GAMIFICATION OF ELECTIONS – PART 7
In this final article I will circle back to the original question: What to do about declining voter turnout. How to reinvigorate the interest in voting – especially for a new generation, trained on instant gratification and stuck in constant feedback loops. Working on this from the angle of a game designer won’t deliver a cure-all solution. It probably won’t even make a dent in the graphs. But the general idea is a powerful one, and if just a handful of people can be attracted to politics, into electoral studies or more generally in the process of democracy, then the effort should be worth it.
I will create an app – this much is clear. But what kind of app will it be? What will the app do? What are the goals (after all, you can’t improve what you can’t measure – and surely you can’t write a master thesis about it)? And first and foremost, how will it use the countless techniques that are at the game designer’s disposal – many of which have been introduced over the last six chapters of this series?
At this point, I will ask some questions about all the aforementioned issues and will elaborate on it. By tossing ideas around I try to define a concrete concept on how this app may work.
IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT?
First, and most important, question: will it be an educational app or a classic quiz that explains the intricate mechanics of modern government? A competitive trivia game, where you compete against other players in naming the current ministers or answer when the first Austrian elections were held?
Or will it be explicit: a serious game, that uses a fictitious gameplay setting to engage players on a different battlefield than in a duel about knowledge? What if the player has to manage their own political party? Navigate the intricate political landscape of current day Austria, take stances on hot issues and beat the polls?
In my opinion, the latter offers a more promising outlook. Participating in a quiz about one narrow topic artificially limits the longevity of the experience. This would make the app more appropriate for a last-ditch voter mobilisation effort – stoke interest a few months before the election. Participation would then need to be incentivised by offering prizes or some other form of extrinsic motivation.
In order to be as effective as possible, motivation should be intrinsic, something that can be more readily achieved by creating an actual game, with an interesting game loop to boot. This is where the better than average effect would come into play. Studies show that people regularly rate themselves above average whenever they are asked to assess themselves on a certain skill. In the bars and pubs this occurs, regularly – discussions on where politician X went wrong, how party Y should have acted and how minister Z should have responded. Giving people the opportunity to “play politician” and act upon those sentiments could be part of a roleplaying experience. Giving the player choices in matters, and let them own the answers. Players then could climb the polls, earn votes and participate in fictitious elections, running on a platform they themselves created. All within the game of course. But the idea is (by asking relevant questions about real-life issues and stances) to instil a sense of personal value into those topics and thus increase the intrinsic motivation to go out and participate in the actual political process.
IN CHARACTER?
So, we let the players be the politicians – to what end? What if they then have to participate in election activities? Go to fundraisers to gather money (action points?), political clout (influence?), or support from people? What if “polls” are held regularly to rank the players most people would vote for? They can win over districts by spending their influence, their action points and play some interesting minigames. During certain intervals, there will be “elections” that determine the “political score”, i.e. how many of the fictious voters within the game have voted for the player. But there is more! A politician with a small party doesn’t stand a chance in countrywide politics. That’s were coalitions come in. By creating and regularly updating their “manifesto” by assessing their political choices their party slowly gets categorized into one of three country-wide coalitions: The Leftist, The Conservatives and The Rights (here we have the chance for some fancy name creation). The players can then join one of those coalitions, if their views align with the coalition’s ideology. Thus, by the power of Core Drive #5 Social Influence & Relatedness, players will be tempted to align themselves more closely to the coalition’s norm, as well as be motivated to participate in their agenda. The players within a coalition don’t play against each other, their goal is to play the game as best as they can, so the coalition itself wins in the regularly held elections, against the other two coalitions. Player forums, group chats etc. help the different members to closely coordinate, debate strategies and, most importantly, engage in politics.
SPONSORED OR INDEPENDENT?
The most important question – be it app, or be it game – should it be neutral? Or should it be sponsored by a political party. Depending on this hinge a lot of different design decisions.
For example, the aforementioned coalition mechanics would not work in the same way in a game where all players are part of the same party. In this case the main goal – besides keeping players engaged for long enough – should be to transport the party’s values. Explain their election goals, their ideas and their agenda. Rally their voters and stoke their interest in order to mobilize them for election day. The app could be used to spread news, inform voters about upcoming deadlines, guide them on how to fill out the paperwork, apply for voting cards or how to overcome other bureaucratic hurdles.
On the other hand, what if the game/app is neutral, sponsored by an independent third entity? In this case it would have to be neutral and judgment-free. It should not spread propaganda, and would have to be policed by an impartial moderation team. Answers to political questions would not be right or wrong. Moderation would be a hot-button issue. By inviting political talk and political divergent people to engage with each other, there would be conflict. There would be, however, ways to regulate those issues. Take World of Warcraft for example. Divided in two factions, the “good” Alliance and the “bad” Horde, players fight for their respective faction and in certain cases openly against the enemy factions’ players. This prompted many instances of verbal abuse, hateful messages over text- and voice-chat between the hostile players. Blizzard, the developers of WoW, solved this particular problem by restricting communication between the factions: They each speak a different language! So whenever some player talks to an enemy player, the message gets converted into some illegible fantasy language. This not only serves as a barrier to curb hate speech, but also solidifies the lore, story and setting of the world the players inhabit.
These questions are just the first step towards a tangible game or app concept. They need to be answered, weighted, and refined. But the answers to them – and the goals that these answers set – will prove to be an invaluable guide through the long and arduous process that is game development.
2Further reading:
Jane McGonigal, Reality is Broken:
https://tinyurl.com/googlebooks-realityisbroken
