Swedish Parliament 2014
Swedish Parliament 2014 Rulebook
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Components and concepts
Political scales. Traditionally, political parties are sorted by their position on the left-right spectrum. In this game, there are eight different political scales, each with two "directions". The directions have names with positive connotations, such that advocates of the direction like to use themselves.
Voter groups. Each political scale consists of eight voter groups, each with their own position on the issue. (This is loosely based on actual statistics, but the facts have been distorted somewhat in order to create a more symmetric and balanced game board.) The voter groups are: younger, older, urban, rural, lower education, higher education, men, and women.
Voter tiles. Each voter belongs to four voter groups (one from each pair), with the lower-left being the dominant. Each voter also has a turnout rate from -8 to 8, which acts as tiebreaker. The color of the frame indicates in which pile of idea cards the voter can be found.
Party markers. Each party has 8 party markers to indicate their positions on the political scales. The background color shows the scale, and the direction symbols in the lower right corner is used when randomizing starting positions for non-player parties.
Party tiles. Each party has a party tile where voter tiles and tiles showing their relations to other parties are placed (the "political map"). There are three blocs, red-green (3 parties), blue (4 parties) and yellow (1 party). Each party has a "natural relation" to each bloc.
Relation tiles. The relation tiles are shown as positive relation, negative relation, and locked relation.
Cards. The component page shows four card types: idea card, minor party card, voter card, and party card.
Setup
Place the game board on the largest table in the house, preferably in a room safe from kids, cats and other pets with an unhealthy interest in political strategery. Sort the idea, minor party, and voter cards into 8 piles depending on their backsides, shuffle the piles and place them next to the game board. These are the idea piles. (You could skip the two minor party cards first time you play, to cut down the number of rules to learn.) Make sure there is also some space for the agenda, voter queue, trash pile and the political map, the latter consisting of the party tiles and relation markers.
Each player chooses a political party and takes the associated party card and party markers. It is recommended that you sit in the same order around the table as the parties on page 1 of these rules. The parties that no player chose are called system parties and are also part of the game. Randomize their starting positions by dropping their party markers on the table and see which directions symbol they show face up. (Ignore those Conservative and Labour Party markers that have no direction symbols, unless playing with the optional rule below.) Place the markers on the corresponding political scale on the game board, on one of the mid-segments, in the same direction as the direction symbol shown by each marker. Note that there is one marker per party for each scale, as shown by the background color.
Players then take turns in placing their own party markers on the game board, one marker at a time, in clockwise order starting with the player who first got to choose party. Players don't have to follow the direction symbols printed on their markers (even when they are the same on both sides), but have to choose one of the two mid-segments - you can't start the game all extremist. Once setup is complete, the direction symbols on the party markers have no function in the game.
Optional rule: Swedish politics is dominated by the Conservative and Labour Parties. If you want this to be reflected in the game, then these parties have 8 extra party markers each, so that they start on both mid-segments on each scale. This could be a good way of giving new players a better chance to win.
[1P: If you play the solo game, then there are some special rules for you. Such paragraphs are written within square brackets, like this one. Ignore these paragraphs if you are two or more players.]
[1P: Before starting the game, choose a difficulty level from 1 and up, where 1 is the easiest.]
The game turn
The player who first chose party starts the game. Each turn consists of three steps:
- Play as many cards as you like. Once all idea piles are empty, you have to play at least one card on your turn.
- Draw a new card from any of the idea piles (this is everything that happens in your first turn of the game).
- Resolve a voter card, if there are enough voters in the queue.
[1P: You take the first turn. Between your turns, The System takes a turn. In the system's turn, the system draws and plays as many cards as the difficulty level you chose. The cards are drawn from the same idea pile that you last drew from. If empty, the next card is drawn from the next idea pile in clockwise direction (see the game board in case your idea piles aren't arranged orderly enough). Resolve each card before drawing the next (except for voter cards, which are resolved at the end of The System's turn, as usual.)]
Playing a card
Most cards are idea cards. They can be played as either a policy proposition or as a shift in public opinion.
[1p: The System plays all idea cards as policies.]
Playing a policy
Playing a policy means that a number of parties (including your own or not) propose some political measure, such as changing a tax or a subsidy. In the order indicated by the column on the left side of the card, from top to bottom, each player has to choose whether to back the policy or not. If a party symbol is highlighted in the column, then that player can back the policy for free. If a party symbol is greyed out, then that player has to pay a card in order to back the policy. (This is the political cost of explaining an internally unsupported move to your party organisation and core voters.) Cards used as payment are placed face down on the trash pile (except for voter cards, which go to the queue). Not backing a policy never costs a card, even if your party symbol is highlighted (your party supports the idea, but trusts you on that the timing is not right).
System parties always back policies when their symbol is highlighted, and never when it's not.
It's allowed to play a policy even if your party is not highlighted. You have no obligation to back a policy that you play.
All parties that backed the policy move their party markers one step on the political scale associated with the card, in the direction indicated.
A party that is already on the end segment in the direction of the card cannot move further out. However, it still counts as having moved for the purpose of changing relations (we'll get to that later, page 6 to be exact).
If you play with the optional rule giving a party two party markers on each scale, then those party markers move in concert, so that they are always in adjacent segments. (And if one of them occupies the end segment in the direction, then none of them moves.)
After playing a policy, and after all parties have decided whether to back it or not, you must change a relation between two parties (page 6). Finally, put the played idea card on the agenda (not on the trash pile). (More on the agenda later.)
Example: The policy "Higher Parental Leave Pay" is played. It's backed by the Socialist, Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties, who all move their party markers one step left in the "Welfare" direction. The Conservatives have to pay a card to the trash pile since they're not highlighted on the policy card.
Playing an opinion
An "opinion" is an argument, a viral blog post, a news event or something else in society that shifts public opinion in some direction. The effect in the game is that the affected political scale moves "under the parties' feet". This is illustrated by all parties moving one step in the opposite direction. For example: Russia invades Ukraine. All parties now move one step in the pacifist "Peace" direction. Not because they have changed their position on any defence matters, but because the population has become more hawkish; they now want NATO, fighter planes, rearmament.
Players can act to keep their position on the scale concerned by matching the public opinion with a quick, improvised policy proposal. This is decided in the order indicated by the column on the card, and requires paying one card to the trash pile (unless it's a voter card, in which case it goes to the queue). Now it doesn't matter which party symbols are highlighted on the card - acting opportunistically on changing public opinions with a policy draw from the hip always comes at a cost.
This can all be very counter-intuitive, but just follow the rules and everything will start to make sense eventually:
- When a policy is played, some parties move in the direction of the card. When an opinion is played, all parties move in the direction of the card (unless paying).
- When a policy is played, some parties have to pay if they want to move. When an opinion is played, all parties have to pay if they don't want to move.
- Acting on a policy means that you're moving your party marker. Acting on an opinion means that you're not moving.
Note that when playing an opinion, the idea card is played upside down compared to when the same card is played as a policy. This means that the order of party symbols is reversed, so that the party that would have decided first if the card was played as a policy decides last when the same card is played as an opinion.
Being the player playing the opinion card doesn't mean that you can act on it for free; you have to pay a separate card to do so, just like the other players.
After the opinion is resolved, its card is placed on the agenda, just like when policies are played. Remember to put it with the opinion side up; the order of the party symbols on the cards in the agenda might matter when voters are resolved.
System parties never act on opinions; they always move.
Example: The opinion "Taxation is theft" is played. The Nationalist and Christian parties pay one card each in order to keep their positions. All other parties are moved one step in the Welfare direction - they look more communist now that libertarian ideas are getting popular in the country.
Playing minor party cards
See page 12 (Minor parties).
An asterisk next to a party symbol on an idea card means that the game is not reflecting reality in that instance; that is, the party does support the policy proposal in reality but not in the game, or the other way around. The asterisk has no implication for the game, it's just there in order to not misinform anyone about the subject matter. It could still be wrong though, since party positions can be interpreted in different ways, and also change over time. You could use these asterisks if you want a more real game.
Relations
The political map
Except for 1968-70, no Swedish party has held a majority in parliament since the introduction of democracy. Ruling parties has always had to rely on coalition partners or supporting parties in order to secure power. It's nearly impossible to win without good relations to other parties. The inter-party relations are represented by party tiles and relation tiles, which together form the political map. At the start of the game, all parties are isolated islands, their party tiles not connected to each other. But for every idea card or minor party card played, a relation is created, strengthened or weakened.
The player playing a card must either:
- create a relation between two parties which both acted on the card
- strengthen the relation between two parties which both acted on the card
- weaken the relation between two parties out of which only one acted on the card
The relation between two parties which none of them acted on the card cannot be altered in any way.
Create a relation
Place two party tiles next to each other and join them with a positive relation tile.
Example: A relation is created between the Labour and Farmer parties.
If the two parties already have relations with other parties, then you're free to reorganize all party tiles in any way you want, as long as you keep all previous relations intact.
Example: A relation is created between the Labour and Green parties, when both already have relations to the Farmer party.
In case it's not possible to create a relation between two parties without breaking an existing relation, then those two parties can't be connected.
Example: It's no longer possible to create a relation between the Labour and Liberal parties, since one of them would have to break their relation with either the Green or the Farmer party.
Except for the rule that no existing relations can be broken, there are no limits for how the party tiles can be reorganized. Early in the game, creating relations is trivial. Late in the game, it's also easy to spot the few relation possibilities that remain. Mid-game, however, this can be a bit of a brain-burner, so to help with that, the game contains 8 small party tiles so that you can experiment with new political map layouts without wrecking the one in play. (These small party tiles have no other function in the game.)
Strengthening a relation
If two parties already have a relation, and both acted on the same idea card, then the player who played the card may strengthen the relation between them. Add a positive relation tile on top of the old one, or remove a negative relation tile. If there is only one negative relation tile, then it's not removed, but flipped to its positive side (meaning that there is no such thing as a relation of strength 0).
Example: Three ways of strengthening a relation: add a positive relation tile (when there is already at least one); remove one negative relation tile (when there is already at least two); flip a negative relation tile (when there is exactly one).
Weakening a relation
If two parties already have a relation, and one of them acted on an idea card but not the other, then the player who played the card may weaken the relation between them. Add a negative relation tile on top of the old one, or remove a positive relation tile. If there is only one positive relation tile, then it's not removed, but flipped to its negative side. [Editor's note: the printed text reads "flipped to its positive side"; this is evidently a misprint, since a positive tile is being weakened, so the negative side is transcribed here.]
Example: Three ways of weakening a relation: add a negative relation tile (when there is already at least one); remove one positive relation tile (when there is already at least two); flip a positive relation tile (when there is exactly one).
Restrictions
There can never be more than three relation tiles between two parties. If a relation is already triple-positive, then it can't be strengthened, and if it's already triple-negative, then it can't be weakened.
The number of relation tiles in the game is limited. If all relation tiles are already in play, then the player playing an idea card has to weaken a positive relation or strengthen a negative relation.
It's mandatory to change a relation after playing an idea/minor party card, unless, of course, there are no legal ways of changing a relation.
[1P: After the System plays a card, it strengthens the relation between the two highest parties possible in the column on the card. (1st and 4th here counts as higher than 2nd and 3rd.) If it's not possible to strengthen any relations at all, then the system weakens the relation between the two highest possible parties.]
Breaking a relation
If you play a card that lets you weaken the relation between your party and another party, and if the relation is or becomes negative after the weakening, then you may break that relation and remove the relation tile(s). You can never break the relation between two parties if neither of them is your party.
Voter cards
Playing a voter card
A voter card can be played in two ways; by itself (in your turn), or as payment for acting on an idea card (whether it's your turn or not). In both cases, the voter card is added to the voter queue. When a voter card is played by itself, it has no other effect than being added to the voter queue.
The voter queue
The voter queue consists of voters that are about to make up their mind. If, after your turn, there are at least as many voter cards in the queue as the number of players, and at least one idea/minor party card on the agenda, then you resolve the earliest placed voter. [1P: one voter card is resolved after your turn, and one after the system's turn, provided there is at least one voter in the queue and at least one card on the agenda.]
Also, if all voter cards are either in the queue, or on the trash pile (that is, no more voter cards in players' hands or in the idea piles), then a voter is resolved after your turn.
Regardless of circumstances, more than one voter cannot be resolved in the same turn. Even if both conditions above are met after your turn, only one voter is resolved before the next player's turn.
When a voter chooses party, two factors matter: the voter's voter groups, and what's on the agenda.
The agenda
The agenda is what people are talking and thinking about right now. All idea cards and minor party cards that are played are put here, face up. The last placed card on the agenda is the most hot topic at the moment. It is allowed to look through the agenda pile. In fact, it could be practical to always let the top 3-4 agenda cards show a little.
Resolve a voter
Draw the top card from the agenda. Look on the gameboard at the political scale associated with the card. Find the segment containing the same voter group as the voter's first voter group (the one on the lower left side of the voter tile). The party whose marker is closest to that segment wins the voter; put the voter tile on top of that party's party tile.
Example: At the end of a player's turn, there are 5 voters in the queue. As there are fewer than 5 players, one voter is resolved this turn. The earliest voter in the queue is "Service Workers". The highest card on the agenda belongs to the Sweden/Humanity scale. The voter's first voter group is "younger". The closest party to the younger on the scale is the Socialist Party, and the Service Workers voter tile is placed on the Socialist party tile.
If several parties are equally close to the voter group, then the next card from the agenda is drawn. Look at the scale that card belongs to, and check which party is now closest to the voter group. Now you only consider the parties that were tied last time, that is, for each card from the agenda, you narrow it down until only one party remains.
Example: The earliest voter in the queue is "Entrepreneurs". The highest card on the agenda belongs to the Sweden/Humanity scale. The voter's first voter group is "urban". The closest parties to the urban voter group on the scale are the Green and Farmer parties, and we therefore need to draw a new card from the agenda to see which of them the Entrepreneurs choose.
The next card is from the Environment/Progress scale, and on this scale the urban voters are one segment away from the Farmers, and two steps away from the Greens. The Farmers win the Entrepreneurs.
If the agenda runs out of cards before the voter has made up its mind, go through the agenda pile again (in the same order), but now using the second voter group (the second most lower-left on the tile). If there is still a tie, use the third and finally the fourth voter group. If there is still a tie, the tie-breaker is which of the tied parties is highest on the first agenda card used.
Example: In the example above, if the Greens had been one step closer to the urban voter group on the Environment/Progress scale, and if there'd be no more cards on the agenda, then we would have gone through those two cards again, looking at the Entrepreneurs' second voter group: men. On the Humanity/Sweden scale, there'd be no difference (since the Greens and Farmers are positioned on the same segment on that scale), but on the Environment/Progress scale, the Farmers are clearly nearer the men, and would thereby win the voter.
If the Greens and Farmers would have shared exact position on all the scales used, we would have looked at the first agenda card, "Language test for citizenship", to see which party symbol is higher, which happens to be the Farmers. Note that if the same card was played as an opinion instead of policy, it would have been upside down on the agenda, and the final tie-breaker in the Greens' favor.
Once the voter has chosen party, and the voter tile has been placed on the party tile, the voter card is moved to the trash pile. Cards from the agenda used to determine the voter's choice are also moved to the trash pile (meaning that if more than one of the voter's voter groups were used, then the whole agenda is cleared).
Once all voters have made up their mind, the election is over. However, the weeks after the election can be just as important in determining which party gets how much power, as parties start intense negotiations. Players keep playing idea cards until everyone is out of cards. There is now no need to move around party markers anymore (except on the Equality/Family and Privacy/Safety scales, in case the Feminists or Pirates got into parliament, see page 12 about that).
Once no one has anymore cards to play, the game is over and the cabinet is formed! Unless of course, there are still unresolved voter cards in the queue, in which case these are all resolved using the last idea card that was played as policy, opinion or minor party.
Forming the cabinet
When all players are out of cards, the game is over and a cabinet is formed (or government or administration or whatever you like to call it). Strictly speaking, it's cabinet plus supporting parties (Sweden seldom has majority cabinets), but for simplicity we just call it "cabinet" here.
Turnout and majority
All voters don't vote. Voter turnout is higher among women than men, among older than younger etc. If it's a tight race between two parties, then turnout can turn out to be decisive. Every voter has a turnout score between -8 and 8 (where average is just above 0). In order to get the majority of seats in parliament, you need either 9 voters, or 8 voters whose total turnout score is at least 1.
Example: The example shows two groups of voter tiles. The first row is Teachers (6), Service Workers (-5), Students (1), Entrepreneurs (3), Office Workers (8), Programmers (2), Pensioners (7) and Healthcare Workers (-3). The second row is Industrial Workers (-6), Pensioners (4), Pensioners (0), Construction Workers (-7), Unemployed (-8), Sick-leavers (-2), Technicians (-4) and Pensioners (5). The number in brackets after each voter is its turnout score.
The group on the left has a total turnout of: 6 - 6 - 5 + 4 + 1 + 0 + 3 - 7 = -4
The group on the right has a total turnout of: 8 - 8 + 2 - 2 + 7 - 4 - 3 + 5 = 5
The group on the right constitutes the majority of voters.
[Editor's note: the printed sums above do not follow the printed row order of the example; they are transcribed as printed.]
Natural relations
During the course of the game, the parties form relations with each other, relations that through strengthening and weakening may vary between -3 (three negative relation markers) and 3 (three positive relation markers). The strength of the relations determine which parties form a cabinet, and which are left out in the cold. When two relations are equally good or bad, the tie-breaker is the natural relation between the two parties. The natural relations depend on which political bloc the parties belong to: blue, red-green or yellow. Natural relations within the same bloc are stronger than between parties from different blocs. Blue parties have the strongest internal relations, while the "yellow bloc" only consists of the Nationalist Party, which has the poorest natural relation to other parties. The exact natural relation between two parties A and B can be calculated as: A's relation to B's bloc plus B's relation to A's bloc. A party's relation to the three blocs is indicated on the party tile. Some players might find it more convenient to refer to the table of all natural relations which can be found on the last page of these rules.
Example: The Greens' relation to the yellow "bloc" is 0. The Conservatives' relation to the blue bloc is 32. The Nationalists' relation to the red-green bloc is 0. The Liberals' relation to the blue bloc is 34. The natural relation between the Greens and the Nationalists is therefore 0 + 0 = 0. The natural relation between the Conservatives and the Liberals is therefore 32 + 34 = 66.
Political map "islands"
Parties that gain no voters fail to enter parliament. Remove their party tiles and all their relations to other parties. Then check that all remaining party tiles still form one contiguous group (this is normally the case). If not, if they're in separate groups, "islands", then check that one of the islands has the majority of votes. If none of them does, then connect two groups by finding the strongest natural relation between two parties that are in different groups and connect them with one locked relation tile.
Example: The Christians and Socialists failed to get any voters and have been removed from the map, which now consists of three separate groups, none of them having the majority. The strongest natural relation between two parties from different groups is that between the Liberals and Farmers (34 + 31 = 64), which are therefore joined with a locked relation tile. [Editor's note: the printed sum 34 + 31 is 65, not 64, and the natural-relations table on the last page gives the Liberals-Farmers value as 62; the printed example is transcribed as printed and this discrepancy is flagged.]
If there is still no group with majority, repeat the procedure until there is. Groups with no majority are removed. They entered parliament, congratulations, but won't have much direct influence on government decisions.
Narrow down the cabinet
The election winners want to share power with as few parties as necessary, and will therefore form the smallest cabinet possible. Achieve this by removing all relations from the map, starting with the weakest, working your way up to the strongest. For every relation you remove, check that you still have a contiguous group of parties holding the majority of voters. If not, then you replace the last removed relation with a locked relation. When there are no relations left but locked relations, the cabinet is formed and can start selling hospitals, build submarines and introduce gender-neutral pronouns in preschools to their hearts' content.
Example: The example is shown as a sequence of board states. Piles of voter tiles are represented by white squares with numbers, where the large number is the number of voter tiles and the small number their total turnout. The numbers on the relation tiles indicate how many they are. The captions read, in order:
- The Christians, Liberals and Farmers get no voters and are removed. We now have three separate groups out of which none has majority.
- The strongest natural relations between two parties from different groups is between the Greens and Labour, which are therefore connected with a locked relation tile.
- Now remove the weakest relation. Nationalists have a -3 relation to both Labour and Socialists, and as their natural relation to the Socialists is the weaker of the two, that relation is removed.
- Now the weakest relation is that between the Nationalists and Labour. Labour, Greens and Socialists gather 8 voters, with a total turnout of 5 + 9 - 10 = 4, meaning that they don't need the Nationalists to have majority.
- The last relation, between Labour and Socialists, is removed. As Labour and Greens only have 6 voters together, the relation to Socialists is replaced with a locked relation tile. And Sweden has a new government!
[Editor's note: the printed captions for steps 4 and 5 are transcribed as printed, including the grouping of parties named in each.]
Minor parties
There are two minor parties in the game, the Feminists and the Pirates, both threatening to steal voters from the established parties and break into parliament for the first time. They present both a threat and an opportunity to their ideological neighbors.
Playing a minor party card
When a minor party enters the debate, they have the potential to heavily affect public opinion. Unlike an opinion card, there is no automatic opinion shift. But when you play a minor party card, you may invite all players to pay cards to move all parties in the Family direction (if the minor party is the Feminists) or in the Safety direction (if the minor party is the Pirates). For every card paid, all parties move one step. Starting with yourself, and continuing in clockwise order (disregard the party column on the card), players may pay as many cards as they want, and that you allow. As usual, cards used as payment are put on the trash pile (unless they're voter cards). After this, all players may, in clockwise order starting with the player on your left and ending with you, pay more cards in order to move their party markers back up until where they were before the minor party entered, one step per card, as if they were acting on an opinion (or opinions). This can't be vetoed by you. Once you're all done, you have to change a relation as usual.
[1P: When The System plays a minor party card, it causes one opinion shift, and does not invite you to spend cards to make more shifts.]
Place the minor party card on the agenda. Finally, the minor party marker enters the political scale, on the Equality end segment if Feminists, or the Privacy end segment if Pirates.
Minor party behavior
Minor parties behave slightly "smarter" than system parties. They always act when they need to in order to preserve their position as the most extreme party in their direction.
Example 1: The policy "Legalize filesharing" is played. [The printed example shows two cases, 1a and 1b. In 1a, the Farmers back the policy, making the Pirates back it as well, in order to be closer to the Privacy direction. In 1b, the Farmers don't back the policy, meaning that the Pirates don't need to back it either. (Of course, this doesn't mean that Pirates don't want to legalize filesharing, they just don't want to talk about it right now, for tactical reasons.)]
Example 2: The opinion "Pirate Bay" is played. [The printed example shows four cases, 2a to 2e. In 2a, the Farmer Party does not act and is moved one step in the Safety direction. Pirates act too, in order to become the party closest to Privacy. In 2b, Farmers act and stay in their segment, and the Pirates act in order to not lose their position as nearest to Privacy. In 2c, Farmers act and stay in the Privacy end segment. The Pirates have to act too. In 2d, Farmers are one step ahead of Pirates. It doesn't matter if they act or not; they won't clash with the Pirates no matter what the Pirates do, meaning that the Pirates don't have to act either, but are moved forward one step. In 2e, Farmers are two steps ahead of Pirates. The Pirates don't act but are moved forward.]
Minor parties in parliament
When a minor party gains a voter, place the voter tile under the party's marker on the gameboard. At the end of the game, after parties who got no voters have been removed from the political map, the minor party will ally itself with the party that is closest to Privacy (if Pirates) or Equality (if Feminists) on the gameboard. Move the minor party's voter tiles to the ally's party tile. If two parties are equally close, and these two have a relation, then the minor party will ally with both: place the minor party's voter tiles on top of the relation tiles between the two parties. If the two parties don't have a relation, or if it's removed (without being replaced by a locked relation tile), or if more than two parties are equally close to the minor party's direction, then the minor party allies with that of the tied parties that is highest on the minor party card.
Examples: The Feminists win a voter, and at the end of the game, the Socialists are closest to Equality. Move the Feminists' voter tile to the Socialist party tile.
The Pirates win two voters, and at the end of the game, the Greens and the Farmers are equally close to Privacy. Move the Pirates' voter tiles to the relation tiles between the Greens and the Farmers. If they wouldn't have a relation, or if it would break during cabinet forming, the voter tiles would go the Greens, since they're higher on the Pirate Party card.
The Feminists win a voter, and at the end of the game, the Greens, Labour and Liberals are equally close to Equality. (The Socialists were even closer, but they didn't get into parliament.) The voter tile goes to the Greens since they're highest on the Feminist Party card of the three parties.
Who wins?
Center of gravity
For total victory, it's not enough to be in cabinet - to influence the Swedish government more than any other party the next four years, you need to be the cabinet's center of gravity. For example by your policy preferences overlapping those of the other cabinet members, while they have a hard time agreeing with each other. Or by simply being bigger than them so that they have to dance to your tunes. The center of gravity is calculated like this: Remove one voter tile from each of the cabinet's outer parties. An outer party is one that only has relation to one other cabinet party. If a party is now without voters, remove it from the map. Now another party might become an outer party. Repeat the procedure until only one party remains. That party is the center of gravity of the cabinet; it might be big or small, but it will be the party that in the end will be most happy with the outcomes of the next four years' bloody cabinet negotiations.
Voter tiles with lower turnout are removed before voter tiles with higher voter turnout, so in case of a tie, higher turnout wins (that party got some extra parliament seats). In case a minor party is in the cabinet as an ally to two cabinet parties, it now functions just like any other party. (Theoretically, it can even win the game! I've never seen that happen though.)
Example: A cabinet is formed by the Farmers, Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, Pirates and Nationalists. One voter is removed from each of the outer parties, i.e. Farmers, Conservatives and Nationalists. Farmers and Nationalists are thereby removed from the calculation. With the Nationalists gone, the Pirates are now an outer party. One voter is removed from the Pirates (and thereby the Pirates themselves) and one more from the Conservatives. The Liberals are now an outer party, and one voter is removed from them and one more from the Conservatives. Now the Christians are also an outer party. If we remove one voter from them and the Conservatives, both parties disappear. But as we remove voters with lower turnout before voters with higher turnout, the Christian Party remains the longest and is the center of gravity in the cabinet, the most influential political party in Sweden the next four years and thereby winners of the game.
If no player becomes the center of gravity, then the winner is the player with the most central party of all players, that is, the party that remains the longest when the center of gravity is calculated. (In the example above, the second most central party is the Conservatives, followed by Liberals, Nationalists and finally Farmers.)
If no player becomes part of the cabinet, then the player with the most voter tiles wins. If tied, the total turnout. If tied again, the highest turnout on one voter tile (if A: 5 + 1 - 4 = 2 and B: 4 + 0 - 2 = 2, then A wins since 5>4).
If no player enters parliament at all, then I suggest Yahtzee.
[1P: To win the solo game you need to become the center of gravity in cabinet. There are no silver or bronze medals when you're fighting The System.]
Party Facts
(There are no rules hidden here.)
"The Conservatives" - Moderaterna. The Moderate Party started as a conservative party resisting change of all kinds, focusing on law and defence. They've spent most of Sweden's democratic period in opposition, losing elections to center-left coalitions. In 2005, inspired by Tony Blair's "New Labour", they renamed themselves "New Moderates", threw out social conservatism and accepted lefty ideas such as collective bargaining and job security, while focusing on tax cuts for wage earners and fiscal responsibility. The idea was to capture the employed working and middle classes, leaving the Left bloc with the sick, old and unemployed, a successful strategy that gave them an unprecedented eight years in power (2006-2014), which was also made possible by the four "blue" parties uniting in "Alliansen", instead of being played like Lemmings by the devious Social Democrats. In the 2014 election, they lost a third of their voters to the Sweden Democrats, and the main architect behind the party's golden age, prime minister Reinfeldt, left the ship the same day, and at the time of writing this nobody knows where it will steer next.
"The Liberals" - Folkpartiet. The People's Party has its roots in the non-Socialist democracy movement of the 19th century, championing universal suffrage, women's rights, freedom of speech and association, free markets, free trade, gay rights and stuff like that. They were so successful that they made themselves irrelevant, and eventually became a "right-wing light" party for urban intelligentsia. After suffering at the polls for cooperating with the Social Democrats, the party drew the conclusion that they would only survive if staying firmly on the right of the aisle, formed "Alliansen" and carved themselves out a niche as the most EU- and NATO-friendly of all parties, while also picking up the defence issue tossed aside by the New Moderates. Plus school something.
"Labour" - Socialdemokraterna. A close cousin to Europe's other big, democratic socialist parties, the Social Democrats cooperated with the Liberals in giving Sweden democracy. By throwing the Farmers a juicy meatbone of protectionism in 1932, they grabbed power and held it until 1976, a streak which in the democratic world is only rivalled by Japan's LDP. Despite consistently taking decisive steps towards a welfare state Utopia, raising the tax share of GDP to levels which in the democratic world is only rivalled by Denmark, they were far from revolutionary but did everything in consensus with big business and unions. Dethroned by the oil crisis, they came back in the 1980s with a radical prime minister who moved towards nationalizing the country's industries until he was shot (there's a conspiracy theory for you). The party moderated and was caught in the 1980s economic liberalization, opened up capital markets, caused a boom and bust and crashed in 1991. Back in 1994, they pieced the economy together again through very pragmatic and centrist policies, and kept the momentum of the privatizations that begun with the shortlived '91-94 right-wing government, and people are still puzzled.
"The Socialists" - Vänsterpartiet. Karl Marx was hardly even buried before the Socialist movements split into democratic "reformist" wings and more revolutionary ones. In Sweden this happened in 1917, and we got our own Communist Party, which ever since has had a very uneasy relation with big brother the Social Democrats, which they nevertheless has supported consistently over the years, since they haven't had any other friends to play ball with. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, they dropped the "Communist" label, renamed themselves Left Party and inherited the reformist politics the Social Democrats used to have back in the good old days, combined with strong focus on feminism, environment, refugees and everything else that looks, smells or tastes progressive.
"The Farmers" - Centerpartiet. The Centre Party was created by and for farmers, and is still strongest on the countryside. They've been in both Conservative and Socialist cabinets, making their party name a fitting one. However, just like the People's Party, they suffered in the 90s for cooperating with the Social Democrats, and consequently drew from their many rural small-time entrepreneurs in markedly turning to the right, joining the tight-knit right-wing "Alliansen" while also picking up the Moderates' abandoned struggle against Sweden's almighty labor unions. That attracted an urban libertarian crowd which more or less hijacked the party and created a schism with the tradition rural cadres, especially when a policy draft created headlines with ideas such as free immigration and polygamy. In May 2014, a trending Google search was "what does the Centre Party really want?". But the party did well in the 2014 elections and the leadership looks more confident than ever so maybe they have to be renamed "The Libertarians" in the 2018 edition of this game.
"The Christians" - Kristdemokraterna. The Christian Democrats formed in the 60s when the rest of Sweden was busy destroying family values. They've combined a conservatism compassionate with poor and refugees with a social conservative stance on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. It's usually the weakest of the right-wing parties, held above surface by strategic voting so as to not fall out of parliament and waste those sincere votes they do get from the forests and lakes around the country. They would have been in pole position to pick up disgruntled traditionalists left cold by the opportunist "New Moderates" if it wasn't for competition from the more aggressive Sweden Democrats.
"The Greens" - Miljöpartiet. The Green Party was born in the radiation of the 1980 referendum on nuclear power and entered parliament as an odd fellow after years of slow growth. Their critique of the modern economic system combined with an individualist, anti-bureaucratic view on schools and other welfare services have placed them in both the left and right camps, but apart from dealing with the right-wings on some privatization and immigration they've been mostly on the red side of things, like tomatoes or watermelons. The last few years they've gone from beards to suits and buried their most whacky ideas and coincidentally became the third largest party in 2010, a position they lost to the Sweden Democrats in 2014. Trashed on the motor-addicted countryside for it's world-saving carbon taxes, the Green Party is strongest among city-dwelling, bicycle-riding 30-somethings with pretentious hobbies such as designing political board games.
"The Nationalists" - Sverigedemokraterna. The Sweden Democrats stem from the racist skinhead culture of the 1980s and has slowly grown into a slightly more respectable anti-immigration party, although haunted by endless scandals and forced to expel inappropriate members at the same rate they would like to deport immigrants. They entered parliament in 2010 and more than doubled their seats in 2014. Their slightly left-leaning economic policies combined with strong social conservatism make them popular with many blue-collar and rural voters, in addition to being the prime choice for people who dislike foreigners or politicians or both. They appear more extreme than their counterparts in other North European countries so we might be looking at a future of "grand coalitions" to keep them out of power.
"The Pirates" - Piratpartiet. Increasing crackdowns on young adults downloading copyrighted media caused outrage enough to turn the national pastime of sharing movies and music into a political party, which also drew ideological strength from the resentment against excessive government surveillance programs. What to some looked like an advanced internet troll joke quickly built up to a serious organization which captured two seats in the European Parliament in Brussels, while on national level still hovering below the 1% level. In addition to the digital frontier, the party is libertarian-leaning on social issues and has recently embraced the idea of Basic Income Guarantee, picturing a world in which we all can produce open source software for each other and still pay our rents on time.
"The Feminist Party" - Feministiskt initiativ. Feminist Initiative was founded, and is still led by, former Left Party leader Gudrun Schyman and is the parliamentary version of a knee to the groin of patriarchy. Men are responsible for most evil in this world, which will therefore be a much happier place when the patriarchal structures are torn down through affirmative action, financial redistribution and gender-conscious schooling and preschooling. They managed to get one seat in the European Parliament, and tilted the national debate in their favor, but failed short of reaching national parliament despite an impressive 3,2%. It's possible that they contributed to the red-green parties not winning the majority in 2014 by radicalizing their rhetorics and splitting the votes, but the jury is still out on that.
Co-op
Co-op? For a purely cooperative game with no competition or backstabbing, you could design your favorite cabinet (e.g. "Socialists and Liberals, led by Labour") and play to achieve that exact cabinet.
Natural Relations
The printed table of all natural relations between pairs of parties, referred to under Natural relations above. Each entry is the sum of the two parties' relations to each other's bloc.
| Party pair | Natural relation |
|---|---|
| Conservatives – Liberals | 66 |
| Conservatives – Christians | 65 |
| Conservatives – Farmers | 64 |
| Liberals – Christians | 63 |
| Liberals – Farmers | 62 |
| Christians – Farmers | 61 |
| Labour – Greens | 43 |
| Labour – Socialists | 42 |
| Socialists – Greens | 41 |
| Greens – Christians | 31 |
| Greens – Conservatives | 30 |
| Greens – Liberals |
[Editor's note: the printed table shows party symbols, not names. The party names above are assigned from the printed rules (the blue bloc, the red-green bloc, the yellow Nationalist bloc, and the natural relations quoted in the text), and should be checked against the printed page 16.]