly divided by party Randomly Appointed by [fill in position here] Appointed by monarch Proportional Representation of only [demographic bloc] I've attached a mock-up of what it could look like in this basic form in fig. 1. (below) On a related note, it would be handy if each house could have the option to have a different threshold for passage (like how you can set the threshold for no-confidence). For the thresholds for passage, I propose: 50%+1 of votes cast (so subtracting abstentions/absent from the total) 50%+1 of all members (including abstentions/absent in total) 55% 60% (like the U.S. Senate filibuster) 75% Similarly, it'd be pretty neat if you could designate a specific house to handle budgets first, or legislation first, or constitutional amendments first (like how you can choose a house to handle no-confidence for each office.) Another option could be None, which would keep it how it is. I've attached a mock-up of what it could look like in this more complex form in figures 2 and 3. (below)

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

3

Self Explanatory I think we should be able to set term limits on all offices meaning each of your characters can only serve so many terms in each office (assuming they don't age out and retire) can be changed with a constitutional convention.

lawmaker-dev 6 days ago

2

I’ve seen a lot of people propose unions of countries and a lot of them propose that countries could decide and vote on legislation, which you’ve already said is not something you want to do, which is why I think maybe an EU Parliament style of legislature could be better. Like European elections, I think unions’ elections should be run in each country individually, kinda like just a normal election, to elect the amount of seats their country is allocated (it could be standard for all countries or it could be based on population). Parties should usually try to join union-level parties. For example, in a union between Country A, Country B and Country C: People’s Party includes National Rally from Country A, Republican Conservatives from Country A, People’s Alliance from Country B and the Conservative Party from Country C Socialist Alliance includes Social Democrats from Country A, Socialist Party from Country B, and Workers’ Socialist Party from Country C Workers’ Federation includes Workers’ Party from Country A, Communist Party from Country B, Workers’ Union from Country B and Communist Party from Country C These parties would function like federations. I could see 2 ways of this being implemented: 1: For every piece of legislation, every member party votes on how the union-level party should vote together. Same for proposed legislation, where every member party can propose legislation for the union-level party to propose. 2: Every year maybe (early elections could be called if member parties want to or if the leader party disbands), member parties vote on who should become a leader party from a selection of parties that decided to be candidates. The party that becomes the leader party essentially represents the party and is the party in every way that matters. Not every national-level party has to subscribe to a union-level party. If you’re looking at a parliament chart, parties that aren’t members of any union-level party are shown as ‘Non-inscrits’, like in the EU. I think there should be an option in the parliament chart to either see union-level parties or just see the national-level parties individually.

edu 3 days ago

1

It would be great if parties could nominate their lead candidate around 1–2 months before an election. Once nominated, the candidate would become the main face of the party's campaign. Events such as rallies, fundraisers and other campaign appearances would have their effects doubled, both positive and negative. A successful rally could therefore have a much bigger impact on the campaign, while a failed event or scandal could hurt the party significantly more. This would make choosing the right candidate an important strategic decision and give the final weeks of an election campaign much more weight.

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

We've just had a general election in our country, and I noticed that all of the results were announced instantly at one minute past the hour. I think it would be really interesting to have the results reveal gradually - such as: Seats randomly appearing during election day one by one All seats for the parties appearing at set intervals Cabinets would only be able to be formed at the start of the next day. I think this would make the elections feel more real and increase immersion by making you feel like you're really watching the election results come in, rather than having everything magically appear at the start of the day.

lawmaker-dev 6 days ago

Introduce diplomacy and war between countries

lawmaker-dev 6 days ago

1

i am not talking about a map i mean more of a overview of regions and states within country maybe even cities and constituencies. with local elections, mayoral elections and governors if the constitution allows it.

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

1

We should be able to assign characters to be leaders of the party and have them represent the party in legislative elections. If the country has several legislatures, a party should be able to appoint a leader for each legislative body

An Anonymous User 6 days ago

Currently there are only two types of raise funds: Telethon for small donations and Private dinner with business donors. This means that left wing parties are at a disadvantage for funding, as pro business parties can simply do private dinners and amass huge amounts of funds for campaign events, something that is nerfed for left wing parties that are seen as anti business. This means right wing parties can amass huge amounts of funds that left wing parties cannot replicate, allowing right wing parties to essentially spam ‘Shift views’ that left wing parties cannot counteract quick enough (in my country, a right wing party has been able to do private dinner for 2 days then spend the rest 5 days of the week shifting views, and repeat for the other weeks). To counteract this, I suggest implementing Trade Union Meetings as another way to Raise Funds, specifically for parties that are Pro-Worker Protection, boosted by charismatic, fantastic speaker, well connected, working class background. This allows left wing parties to raise enough funds to balance out the current advantage right wing parties have in funding, as right now my party and another left wing party are trying to counteract the aforementioned right wing party, but we can’t keep up because we don’t make as much funding as that right wing party.

An Anonymous User 3 days ago

2

I think more economic policies and adding a monetary system will strengthen the games economic simulation and would make a possible inflation feature more easier to implement. right now it feels like the economic laws in game now are really based and more ideological rather than a way make the economy better which makes working with parties on the other side of the aisle harder. I think making the performance of the economy effect voter opinion toward a party.

An Anonymous User 4 days ago

I know very well that this has already been proposed on Discord but I just think it’s a really good idea. If a supermajority (or some other high margin) of members of Parliament accepted it, a constitutional convention could be held to rewrite the constitution. This would bypass the sometimes annoying 1-year limit for constitutional changes when there are many changes that need to be made in a short time, or as the original post on Discord mentioned, if a formerly dormant country with no players was revived by new players joining, these new players could rewrite its constitution much more easily.

edu 5 days ago

1