President Infinity next release sneak-peek v. 2.9.9, Windows

President Infinity v. 2.9.9 sneak-peek for Windows has been released!

This sneak-peek adds Party Identification to each eligible voter (a given party, independent, or alienated) and Party Identification Strength (committed, leaning), and in particular if a voter is committed to a party, all candidates running for that party get +25 to their Favorability score, if voter leaning for a party, all candidates running for that party get +15, and fixes a bug where VP who is also endorser could take back endorsement of player is VP of.

Note: this version changes spacebarring to close various screens to ‘n’.

(Note: for goals for this release cycle, Spring 2019, see here.)

If you are a President Infinity owner on subscription (or if you purchased President Infinity within the last year), you are eligible for this upgrade.

This is a comprehensive update.

You can download this release by requesting a download e-mail at the link below. From the e-mail, click the link to the web page. On the web-page, there will be a ‘Sneak-peek’ link.

To update:

Version information:

What’s new in this upgrade from the previous sneak-peek (v. 2.9.9).

  • each eligible voter has Party Identification (can be a given party, independent, or alienated) and Party Identification Strength (if a given party, committed or leaning), if committed to a party, all candidates running for that party get +25 to their Favorability score, if leaning for a party, all candidates running for that party get +15
  • fixed bug where VP who is also endorser could take back endorsement of player is VP of

28 thoughts on “President Infinity next release sneak-peek v. 2.9.9, Windows”

  1. The big game mechanics aspect to work on before official release is how, after extended primaries, the electorate tends to become polarized, such that it is very difficult to get significant % movement once you get to the general.

  2. What effect would we expect to see in the game from the “party identification” feature?

    This may be way off-topic, but just for fun I’ve run a couple of games where one of the major parties was “off”, like only Republican vs. Libertarian or vs. Green Party. If I do so, if the party registration is say 45D 45R 10I, and I run with only Democrat and Independent, then the 45 R all go into the Democrat column, same if I run only Republican and independent, all the D voters go R.

    So my question is, if 45% of the voters don’t have a candidate from their party identification, will they make a decision on the “next” best option, or all automatically go to the other major party? The latter is what’s happening and it seems a little unrealistic.

  3. Anthony – Some questions RE: extended primaries issue –

    (1) Do committed voters always vote?

    (2) When commuted voters vote, do they always vote for their party?

    It sounds like the answer to both (1) and (2) is yes. So that would mean as long as someone from their party is running*, they are guaranteed votes, or the absolute floor of support in the race.

    So if the “leaners” consist of all voters for a party who could potentially stay home or defect, maybe their behavior should change based on how long a primary lasts? I could see three solutions –

    (1) Have “time” in the primaries act differently/asssymetrically from the general. So voters are slower to polarize early on.

    (2) Maybe if the primaries go beyond a certain point without all other candidates dropping out (say Super Tuesday or maybe April 1, or the end of the primary calendar), there could be a simulated bleeding effect of leaners.

    (3) Similar to (2), but make it relative. So the effect only comes into play if one primary runs significantly after the other.

    That’s about all I have in mind offhand. I would like to link you some data from the ANES studies on when voters decide who they will vote for. Here is a frame of reference for turnout for different subgroups (scroll to the bottom of the table):

    If you scroll down, you’ll notice that Democrats and Republicans vote at a clip ranging from the mid 70s – high 80s in presidential years. Independents generally lag significantly. On average it seems to be about a 25%-30% drop.

    Here’s a link for when voters decide (it doesn’t include 08, 12, 16, but I’ll try and play around with the raw files and get something to you tomorrow for reference). Please note that respondents who decided “not to vote” are included:

    On the bottom there are links to when subgroups decided who to vote for:

    From looking at the subgroups on the bottom, the following trends are clear:

    Partisans – Very few decide late (roughly 10-25), but it could still be enough to swing the election. Looks like it’s roughly evenly split between locked in on day one and deciding after the primaries/convention.

    Independents – Fewer than a third decide early, sometimes only about a tenth. The rest split roughly evenly between early in the general and the last few weeks (during/after debate season).

    I suspect a fair number of the partisans wait until the convention to know who the nominee is, but are locks to vote with their party.

    So my take is:

    Committed D/R – Roughly half of each party. Vote 100% of the time, always vote the same way.

    Leaner D/R – The other half of each party. Vote 2/3 of the time. Maybe 2/3 decide during the primaries whether to vote with the party/defect/stay home. The rest during the post-convention general. Maybe a quarter are undecided on Labor Day (when the conventional wisdom is that voters start paying attention)

    Independents – A plurality of overall voters, but vote at a 50% or lower clip (the total is higher in surveys because some “independents” are leaners who defected). Can vote for either party or stay home. Seems about a third each decide during the primaries, during the conventions through the beginning of debates, and another third in the final few weeks. So on Labor Day maybe half are decided.

    Thanks for making it this far (hope something here is of use), and thank you again for all the hard work and dedication you put into the software!

    * As for David’s issue, it seems like a possible fix might be to have a major party endorse an independent or libertarian candidate if nobody is running in the general. Like Bernie in VT, or say in NM if the republican dropped out to allow Gary Johnson to run (of course in a three-way race you wouldn’t want this to happen, like in ME). The committee party voters at the least should move to the party closer to them in terms of median issue position.

  4. Anthony – I wrote a long post and it doesn’t seem to be showing up. I copy and pasted here just in case it’s a matter of the blog having a length cutoff or not allowing links:

    pastebin dot com/VpN8vh3U

    Sorry for the confusion…

  5. @Thr33,

    1. Yes, committed voters always vote. However, a voter could be committed for 1 candidate, that candidate drops out, and then they become alienated and don’t vote.

    2. No, a voter could be committed for a candidate that isn’t from the party they identify with and are committed to. There is identification with a candidate, and identification with a party. Being committed or leaning in terms of identification with a party increases the scores of any candidates in that party, and makes it more difficult for candidates from other parties to win that voter away.

    Thanks for the detailed discussion of voter decision making – I’ll take a look at it.

  6. Anthony – Thanks for the response, makes sense. This seems like a more complicated issue then.

    So then in a long primary, you have combination of some committed candidate supporters (who are not committed supporters of the party) who become alienated as their desired candidate drops out. At the same time, more “leaner” voters are deciding presumably, and reducing the pool of open voters.

    Not sure how you would handle that without maybe placing constraints on decision making before the general election phase begins.

    Thanks for the response, best of luck figuring out the issue.

  7. I downloaded 2.9.9. I noticed I’m still having the problem where some states only show 1 delegate and a small number of voters during the primaries. Figuring I should just play the general, I started a game with Cruz, Sanders, Johnson, Stein, and Bloomberg. I picked Cruz.
    Bloomberg starts at 0% everywhere. I checked in the editor, and he’s supposed to start at 2% in most places, 6% in NY/NJ. The last time my game had candidates starting at 0%, I was having the AI manage Johnson, McAfee, and Petersen. The latter two, starting at 0%, basically locked onto Alabama the whole campaign, and it looks like it’s causing weirdness for Bloomberg, too.
    It seems nobody else is having these problems, so I’m completely befuddled. I don’t want to take too much time away from everything else you’re doing, but it’s just maddening. I keep having these problems even though I switched computers a few months ago and keep downloading the latest patch. Does anyone have any insight?

  8. @Chad,

    My best guess is this is something about your specific configuration (hardware + software). Can you reliably create this error, or does it occur only doing something in particular?

  9. It happens randomly during every game. Last game I played it happened when I tried to open the ads screen and before that it happened when I clicked on a state.

  10. @Chad,

    This is a problem related to Direct2D, perhaps related to a memory issue.

    Does it happen only after running the game for awhile? Does it happen when starting a 2 candidate general election campaign? Can you also tell me your operating system version number?

  11. It only happens for me in the primary usually it happens mid primaries after super Tuesday. If I start it earlier it happens earlier.

    Also I am using Windows 10, version 1803, build 17134.590

  12. Ok, that’s interesting. That makes it sound like it might be a memory issue. My guess is it’s in part due to some code not working right with your graphics card. Do you have a relatively new computer?

  13. @David re party %s if a major party is turned off,

    I believe the game just rounds up the existing percentages. So if party A has 45%, party B 45%, party C 10%, and party B is turned off, party A then gets 45/55 = 82%, party C gets 10/55 = 18%.

  14. @Eric,

    There was a bug with undecideds that was modifying the %s, and has been fixed in the latest internal. If you continue having this problem with the next release, please let me know.

  15. @Chad,

    Do you have autosave on? If so, can you reload after a crash? And if so, does it crash again relatively soon after?

  16. @anthony the problem seems to be fixed for now I think? I updated my graphics card and it hasn’t crashed since.

  17. @Anthony_270admin Thank you for the explanation of what happens when a major party is turned off. I think that might be a bit unrealistic, as I don’t think so many from the other party would suddenly switch sides. Wouldn’t it be more realistic for them to go to undecided? Then again, that logic may be necessary if the percentages don’t add up to 100%. I would think at the very least if Party A voters mostly switch to Party B, they would at least be low-committed and open to switching to C, but that doesn’t seem to happen

  18. @David,

    It’s probably not the most realistic, but it’s also difficult to say exactly what would happen if a major party suddenly disappeared. Probably you would have voter flow based on issue positions, but it’s really tough to say. This might be modified in the future.

Leave a Comment