There is an incredibly complex web of relationships going on behind the scenes to juggle how Elector approval works. People get annoyed when you praise their enemies, pleased when you flatter their allies. Some will take offense if you are merciful, others if you are ruthless. Whole groups may be offended by the preferences you seem to show to Imperial races - or non-Imperial races. And a lot of this is intentionally kept hidden from the player because the intent is more to make the reactions interestingly complicated ("For some reason Character X likes me this run?") and NOT to make you pull out a nine-dimensional spreadsheet to try and calculate the effect of every decision.

Right now the only factional information visible to the player is in the Public Opinion option, which suggests which faction you have the highest standing with.

Would it be at all desirable to people to have a method - probably through high Imperial History - to find out the rough political allegiances of various Electors, or would this just burden you with even more information that you probably can't use very effectively? (Because even if you know, for example, that Elector X is in the faction that wants you to focus more on the current Empire and less on relations with alien powers, that may not let you figure out which choices boost that faction.)

This isn't something I will necessarily do. It's just something I'm thinking about and weighing pros/cons.

Since I got creative and tracked changes in variables from the start, I was aware of the factions from the beginning, but I never bothered to map out who "belonged" to each faction. I find that this knowledge would pretty much only be useful in conjunction with knowing the actual changes behind the curtain, so to speak, and I can't have considered it all that useful to learn, or I would have gone and figured it out already (that is something I could consider doing, just to get back into testing the game a bit more).

By the way, since a regular player won't know these numbers, this is kind of moot, but it did bother me a little that an increase in a faction was always a positive thing, meaning that if a choice increased a faction and did not decrease another, it would "always" be a superior choice if you were meta gaming. This is of course why I never get assassinated unless I deliberately try to, but then I'm not playing as intended.

*I* don't even think about the factions most of the time unless I'm trying to do something tricky (like managing Khdarr's approval).

Personally I agree that adding more information about factions (especially if you're not paying super close attention to variables) would ultimately just bog things down. It's a cool idea, but you'd have to already be paying attention to the nitty-gritty, and so for any casual player it would likely wind up an unused feature. 

I think that if additional information about factions is going to be revealed, the logical time and place would be when a negotiation fails for reasons that would not be immediately obvious from things the Elector has said or is discoverable about them (e.g. an Elector not voting for Zorana because of an assumption that an Investigate Elector would have dispelled wouldn't count). Something a bit like gur rcvybthr jurer gur Hhmtun tybor vf haqrefgbbq, ohg eryngvbaf ner fgvyy cbbe; gurer vf n uvag gurer gung Mbenan znl unir qbar fbzrguvat ryfr gung hcfrg gurz. Vg qbrf abg fcrpvsl jung gur bssrapr jnf, ohg vg tvirf rabhtu pyhr gung n cynlre pna erpbtavfr gung guvf vfa'g whfg punenpgrevfngvba, ohg fbzrguvat gung Mbenan pbhyq punatr ba n qvssrerag eha.

An intuitive feel that certain Electors are affected by certain actions is useful to acquire, but you've done a good job of that already by the way you've characterised the Electors. Bonus: some of that characterisation is available to all Zoranas via the history of a specific run, and a fair bit more to many Zoranas through investigating Electoral backgrounds. I certainly couldn't name all the factions, but once I've met, investigated and negotiated with an Elector, I feel like I have a good idea on what is likely to influence that Elector and how. I feel like the factions are as much to ensure consistency of characterisation (to support what is said about each Elector from sources the player has) as it is about dropping hints to the player.

(Ethexae is the Elector that jumps out at me as someone whose reasons for declining Zorana post-quest are sometimes but not always obvious. That said, obscure motives are part of her character, especially from the viewpoint of someone low in skills/knowledge she thinks are important. So even if you go down this route, it wouldn't be necessary to use the same skill each time, or even for it to be possible with every Elector).

I think that having this stuff visible under high/max Imperial History would be really fun! I got a lot of enjoyment out of peeking at the electors' stats from max Media (IIRC?), and I did take this as an opportunity to make notes of good cabinet options, but overall my impression was that it was a neat bit of extra info as a reward for doing something that in itself wasn't really necessary for winning the game. (I mean, unless there is a check that requires max Media...? A really difficult blackmail one, maybe? :'D)

Maxing Imperial History is almost certainly not going to be something a new player does. It definitely feels like something you do a couple of playthroughs in, out of curiosity. (I've already maxed a few knowledge skills just to see if anything interesting happens!) So I think it'd be a good reward!

As for factions... it's funny: when it comes to, like, Traditionalists, or people who favour the empire or certain species within it, my instinctive reaction was that I have a fairly good idea of where any particular elector's feelings would be. But at the same time, uh... I definitely have gotten a lot of assassination attempts, lol. I've also had the experience of a few electors being unexpectedly favorable to me (I nearly fell over in my military playthrough when Oletko just agreed to vote for me immediately after I asked!! but, I figure he just likes the military and valued Yakau's support haha), and I still haven't really been able to track how Zorana gets the 'favours good relations outside the empire' epilogue screen. (I finally got it in my latest run! Damned if I know how, though :'D Was it just because she studied Galactic Relations a lot? I could've  sworn she did that in another winning game, though...)

I've got to admit: when it comes to the 'common route' scenarios (e.g. the drunk guy, the clone kids) I mostly have the impression that there are Best Options that minimise conflict and maximise empire stability and goodwill towards Zorana, usually tied to stats. Whenever I've tried to pick a different Not Best Option for a change, I usually end up feeling like the outcome is worse and that I'm being punished for choosing wrongly. So it's kind of hard to try to 'play' to different factions, for me. I like the idea of e.g. doing a more Traditionalist run, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to actually effect that mechanically. (Semi-unrelated, but favoring different electors can be tricky given how quick some are to pledge their allegiance; in my military run, Oberod pledged to Lukomir before I got the stats to complete his quest. But admittedly that was a very inefficient run, haha.) Weirdly, the one choice that epitomises the different philosophies for me is Exethae's question about the rogue priest: every possible answer feels like it expresses a possible version of Zorana without any being objectively more 'right'. Which is funny, because only Exethae hears the answer and presumably she has an opinion of her own, so there probably is a Best Answer there! (Aside from, ofc, just a Zorana who's given it thought and can articulate a logical argument.)

IDK - I'm rambling, haha. I really am curious about the factions, actually. (Like, how come Stoyan voted for me in my latest run even though Zorana never even went to Draug while two runs ago he tried to murder her despite being her Science advisor?????? I do not understand that man I am afraid. Sorry dude but Lorkas is only a little less Science for much less stress.) I think that for people doing a looot of playthroughs (as I am becoming), it would actually help with triangulating those choices - like, 'ohhh, this time these electors like me - I guess I've been favoring intergalactic diplomacy? Which choices would've set those flags? 🤔'

Ethexae turned against my Zorana once, for reasons I'm not 100% on, and while playing the right combination of teams and roles in starfall could bring her disposition up or down, I wasn't able to mitigate the effect altogether. Every other playthrough, successfully playing for the winning team got me her as an advisor. Because it was just the one playthrough, I still don't know if it's a flat disposition score with flavor text ("the gods want me to defeat you"), or if there's a full branch that makes winning Ethexae's approval a non-starter. 

I also had a game where I went from "murmurs of discontent" to "multiple threats", seemingly overnight. I think that might have been the game with the most abstentions in the vote, actually. 

The first factor in approval, I think, is showing up to their sector/planet to begin with, although some electors are more affected by that than others. Like, everything about One Bite screams "I am a late-game challenge", so showing up at Heru I first thing is totally possible, but maybe not the best strategic choice. Though, admittedly, making One Bite Chancellor is a pretty bold maneuver, from a roleplaying perspective.