* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)

Finding the winners
An STV election proceeds according to the following steps:
1) Any candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected.
2) If a candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate's surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner instead go to the next preference listed on their ballot.
3) If no one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred.
This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.

Mitanni would still have been elected under this, or probably any, voting system. Robert's post is more concerned at looking at the bottom end of the voting than the top.

And the CSM hasn't decided anything, we talked about it a bunch (hint, we can read and reply to several forum threads at a time, shocking i know) and felt the discussion reached an appropriately structured place that we could start a good conversation with the EVE player base.

Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about.

I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".

this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform

Like Trebor said,

Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.

No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.

Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different?

What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?

What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice.

I'm pretty open-minded in general. If you don't like something Trebor said, convince me that its bad. I'm listening. There's no need to argue in the meantime as if this was something every one of the CSM members is personally trying to mandate.

I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....

Permitting overvotes to transfer would automatically optimize the voting power of large, organized blocs without any risk of miscalculation, giving them even more voting power than they currently enjoy under the present system. They can still do it if they want (using the tools that were developed for vote tracking in recent elections), but with a certain element of uncertainty. This still gives them a significant edge over smaller groups who cannot effectively track votes for their candidates.

Also keep in mind that the purpose of the CSM elections to elect a council of representatives who can give CCP the best possible advice, and this is not exactly the same goal as in a RL election. Having multiple essentially identical voices on the CSM isn't optimal, which is likely one reason the CFC, who could have easily placed 2 or even 3 candidates into the top 7 in the last election, instead chose to concentrate their votes on a single candidate..

Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though.

The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.

The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).

A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system?

To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?

im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.

I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes.

So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy.

This approach just confuses me. I don't see how Trebor's views on what a voting system should be doing and what your view on a voting system should be doing can't coexist in a discussion space about voting systems. They cant both WIN that discussion but why does the existence of disagreement between you and Trebor, me and Trebor, and/or me and you translate to nothing to discuss?

However, I do not believe that it should be necessary or advisable for CFC to hold 3 seats, just to establish their presence and present their game issues. One seat should be sufficient.

After all, CSM is not intended to be a voting body, in of itself, and the CSM should not be allowed to internally prioritize issues presented to CCP, according to the private agendas of specific CSM members. The lobbyist and political party system doesn't work all that well in the US, with regards to optimally and efficiently prioritizing government resources, according to the benefit of the US population as a whole - I don't see why we, or CCP, would want to copy such a failure here.