Election campaigns are perhaps the most frequent subject of computer simulations in the study of politics. Although early simulations were oversimplified, later ones have occasionally achieved verisimilitude as measured against the actual campaign process. This review compares two simulations of U.S. general-election, presidential campaigns, and one of a Senate Campaign.
As a game, Campaign Promises is enjoyable. During each turn, candidates choose to spend their money on a variety of endeavors, including organizing in various American states, dirty tricks against the opponent, and calling elections (and subsequently spending money on advertising).
As a simulation of presidential elections, however, there are problems. First, candidates are not assigned to, nor do they choose, a political party. Parties are not a part of the simulation at all; instead it presents primarily a contest between two candidates. Second, the simulation allows a random element to determine funding from turn to turn. In reality, presidential candidates for the two major parties receive an equal grant from the federal government at the start of the general election campaign, to spend as they choose within certain guidelines. Although there is some variation in presidential funding in the category commonly called "soft money," the simulation merely randomly allows candidates to raise money each turn, with no discussion of the sources of funds.