I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral 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?

I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve."

Who gets to decide how many seats we "deserve"? Shouldn't that be the entire point of having a vote? Otherwise CCP could just appoint people to the CSM.

[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?

i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit

i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit

Oh dear, I guess tat's how it works, the major blocs can all vote for two seats, while the unaligned people get to throw all their votes towards five or something. That'll show them.

You're evil people, you can put your votes towards one seat, the "evil seat". Upstanding highsec missioners have two seats, and miners get two.

I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

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

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.

And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response

And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response

How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?

A requirement which, I might add, hasn't been rescinded yet; nor even questioned by other CSM members.

And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response

What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias?

Yeah you're going to have to justify that one. Mittens getting booted off simply meant that the next alternate took his place. Presumably, ANY such system would have alternates, so I don't see how it has anything to do with the voting system.

^ This

Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system.

Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system.

The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post.

The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes".

Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it.

I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.

How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?

What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias?

" I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs.

No alternate took his place. We started the term with 13 CSM members instead of 14

To put it more bluntly, do you really think you can come up with a gamed system that the folks in GSF and TEST can't game right back? We're organized and have better information resources!

Did anyone in the CSM ask CCP if they could implement real Single Transferable Voting? Or did Trebor & co look at it and say, "It's too fair, they'll still be able to use their 10k votes to out-elect my 1k votes. We need something like STV but from bizarro-world and dreamed up by Tammany Hall." Because real STV would be the best real voting system to make the votes of unaligned voters count.

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

Maybe the CSM should start by adressing it in a way where the goal is fair elections instead of actively trying to disenfranchise the majority of voters.

We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system.

Maybe the CSM should start by adressing it in a way where the goal is fair elections instead of actively trying to disenfranchise the majority of voters.

the csm reprecentatives have already said that they have chatted to ccp and ccp also said that this descusion should happen.

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

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

To be fair, the current CSM is actually pretty strong evidence that the existing voting system does not produce a very good CSM.

The two goons on CSM4 were two of the most insightful people around the table at the summit meeting and Mitten was the most effective CSM Chair yet. To me, that's a pretty good track record when it comes to the CSM, but that's a lot of personal bias on my part.

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