Proud Canadian,
I don't know how politics works in Canada but there are some aspects of your suggestions that just plain do not exemplify US politics.

1). A political leader that changes parties is vilified in the US. Neither party trusts such a leader.
2). The electorate in the US is swayed during the election campain by the rhetoric of the candidates (and you wondered why some people get elected). Actions and "track records" do not influence voters.
3). Right and Left, Moral and Amoral, ethical and unethical, conservative and liberal, and other opposites seem to have adherants in majority proportions that can not be swayed. None of this has anything to do with how well a president, senetor, or congressman performs his/her job, or whether she/he pays any attention to his/her constituants.
4). Lately (last 40 years? More?), big business has had more control of government (through lobbies and campain contributions, and other means, in spite of "election reform") than "the people".
5). You did not specifically talk about war weariness (your seventh bullet does touch on it obliquely), but it has been implemented in other games. I think this is the only aspect where "the people" will prevail over special interests in the US (or is thist just wishful thinking on my part). (I think this may be a worth while addition to GC2.)

Your sixth bullet is in GC1 to a very superficial extent. Maybe it can be improved upon.

Your eighth bullet contains a kernal of truth when viewing the US transition of power after an election where a change of political party occurs. The game could make it harder during the first couple of months if there is such a change of power. (But I have to wonder if this is really worth while in GC. After all, isn't it the player's objective to retain power? Also, if the player does change parties, wouldn't he/she retain her/his cabinet and staff, thus obviating a transition period?)

Maybe in this case, GC should aim more for idealism than realism -- aim more for how we would like to see politics work, than what we see today.

My opinion? Not simple enough, not representing the whole thing better enough.

My try. Here's the structural aspect:
1-a- Ruling political elite: One ruling party (the player choice, kindda "ruling elite's general direction")
1-b- Still ruling political elite: Main party's opposition (many parties)
2- Popular support (morale... for the player to manage it as elections)

In GC, opposition is always seriously divided, and you get bad effects when it's another party as if only the main party was competent. I say let's do the same, but better:
- You get the party's bonuses, whattever party it might be. Main party has too little compared to second greatest party = division in political ranks (ruling elite). You get bad effects out of it (lose your bonus, other party minor bonus, whattever).
- You wish to change party? Can do. A wary population might support it, while if everything was on the party's side it will then gradually bring it to minority (with bad effects) and gradually give the other party is dominance (to extent possible by circumstances).
This simply represents a shift in the political environment, a shift in dominance/general orientation (just like a US president might lose his own party's support, etc etc). Such a shift from full-fledged dominance will of course mean that the dominating party will go through (unstable) minority phase before it changes to other party's majority, with the effects of undominating "ruling elite / player's main (hopefully undivided) direction".


Resuming:
- Player-chosen "chosen elite main political direction" + main AI party.
- Weak "player party" = bad effects (no bonus...).
- POP SUPPORT: changing the directing elite's (player) main party might have good effects on population (if wary of other party, war, whattever the how).



Same but better. Needs refinement and simplification (cut the dead branches), but looks nice as a general direction. Potentially more representative, more immersive, more fun.
Comments?

Also, your actions should definately have a lot to do with which political parties gain power like you said. If you are the War Party and you're in 3 different wars, you're losing ships and planets by the turn, and your morale is extreamly low, then the Pacifists Party should be strongly supported come the next election.

You have a good point about the "negative influences" being a big factor. I think Lucky Jack had a similar point about war weariness. So on the negative side, we may see voters influenced to vote like this, for example:

Pacifists: we are losing a war or paying way too much for military upkeep
War Party: we have a superior military but are not in any wars (wasted military potential)
Industrialists: we have fallen behind in building colony improvements (but have done the required research)
Technologists: we have fallen behind in research
Populists: we have near 100% morale, but population growth is sluggish
etc...

You have a good point about the "negative influences" being a big factor. I think Lucky Jack had a similar point about war weariness. So on the negative side, we may see voters influenced to vote like this, for example: Pacifists: we are losing a war or paying way too much for military upkeep War Party: we have a superior military but are not in any wars (wasted military potential) Industrialists: we have fallen behind in building colony improvements (but have done the required research) Technologists: we have fallen behind in research Populists: we have near 100% morale, but population growth is sluggish etc...

Pretty much my thoughts too. In GC1 the purpose of choosing a political party was to focus your game strategy, if you intended to pull off a research wi you would take the Technologists for example. I liked how you would lose your party bonuses, but disliked how easy it was to stay in power.

I would like to see more election defeats but as a balance gaining some if not all of the new ruling parties benefits. Moving from war party to pacifist should make for a serious hurdle to overcome, so more penalties would be interesting if balanced with some helpful bonuses. Perhaps the senate could influence decisions more, similiar to GC1's war declaration votes. Perhaps the senate could force the player to accept ceasefire offers?

Possibly For a leader to change parties Would be extremly diffuclut and force a mandtory election to deal with the new change and your influence as a leader sticks to your old party and so it makes it a bad choice somtimes however the influcence goes back to the party your in and you cannot change parties unless it is election day like it will give you a choice to change somting like that

The best system is simply to change player party in line with the election results. Therefore the player is simply jumping into the skin of the victorious candidate and carrying on from there. Kind of like the Europa monarch system. I wish you could have randomly determined party leaders for each party, with random names at least and if possible even portraits too. You'd be able to see emporer of another civilization's names and portrait and with basic espionage his abilities. The abilities would have a high probability of following the strengths and weaknesses of the party itself but not always. Maybe they should even have a candidate death event to kill off party leaders from time to time. If the current ruler dies the player should have to choose between maybe four randomly generated rulers, if a opposition party leader dies then the leader is randomly generated. Random leaders with random abilities and traits would do a lot to not only make the game more interesting but also increasing replayability.

As the player you are the group-mind of the civilization itself, not a particular persona, although you should have the ability to design the first character in the game.

One thing in these "space empire" games was never clear to me - what (as the human player) am I? A politial leader? A supreme emperor? A mysterious behind-the-scenes leader who is secretly pulling the strings?

This is the great fuzzy detail. You are one of several posibilities.
1) You are the head of an imperial line where sucession is handled out of sight to the player as the current monarch goes senile and pops his clogs the spritely young successor springs up and takes over.

2) You play as the current leader of your chosen political party, every few years the face changes but the pary goes on.

3) You are somehow immortal. Brain suspended in a green preservative liquid? Inexplicably long lifespan? Count Dracula? Dr Who? Maggie Thatcher? The possibilities are endless in science fiction!

4) You are the collective consciousness of government bureauracy. No-one knows how but it just keeps rumbling on.

4) You are the collective consciousness of government bureauracy. No-one knows how but it just keeps rumbling on.

Now THAT is frightening! I think I'd rather play as Count Chocula.

- Proud Canadian

What if... you DON'T choose your faction? You are whatever population chooses- and your civ. gains that faction bonuses. So you could see if population wants war or peace or more industry or whatever. Also implementing faction weaknesses (Industrialist- higher pollution, environmentalist- higher building maintenance (due to high-tech equipment), war party- higher unrest (due to radical measures in law)...

It would be nice if you could get a sort of opinion-poll within regular intervals viewing the shift in support of different political parties. In that way you can anticipate a loss in an (upcoming) election and shift to another political party or change your policies. Or you can try pulling voters away from your main rival(s). Of course the element of surprise would be lost but if there's one thing you want in politics it's certainty. (At least if I was a politician I would want it)

Votes are only based on current Morale, and that can be improved immediately by lowering taxes for one turn

I cannot find the link right now, but I recall Brad posting about (maybe it was a journal?) the fact that in gc2 there is a rolling average on the morale for the purposes of voting, not just the month before the election.