Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 18:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Extreme on 13/05/2010 18:43:55
I think that for the next round 'voting for CSM-6 candidates' that players should cast 3 votes (1 vote max. per candidate).
1st: 3 points 2nd: 2 points 3rd: 1 point
Reason for this in my opinion is that then you vote better based on what team you would like to see working together rather than to vote based on, for example. charisma, alliance, and/or some good topics someone may have.
Perhaps you all remember the TV show " Big brother " where people will have to live together for a year, CSM is in a way the same. As i already said a year ago: "elect 9 muppets and you will get the Muppetshow, not a working counsil"
Aside of how well people are able to present their platforms, and having good ideas you still will need to have fellow CSM members being elected that have other abilities/qualifications, like for example, being able to lead a team (no dictatorship)and someone else might have the ability to represent CSM better towards the public. Imagine a frigid scary nerd to "push" CCP to make things better, lol! (but he had a great platform!)
So, in short, people should be able to vote for a team, not just a candidate.
/Extreme . .
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 18:51:00 -
[2]
Before Mazz will do :P
you can still cast your votes HERE
Would be good if CSM-5 would work on this subject with CCP . .
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:09:00 -
[3]
That'll push things much more so towards slate/bloc voting. Look at the Elvenlord/Vuk Lau slate in this election, or the Goon slates in past. They have to split the votes of people, which provides a natural brake on how big slates can get, thereby broadening representation. If you implement this system, you'll see more 2-3 candidate blocs and fewer individuals winning. That's not what I want.
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:15:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Extreme on 13/05/2010 19:15:34
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto That'll push things much more so towards slate/bloc voting. Look at the Elvenlord/Vuk Lau slate in this election, or the Goon slates in past. They have to split the votes of people, which provides a natural brake on how big slates can get, thereby broadening representation. If you implement this system, you'll see more 2-3 candidate blocs and fewer individuals winning. That's not what I want.
I agree with your point Hershel.
So suggesting that, while you casting 3 votes, that it's limited to only one candidate of the same alliance and with a possability to be able to abstain to vote for numbers #2 and #3. . .
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Extreme Edited by: Extreme on 13/05/2010 19:29:45
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto That'll push things much more so towards slate/bloc voting. Look at the Elvenlord/Vuk Lau slate in this election, or the Goon slates in past. They have to split the votes of people, which provides a natural brake on how big slates can get, thereby broadening representation. If you implement this system, you'll see more 2-3 candidate blocs and fewer individuals winning. That's not what I want.
I agree with your point Herschel.
So suggesting that, while you casting 3 votes, that it's limited to only one candidate of the same alliance and with a possability to be able to abstain to vote for numbers #2 and #3.
So you can't vote for Vuk and Elven, but if Omber Zombie and I ran on a slate, you could vote for both of us? All you'd get is "Elven Lord" in a NPC corp as the candidate, with the main doing all the posting and promotion. Alliance tickers are among the easiest things to fake in the game.
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 20:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
So you can't vote for Vuk and Elven, but if Omber Zombie and I ran on a slate, you could vote for both of us? All you'd get is "Elven Lord" in a NPC corp as the candidate, with the main doing all the posting and promotion. Alliance tickers are among the easiest things to fake in the game.
I guess that can be fixed by the 'penalty' that this 'alliance-rule' will also include candidates that left the (same) aliance in a period shorter than 2 months. . .
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 20:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Extreme
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
So you can't vote for Vuk and Elven, but if Omber Zombie and I ran on a slate, you could vote for both of us? All you'd get is "Elven Lord" in a NPC corp as the candidate, with the main doing all the posting and promotion. Alliance tickers are among the easiest things to fake in the game.
I guess that can be fixed by the 'penalty' that this 'alliance-rule' will also include candidates that left the (same) aliance in a period shorter than 2 months.
Doesn't deal with obvious alts.
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 21:47:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Extreme on 13/05/2010 21:47:54
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Doesn't deal with obvious alts.
CSM candidacy is applied by RL name and passport and thus it doesnt matter what alt you have.
All someones alts are connected (only CCP will know) to one RL owner. CCP can see if the candidated alt involved the 2 month rule of one of his other alts. This includes character transfers as well. . .
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari The Phoenix Enclave Astro Lux Aedificatiae
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 22:03:00 -
[9]
I do agree the voting system needs to be changed, but my concern with a Boorda count (even a limited boorda count, which is what the OP proposes) is that it would more easily allow bloc voting by alliances. I think a better option would be the Single Transferable Vote, which would deal with the problem of different candidates "splitting" constituencies and works well for multi-seat elections like the CSM.
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 00:44:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku I do agree the voting system needs to be changed, but my concern with a Boorda count (even a limited boorda count, which is what the OP proposes) is that it would more easily allow bloc voting by alliances. I think a better option would be the Single Transferable Vote, which would deal with the problem of different candidates "splitting" constituencies and works well for multi-seat elections like the CSM.
I read the Wiki and i think that STV system is way too complex and impossible for people to understand. The only ones that possibly understand how STV vote works are people from the UK, USA, Ireland and Aussie.
I have no idea what a Boorda count is, i tried to Google it but no info.
I would say, keep it simple and for everyone to understand like the Eurovision songcontest. Ofcourse the Eurovision songcontest is no longer what it used to be due to the Baltic votes)
I think the setup and rules/limitations added as discussed and answered will do the trick. . .
|
|
Extreme
Eye of God Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 15:59:00 -
[11]
Last call to vote.
Change the way votes are being handled
You can vote for me HERE
Thank you! . .
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 19:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto That'll push things much more so towards slate/bloc voting. Look at the Elvenlord/Vuk Lau slate in this election, or the Goon slates in past. They have to split the votes of people, which provides a natural brake on how big slates can get, thereby broadening representation. If you implement this system, you'll see more 2-3 candidate blocs and fewer individuals winning. That's not what I want.
Everything herschel says I agree with, including most of those outside this thread and especially since he says it so well.
-T'amber
POLITICS:SIMULATORÖ
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 04:57:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Extreme Before Mazz will do :P
you can still cast your votes HERE
Would be good if CSM-5 would work on this subject with CCP
sorry, i thought you meant HERE
the elected CSM's should vote on who is chairman in the beginning, reguardless of how popular a csm person is, the group is going to work together if the person that everyone most wants to work with is in the lead. i think my CSM group(csm3) got lucky getting a good chairman, but it could have been really bad, if we got a chairman that is determined to be a **** like in a previous csm.
MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO |
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 05:06:00 -
[14]
Maz, CSM can elect it's own chair, the publicly elected chair has to allow it though. So far no chairs have taken this option. ----------------------
My Blog |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |