I mean I get it, you believe that goons are some kind of blight on the eve universe and thus have to have less voting rights than the proper players, but I thought we rid ourselves of that kind of thinking w.r.t elections in the 60s

Actually, there is one way to reduce the advantages held by blocs without really penalizing them, and that's by increasing participation across the board.

Because that's really all the specific bloc (not "blocs" -- come on) does to get results.

Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation?

Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.) I've heard all kinds of things about how elections are run within the bloc, but rumors where Goons are involved are a dime a dozen. Whether or not freedom of choice (both in actual participation and in candidate choice) is protected within the bloc is highly relevant to whether there is any abuse of power going on that needs measures to control it in the first place.

[Tell] me how a secret vote can be enforced by anyone.

And this is by far the best way to improve things, in my opinion. How to increase voter turnout, and how to reform the election process itself, are slightly separate monsters. But I believe, as Seleene does, that if you succeed in the former, the latter is unnecessary.

Fair enough. Obviously there is no way to enforce a choice. Perhaps the better question should have been, during the exit polling that is conducted, what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead?

The original post was not a draft to congress made public for review. It was a conversation starter, and was explicitly described as such. There's no need for line-item vetoes on other people's beliefs.

what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.)

Fair enough. Obviously there is no way to enforce a choice. Perhaps the better question should have been, during the exit polling that is conducted, what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

as long as your electoral reform starts off with the premise that some players should have more relative influence than other players, there's nothing to discuss really

Voter A votes for a candidate that wins the most votes, and is elected to the council. Voter A ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter B votes for a candidate that wins an excessive amount of winning votes, and is elected to the council. Excess votes are not transferred. Voter B still ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter C votes for a candidate that doesn't win enough votes to be seated, and thus ends up helping to seat a candidate that was not his first choice, but ends up seating a candidate nonetheless that will (likely) represent their ideas.

All three voters cast a single vote, and all three voters end up with their preferred candidate on the council, except for C who gets 2nd or 3rd best. How is Voter C enjoying a more privileged outcome than voter B?

Glad to see you coming around to the CORRECT way of thinking.

There's no attempt to enforce votes, nor would we try. It's impossible, and it's counterproductive. Instead, we campaign internally and encourage everyone to vote, and really convey to people why it matters that we have someone who knows their **** on the CSM, and why that means you should vote the way we want you to vote.

The goonswarm "get out the vote" program is basically the same as the "get out the fleet" program: encourage people to come, wave the flag, let people know what happens when we win.

Because you ignore the situation where the votes transferred from Candidate C to Candidate D, actually oust Candidate B.

Somebody somewhere, wrote a reply with this exact scenario ... where the people who voted for B, who would have ordinarily won a seat, loses a seat due to this transference of votes to these second-class candidates.

We got to go to Jita and blow up freighters. Sure, it was a little ~delayed~ but hey, people went kaboom and the forums were filled with hilarity.

That helps greatly. Thanks.

That helps greatly. Thanks.

that said im pretty sure you have me on ignore so w/e

We haven't really gotten a lot of replies out of the CSM. Really, we've gotten some out of you, but beyond that Trebor has made one post about the merits and that is it from the CSM. There's no back and forth here, which leads to the perception that the ideas will simply be ignored and then swept under the rug.

In CSM 7 there hasn't even been a significant 0.0 bloc presence: there's PL and that's about it (and both got on due to significant outside support).

that said im pretty sure you have me on ignore so w/e

Hans is West Coast US TZ, so he's still at work. I'm sure he'll be back soon.

Well, UaXDeath and Greene Lee are both on the CSM as well...

Not at all, which is why I posted as I did a few pages back.

that said im pretty sure you have me on ignore so w/e

That's how these discussions go. Gotta "ignore" people who aren't convenient...

None of your comments are really on the substance: they're more "this is a discussion that should be had"

we've got a specific beef with the "nerf goons" plank of the discussion and the only engagement on the merits we've gotten is one treborpost and some vauge discussion by hans where he doesn't take much of a position

Nope, I don't. But if you suspect that your posting is of the type that will frustrate someone into putting you on an ignore list, you might consider the possibility that it could be putting a damper on the CSM's willingness to go "back and forth" with you on the subject.