Political decision-making consequences in the NationState game simulation

Play NationState and tell (why you made the choices you did and what were the results). Play the game through the issues and politics section. If you want to continue to the regional and world assembly sections, you can

One of the most striking aspects of the NationState game is the extent to which its decisions have parallels in the real world, although the decision-making options offered by NationState are often considerably more extreme versions of actual political debates. For example, a much-discussed decision offered to states that provoked a great deal of debate on the message boards attached to the game was the option of allowing corporations to run for office. A number of people that allowed this option noted that this considerably increased the social inequalities of their societies, as might be expected. However, some people experienced a decrease in political corruption due to the fact that the previous political regime had actually been more corrupt than the CEOs in power which replaced it. While government spending on the defense industry increased there was also a subsequent rise in pacifism as a counterweight to this. Civil rights and expenditures on public health were actually expanded and improved upon although the obesity rate was still not affected.

The question of granting political rights to corporations is obviously rooted in the recent controversy in the U.S. over the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which effectively allowed corporations and other conglomerates to donate to political campaigns as part of their free speech as if they were actual human beings. Technically corporations are fictional persons under the law but this has usually been assumed to be for tax purposes; only until recently was this taken seriously. In regards to my own decision-making in the game, I was largely influenced by my own political beliefs in the real world. This may have been a mistake because the ways in which different decisions played out were often unexpected and very different than one might assume from viewing politics in traditionally liberal or conservative terms.

Part 2: Based on your game play and the issues discuss one or two things would you recommend to improve representative democracy in the U.S. and what one or two things do you prize and want to keep the same? (And most importantly support your answers with reasons why you believe what you do. Use credible websites as sources, rather than books or whatever).

It is often said that 'an ill wind blows nobody good,' in other words that there are few decisions that have a wholly negative effect. Conversely, it is also true that there are few decisions that have a purely positive effect, either. NationState highlights the frequently unintentional consequences of various political decisions. An excellent parallel of this in the real world is with Obamacare, which had both negative and positive consequences both its proponents and opponents did not anticipate. Often a lack of specific and nonpartisan discussion about laws that are being passed can have negative consequences; I would like to see more individuals from diverse backgrounds run for Congress to have more technical input into the decision-making of various Congressional committees. Congress, for example, has had very few members with a background in science for most of its history, despite having an abundance of lawyers. Yet science has a significant impact upon environmental policy and healthcare. Representative Rush Holt, an astrophysicist, is an exception and was one of the few members who realized early on "that electronic voting machines wouldn't properly secure individual ballots, and he argued for the need for paper recording of votes" (Haddon). Having more scientists also might create more common grounds on facts, versus partisanship.