I think the ethics system nickthenick proposed in the former forum is good for simulating political events.
However, there may be some people who have other better ideas, and if not, there may be people who can improve nickthenick’s idea, so I would like to discuss that point.
Honestly, it’s nearly impossible to turn political thoughts into orthogonal axes.
I think Nick the Nick’s ideology system is good, as those are guiding values.
However, it becomes necessary to split values into positions: “Is X good or bad for my interests or the greater society?”
This is where a lot of nuance in thought arises, allowing differences in ideology even inside ethics. Something considered good for society but bad for the individual would be a necessary evil, or vice versa.
My ethics system would focus on interest groups: the poor (egalitarian), the rich (elitist), the nation (nationalist), the nation’s diplomacy, the culture (traditionalist), various minorities, the economy (typically overlap with interest in the rich), or something different like the condition of people in other nations (humanitarian/internationalist).
This way, most citizens would be inclined to support their own interest group. Poor people vote for egalitarian candidates, rich for elitist candidates. But they could also support something else in addition, like values such as tradition and patriotism.
By the way, what do you think the government system and voter system should do?
The voting system should be based upon enfranchisement, or which segments of the population can vote. The portion of the population which can vote will then be analyzed based on ideology, where candidates and policies which most closely match the ethics of the population will be chosen. Throw in a bit of randomization and politics should be just maths.
Do you think that “victoria 2” of the paradox game is helpful for making these systems? Also, do you think that there are other improvements in the system of nickthenick?