See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.

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.

Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.

Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters.

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).

If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.

A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.

On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.

See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.

So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

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.

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.

Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.

Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.

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?

Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Why is voting reform needed?

Okay, then. Let's change the system into the FuckMittani/goons/test system, which is easier gameable than today's system, so when the entire CSM is literally nothing but CFC/Test, we can say "we told you so".

Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call.

Because that works out so well
http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg

And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.

A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs.

They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.

And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.

They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.

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).

I think what you fail to realize is the simple fact that the morale majority has always been able to swing the vote, Plenty of people outside of GSF voted for Mittens, simply because he's an effective candidate and can allocate swathes of personal time to CSM matters.

If any entity in this game, can have 5000+ active members and coincidentally sway all 5000 of those people to vote for him, then he should be in office, it's basic politics 101. Of course, you must realize even Mittens who is literally the King of Space, has to do more than just snap his fingers to awaken the hive to do his bidding (there needs to be a wordy Jabber Broadcast, and at least a 20 minute speech).

Set aside your personal vendetta and your poor play at 'GoonSwarm' as an example (which is just "Hurrrr the largest alliance in the game has alot of votes") and realize that if someone can muster 5000+ votes, that person probably has more of an ear for what's happening and how in the game than the rest of the candidates.

So again- is there any reason for this change?

You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes.

But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote.

And what did we mostly hear about during CSM 6

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.

If one lone nutter getting someone elected is not cause for voting reform, you will never believe there is a need.

Oh hey I see we're still trying to prop up a brazen attempt by this CSM to throw away the votes of paying subscribers because they do not like who they'll be voting for!