1. What are you suggesting exactly?
2. It doesn't really break the economy
3. Autocracies are at a disadvantage and an advantage, in exchange for bonuses the Oceanic Empire gets a +25% diplomatic point cost of starting sieges against democracies and elects coleaders instead of the leader choosing them freely

Bro ur trading the "Im the ruler of the nation" rank for some buffs, if u wanna keep having contant control then dont do it, thats the major disadvantage of democracies, just weigh the advantages and disadvantages and decide whether u become a democracy or not

Wait till you see the Direct Democracy :D

Ngl I think it's a bit overpowered to have democracies having such buffs while autocracies have nothing, I think a way of balancing it would be making a new suggestion to add buffs to autocracies for more power and democracies for better economy. Should also be some types of autocracies like monarchy or empire.

I mean you kinda have the feeling this feature is only to buff democracies to persuade nations to become democratic, while a constitutional monarchy on ccnet doesn't look very democratic since co-leader can be controled by the leader and votes are easy to manipulate.

Right now only Oceanic Empire, New California Republic and Scotian Sea are democratic, and taking the actual context of politics on CCnet, I see it as a feature buffing a lot Oceanic Empire due to their large residents number (mostly inactive like in every big nation ((can't have 300 active members on 400 residents for example)), while the 2 other nations are way smaller. So I think the resource buff should be nerfed, or get democracies buffs only on economy and not diplomatic points so it's more balanced.

I honestly do think that Constitutional Monarchy of all things might be op, because you still keep a "firm grip" on leadership and risk nothing and you get free bonuses. while for example Republic seems to be underwhelming to me, because it requires a leader to willingly compromise his security in his position as a head of the nation which is simply something leaders don't often wanna do. I think democracies in general are not too OP but Constitutional Monarchy might be a little too "safe" because you basically lose no security as a leader if co-leaders can be elected