In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.

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.

Either CSM Chairman Seleene is backing propositions without having actually read them, or is really bad at deceiving the player base he is intended to represent. Which is it?

There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.

My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.

If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.

It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.

One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform. Simple as that. I bet that sort of in-client interface would increase voter turnout at least three-fold. (I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is the sort of thing that should be the focus of the CSM with regards voting, making it easier and more convenient for people to vote.)

well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in

Frankly, I'd like to hear if The Mittani would have actually supported this STV initiative if he was still the CSM chairman, which your peers are trying to infer but as shying away from actually claiming. He can post, right?

Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?

when did i ever say that ?

There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.

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.

The determination of the results is straightforward:

In each round:

* 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)

Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for.

This system removes the amount of votes the candidate receives from the pool of votes, not the quota. The quota could be 10 votes and a candidate receives 20. The 20 in this case is subtracted from the pool leaving 10 votes wasted. This disenfranchises voters by throwing their votes away.

All this has pretty much been stated in the thread but I just thought I'd put it all in one easy to read post so its a bit more understandable why this is so outrageous.

There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.

My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.

i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont.

Nobody really cares about your attitude when your actions, specifically the way you state things in your posts, are the way they are. You have not attempted to actually engage, you have simply been dismissive and patronizing in a belated attempt to control the narrative.

I can see why someone this bad at politics would feel the need to undermine democracy.

You said you're giving 2 seats to nullsec, 2 to low, 2 to high and 2 to WH. If you pigeonhole 20000 votes from the nullsec blocs into two seats, while 3000 votes from WH also get two seats, how do the 20000 votes not count for less than the 3000?

You said you're giving 2 seats to nullsec, 2 to low, 2 to high and 2 to WH. If you pigeonhole 20000 votes from the nullsec blocs into two seats, while 3000 votes from WH also get two seats, how do the 20000 votes not count for less than the 3000?

I like how the only thing CSM7 has done and will do is try to poorly devise a way to keep mittens off the CSM

hes not allowed to run for csm 8 anyways that was part of his punishment wasnt it ?