|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
   |
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
The reason STV is GÇ£the better systemGÇ¥ is exactly because it is complicated. You can't have it both ways.
If you want a simple system, it will be flawed. The current one is flawed in that votes on lower-end candidates are wasted because the candidates (and thus the votes) get culled. The suggested system is flawed in that votes on higher-end candidates are wasted because those votes get culled. At least the former makes some kind of democratic sense GÇö not enough people agree with your fringe stance so it won't be part of the process GÇö but the latter is justGǪ weird. GÇ£Sorry, too many people agree with you so your voice doesn't matterGÇ¥. 
If you want voting reform, bite the bullet and make it difficult because that's the only way to improve any voting system. It's just the nature of the beast (oh, and it's not all that difficult to either run or report, especially since it's done electronically GÇö it's a simple iterative process with one edge case that already has a given solution).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Alchenar wrote:This isn't STV. It's STV with a special addon specifically designed to disenfranchise voters.
People aren't complaining that it's complicated. They are complaining that the proposal is deliberately designed to be undemocratic. GǪyou mean, exactly like I was saying. In fact, this proposal isn't STV in any form (with our without addons) GÇö it's a normal voting system with the GÇ£vote discardingGÇ¥ rule turned on its head. If anything, it's more close to some screwy kind of parallel-voting first-past-the-post system with a bias towards candidates close to the cut-off point.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Two step wrote:The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort. GǪbut again, that's pretty much unavoidable.
The thing is, almost all standard voting systems are meant to elect one candidate, and pretty much all the mechanisms in elections these days revolve around turning that single vote into a ranking (usually by counting who got the one vote the most) or some kind of proportional distribution. The reason STV is so handy is because it is in and of itself a ranking system that is also a single vote (for that proportion-counting part), so you get the bit you wanted in the end for freeGǪ
GǪexcept that ranking is inherently more complicated than voting for one thing. The CSM is a ranked body; the difficulties of ranking are thus inherent and inescapable so the only question is how flawed you want it to be. Anyway, the standard way of simplifying STV is to reduce the number of ranking slots. Once you get down to two or three, it's not particularly difficult at all on either end of the process. Likewise, there are simplifications that can be done in the counting process GÇö whether or not to do a full recount between rounds or not GÇö that reduce the work load on that end.
Picking three slots isn't much more effort than picking one, and the proposed system still requires you to understand both the candidate you're voting for and the candidate s/he is GÇ£votingGÇ¥ for with the transfer, so the one thing that really keeps people from voting GÇö reading up on the candidates GÇö is still there. Those who are interested in voting to begin with will not be all that deterred if they have to pick their top three rather than just their top one (and the entire point GÇö that you vote is much less likely to be wasted GÇö is still there and is still a strong argument to pull new voters in).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9406
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Come to think of it, the voting system isn't the actual problem.
The problem is that what we're voting for is undefined. The CSM is not a decision-making body, so proportionality doesn't matter. it may be a ranked body, but only the top and the bottom four(?) positions are of any relevance.
So what relevant factor is it the votes are supposed to decide? Before this is answered, there's no way to pick a matching voting system.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9415
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Yes, that's why it's a bad suggestion.
A good suggestion would be one where the majority doesn't get discounted just because it's a majority.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9416
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been GǪthe problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GǣcontrolledGǥ and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is.
Quote:But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9417
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null? An irrelevant number of them, since the question was one of representation.
Oh yes you did. Specifically, you said GÇ£So yes I am in favour of thisGÇ¥ (referring to CD-not-at-all-STV). So you most certainly are approving a system that favours the minority.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9418
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Funny first it was "this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GÇ£controlledGÇ¥ and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is."
and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant. Yes? What part are you having problem with? Is it the part about representation that is tripping you up again? The part for which the space-home of players is utterly irrelevant?
Quote:As to the I am in favour of this it was to the STV as it will not favour minorities but actually favour candidates who have the ability to stand on approximately the same concepts. No, it will favour people who would otherwise not get a voice because there's too few of them and at the same time discarding majority votes becauseGǪ well, just because.
Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Quote:Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. Why is voting reform needed?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9418
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:And what did we mostly hear about during CSM 6 Fixing the broken sov system that made null a no-go for everyone but the established actors; fixing the broken tech situation, which broke the game for everyone; cleaning up after Incarna and delivering stuff that everyone wanted.
So yeah, having representatives that look at the bigger picture is quite important. Where they're from is much less so.
Quote:The current system is to easy to exploit, given that a large part of this is due to people not voting but the other is the current system is to easily manipulated. It's by far the least exploitable voting system there is, due to its simplicity. The actual problem is that it doesn't match what it's being used for, since voting power means nothing in a non-decision-making context. The other problem is that some people don't care about voting but care a lot about complaining about how they didn't vote. STV is the proposed CD-FPTP (because calling it CD-STV is a gutbustingly bad joke since it does the exact opposite of STV) is even more exploitable, but only because the small size of the CSM and the lack of constituencies.
The problem with the proposal is that it does the exact same thing as the current system GÇö it wastes votes GÇö but it's much worse than the current system because the votes wasted are the ones that represent a larger consensus, rather than the ones that represent pointless minority fringe votes.
So no, the current system being the least exploitable of the options is not a good reason to reform the voting system.
Quote:If one lone nutter getting someone elected is not cause for voting reform, you will never believe there is a need.  So now you're against the proposal, I take it, in spite of being for it before?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
|
| |
|