Currently in vanilla political power is defined mainly by Living Standards. By default each Strata has an equal value of Power, sort of "0" value (though it's not zero per se). Then, Living Standards are applied and this value is modified the following way:

Normal: Rulers +700%, Specialists +100%
Welfare: Rulers +400%, Specialists +100%, Workers +50%
Stratified: Rulers +900%, Specialists +100%, Workers -25%
Utopian: does not affect Political Power, meaning that everyone remains equal

So, my current idea is that distribution of power would be mainly defined by a chosen Authority, with some possible affection from Ethics and Civics. Like, for instance

Direct Democracy: Workers +400%, Specialists +400%
Indirect Democracy: Workers +200%, Specialists +400%, Rulers +200%
Oligarchy: Workers +100%, Specialists +300%, Rulers +400%
Dictatorial: Workers +50%, Specialists +200%, Rulers +500%
Imperial: Workers +50%, Specialists +100%, Rulers +600%

Authoritarian ethic would additionally increase Rulers power.
Competitive ethic would additionally increase Specialists power (it's already do).
Cooperative ethic would additionally increase Workers power.

I like this idea and these numbers. But I wouldn't take political power completely out of living standards, as living standards = wealth and wealth = political power in most societies. I like that authority has a much larger impact, but living standards should still have some. I think anything above 0.5 should increase political power up to +100% at 1.0, and anything below reduce it by up to -100% at 0.0

I agree that living standards = wealth but I agree less with wealth = political power.

This depends very much on society.

Heavily militaristic societies put an emphasis on strength as such strength = political power. This is why militaristic federations have the option of a martial contest for who gets to be federal leader.

The same can be said of spiritualists (piety = power) pacifists (most diplomatic = power) and the examples are on and on.

In cooperative societies where emphasis is not put on wealth as it is collectively owned then wealth is not equal to political power in theory. Authoritarian should not be equated with elitism always.

It can be equated with specific elitist civics to create diversity, but authority can also produce equality.

It depends who the contender to that authority is from the start. If that authority suppresses individuals who would use their influence to profit from the masses the it is by all means egalitarian. If it suppresses the masses in favour of a few or one then it is elitist. Depends on situations and points of view.

Now imagine that neither liberty nor authority are absolute. Liberty, even in a democracy does NOT allow you to do whatever the hell your twisted little mind can come up with (this is an impersonal "you", worth mentioning that I am not referring to anyone in particular) and authority even in a dictatorship does not suppress absolutely everyone under the current ruler/ruling body because that means also suppressing loyalists which in and of itself is not only illogical but pointless.

So if authority suppresses the most on favour of a few then it's elitist. If it suppresses a few in favour of the most then it's egalitarian. If liberty is given to a society inherently cooperative then it's egalitarian, if it's given to a society that inherently believes some should rule and some should obey (with specifics as to who depending on cultural/moral values) then it's inherently elitist (again I would reference ancient rome).

I can not speak for actual values but generally I would dissociate liberty and authority from living standards as proposed but to a certain extent I would also dissociate them with power given to a strata as again it depends on culture and situation.

Is there a way to limit that power to certain jobs rather than a whole strata? This would make it easier for competitive to grant power to ruler and some lesser power to specialists but still more than workers (specialists being to a certain extent also exploited as it happens with most corporations but still have it better than the lower working class) to emulate stratification.

Authority would give administrators more power specifically (if possible)

Liberty would give more power to entertainment workers (as a means to emulate freedom of expression and the power of "influencers" in media)

Militarist would give more power to commanders/soldiers

Spiritualists for priests etc.

Oh and cooperative would have equal power across, forgot to mention

Originally posted by relytor:

I like this idea and these numbers. But I wouldn't take political power completely out of living standards, as living standards = wealth and wealth = political power in most societies. I like that authority has a much larger impact, but living standards should still have some. I think anything above 0.5 should increase political power up to +100% at 1.0, and anything below reduce it by up to -100% at 0.0

It does in Capitalist societies, so the vanilla game reflects that assumption without actually having made the game economy Capitalist at all. In Socialist or Feudal societies it is the other way around, you have power and turn it into wealth. In the latter case this is quite acceptable while in the former case you are not *supposed to* but people still manage it, often illegally through corruption.

Thing is that the ability of people with powerful jobs in a Socialist society does not go away simply because it is democratic. All the Socialist regimes ever have been democratic (in theory), while being Oligarchic, Dicatorial or outright Monarchical in practice. Actually being democratic, which is not something they have ever been in reality does not solve the power = wealth problem absolutely because an elected official can still be corrupt. That he can be caught and removed from office is balanced against the fact that the insecurity of his position motivates him to cash in on it as fast as possible.

An idea is to bring back shared burdens for fanatic cooperative and have other fanatic cooperatives have moderate benefits for being in charge, but considerably less than the normal amount.

I feel like living standards should still have a fairly large impact on political power as well. A species on social welfare should have far more political power than a species on basic subsistence, regardless of what sort of government they live under.

What happened to Utopian Living Standards?? I can't find them anywhere

Originally posted by Toast:

I feel like living standards should still have a fairly large impact on political power as well. A species on social welfare should have far more political power than a species on basic subsistence, regardless of what sort of government they live under.

Not necessarily. There is a concept called the gilded cage, you can give people an abundance of material things while giving them little freedom and power. Social welfare is arguably there in order to realise precisely that situation, people on social welfare are arguably rendered into passive recipients, hopelessly dependent on the hand that gave them their welfare.

Those on basic subsistence however do not owe you anything and much worse they had to survive WITHOUT your help. This forces them to become more organised than those who subsist on social welfare that basically cannot defy you since you hold all the leverage over them.

Originally posted by Kain:

Is there a way to limit that power to certain jobs rather than a whole strata? This would make it easier for competitive to grant power to ruler and some lesser power to specialists but still more than workers (specialists being to a certain extent also exploited as it happens with most corporations but still have it better than the lower working class) to emulate stratification.

Authority would give administrators more power specifically (if possible)

Liberty would give more power to entertainment workers (as a means to emulate freedom of expression and the power of "influencers" in media)

Militarist would give more power to commanders/soldiers

Spiritualists for priests etc.

No, it's not possible

Originally posted by GoblinCookie:

An idea is to bring back shared burdens for fanatic cooperative and have other fanatic cooperatives have moderate benefits for being in charge, but considerably less than the normal amount.

Can you clarify this, please?

Originally posted by petruxa:

Originally posted by GoblinCookie:

An idea is to bring back shared burdens for fanatic cooperative and have other fanatic cooperatives have moderate benefits for being in charge, but considerably less than the normal amount.

Can you clarify this, please?

I thought it was clear enough. Total equality in living standards requires the shared burdens, which requires fanatic cooperative. Other cooperative civs without that civic get small inequalities that acrue to those in charge (ruler pops and everyone else), that are however less than the inequalities that exist otherwise between such strata.

Originally posted by Kain:

Oh and cooperative would have equal power across, forgot to mention

Currently it's set up that Cooperative ethic increases Workers political power, which results in that at least in case of democracy or oligarchy the distribution of power becomes more or less equal across all the stratas.

Originally posted by GoblinCookie:

Originally posted by petruxa:

Can you clarify this, please?

I thought it was clear enough. Total equality in living standards requires the shared burdens, which requires fanatic cooperative. Other cooperative civs without that civic get small inequalities that acrue to those in charge (ruler pops and everyone else), that are however less than the inequalities that exist otherwise between such strata.

Currently "Social Equality" (renamed Shared Burden) is available for Fanatic Cooperatives, it does not speicifcally require "Socialistic Ideals" (Shared Burden) civic. You want me to attach this type of Living Standards back to this Civic?

Originally posted by GoblinCookie:

Not necessarily. There is a concept called the gilded cage, you can give people an abundance of material things while giving them little freedom and power. Social welfare is arguably there in order to realise precisely that situation, people on social welfare are arguably rendered into passive recipients, hopelessly dependent on the hand that gave them their welfare.

Those on basic subsistence however do not owe you anything and much worse they had to survive WITHOUT your help. This forces them to become more organised than those who subsist on social welfare that basically cannot defy you since you hold all the leverage over them.

Political power isn't just freedoms and the ability to vote, or slaves wouldn't have political power. Political power is the ability to influence the government. A person in a gilded cage is still more capable of influencing a government than a person under basic subsistence, just because they can take their wealth and do something with it. Someone in a gilded cage can ultimately still travel to participate in a protest, or try to bribe local officials, or help to crowdfund activism against the regime, or even just buy a gun to shoot politicians. A person under basic subsistence will struggle to find the time and money for any of this, meaning they cannot influence the government to nearly the same degree. The regime has less leverage over them, but they have less leverage against the regime.

@Toast you've got some point here, I'll think about it. Probably it would be more accurate to attribute additional political power not to Cooperative/Competitive ethics, but to appropriate living standards.