How would that change game play?

The thing to remember is that TPM isn't a political simulation . . it's a game, a stratagy game that uses politics as a framework.That might be an expansion I'd buy.  

Primaries in 2012, huh?  Not a bad idea.    

primarys would be really awsome i think countys would be really cool but the creator put in so much work i think he would only do one at a time but yes you all have valid points.

I agree Primaries would be a great addition to the game.

I was thinking about this before. Yea if you look at the counties map it would look like a sea of red with blue spots where the big city areas are at. But I prefer the way we have now. There is some suspension of disbelief when you play this game. Like a candidate in California giving a speech (5 stamina) in the game is representing the candidate making a trip up or down, hitting different big cities along the coast line. If it got to a point where it's so realistic that we are micromanaging cities and counties I think the game would start taking itself too seriously and becoming less fun.

Images of the math horrors of DnD rules flash through my head.

Primaries would make the game a "two-section" affair.

Part One would be getting your party's nomination. While in many years its not that exciting a contest (especially for the party in the WH), this year, on both the Democrat and Republican side has shown that it can be interesting.

One could have the game "focus" on your party's nomination, with perhaps "news updates" on what the other party is doing (abstracting that primary battle, to save resources)

Part Two would be the general election, TPM as it is now.


It might be a quantum leap upward in complexity, though, since a primary, to be reasonably accurate as a game, would have to have multiple computer opponents. TPM right now is a "one on one" (two on two when you pick your VP) sort of game.

However, would I pay a little more for a TPM 2012 with primaries. Yeah, you betcha!