> Democracy is a nice concept, but the issue is that its main goal becomes quickly winning the elections. And once you start listening to the majority and adapt your party policies to whatever the population wants currently, you keep winning the elections, but can't do much to influence what you think is right.

So... it's pretty realistic then?

Sounds exactly like the current implementation of democracy.

Except in current democracies there are lots of important popular issues that voters want addressed and yet politicians refuse to, because their owners are against it.

And the scalings are completely nonsensical. A strategy that is literally impossible to lose with is implementing every policy that increases patriot membership. Before the first election, you can make 100% of the population permanently patriots. With that, a handful of pro-patriot policies will guarantee every election's success. From there, you can implement whatever policies you want with almost zero backlash. I'm sure someone will tout this as "realistic", but that's hyperbole at best.

Someone should make a version of Tropico but it's a democracy and you're the media, deciding where things get built indirectly by choosing which stories to run.

"Headliner" is a somewhat similar concept, though it's lacking the simulation aspect

I played Democracy 3 and you didn't have to get elected the first time. I reduced funding to religious schools and then the religious voter demographic eventually went away after a few elections and then there wasn't any opposition to science funding.

Isn't that the point? It's harder to win while doing what is right? Or you want the game to reward unrealistic do-good scenarios?

This is why we need Sortition.

Nah, I actually won the game (Democracy 3) by building a libertarian utopia with zero taxes, no public services, ignoring the clamor for new laws etc, and had all KPIs on green.

Then was killed by a nun who disagreed with my no-state-religion policy. :D