| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
   |
Posted - 2012.09.12 03:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just think. All the time the CSM has spent on discussing this 'issue' and coming up with nonsensical ways of dealing with it they could have been working on the discussion of actual gameplay issues. Which if they really wanted to be reappointed would have been a much better use of their time.
tl;dr It seems like you have spent as much time on this issue than on the issues you were actually elected to deal with. |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Actually, it wasn't much time at all. There's not really much to talk about internally, its not our place to dictate election mechanics which is why Trebor simply threw out the one idea to get the conversation going. You're absolutely right, the CSM is supposed to be doing this kind of stuff instead. Election reform is but one small blip on our radar....
If it isn't your place to dictate election mechanics I have two questions about that.
A) Why are you talking about it at all? The common Eve user does not make the decision. You can talk all you like about having an open discussion, but at the end of the day it's the CSM and possibly CCP that decide any changes to election mechanics. So how can you say it's not your place to dictate election mechanics when you guys are making the decision. Heck, you guys are the ones that brought it up as a CSM.
B) Why was another CSM member stating that since we can't talk about it civilly that they were just going to have to internally hammer out a 'solution' to the problem. Also, since you don't dictate Election reform and said CSM member pretty much stated otherwise, who is right? Has said CSM member been talked to internally about his mistake? As an informed and active voter I would like to know.
2) Actually, it can be quite a bit of time. You all have more important things to deal with as you yourself had said and I see no threadnaughts there with CSMs trolling players and defending their ideas tooth and nail. Just this one.
3) That link? Hilarious. Of the open forum links almost one fourth of them are about election reform. |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:
The purpose of the system is to get more players to believe that there votes will count and that the elected representatives are specific to their areas of interest in the game. It is also intended to help defuse the belief that an independent candidate simply has no chance against a candidate who has the support of a voting block.
The goal of the system is to get more players to vote. A simple one-player, one-vote general election system will never accomplish this goal.
Neither will this.
Let me show you why.
Large bloc makes alt corps (3) for every category.
Large bloc votes for themselves with each of their three votes.
Large bloc votes against the next highest person in each category (or through their extensive polling and research seems to be the next highest person)
Congrats, Largebloc has the entire CSM. |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 07:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
But the thing is no ones votes are 'thrown out'. Just because your vote didn't in some way, shape or form go towards electing someone does not mean your vote 'did not count'. You voted for the person you wanted to vote for. That person did not get enough votes to win one of the many positions on the CSM. You aren't being disenfranchised or discounted. Your guy lost.
The problem isn't the system. If in fact people are disheartened because larger or more well organized alliances are always getting CSM positions, the fault lies with the people. You can't make people vote (unless you made it a 'you can't log in or else'). Giving people 3x the votes and a negative vote or letting them vote for candidate A or then B or then C doesn't change the fact that people don't care. It's certainly not going to break up the big power blocs if people are upset by that.
The solution is much like it is in real life politics. You need to energize your base. You need to get to know the people and let them get to know you. You need to SHOW them why the CSM is important. You need to be able to holdup a list of accomplishments and say "THIS is how we have made the game better".
|
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 07:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:Not sure why you would make alt corps for every category. Corps have nothing to do with CSM elections. Candidates need to give their RL identity - they can't run as multiple candidates under the aliases of alts. And, players can only vote based on their number of accounts.
Alt corps make up alt alliances. You think *insert large bloc here* can't find 14 different RL members to join the CSM?
It doesn't have to be The Mittani for each position.
Quote:Ok, let's run a scenario.
A large block can certainly choose to run a candidate for each seat. Let's say there are seven seats. And, let's assume that the large block has 14,000 player accounts and has chosen to distribute their votes evenly across all seven seats.
Under my proposed system, each player account now has 3 "for" votes. So, each candidate would receive 6,000 "for" votes. Each player account also has 1 "against" vote, which we'll assume that they will also choose to distribute evenly and apply against the next largest block in each seat. This is 2,000 "against" votes per seat.
That is where you are wrong. With their excellent polling and research, why would they stack their large bloc against votes evenly?
Why would say, Goonswarm spread their against votes evenly,when they know the candidate from -A- is going to get more votes than the high sec industry guy, and so on. if they were smart, they would prioritze their FOR votes and their AGAINST votes to get the positions and the candidates in that they really want. Sure, your example shows that they could possibly not have the whole CSM as I said, but they could certainly easily secure up to 5 positions without breaking a sweat. You aren't fixing anything,because the large blocs get the 3 for and one against as well. So they will just push through their candidates or block the ones they don't want.
It only truly breaks down once they try to spread themselves too thin.
Quote:As a welcome side effect, this system also penalizes candidates who really become annoying during the election campaign. Anyone who is dumb enough to do something like spamming Jita local with "Vote for me" bot messages is likely to pick up a few thousand "against" votes.
You mean like when CSMs try to change the way things are voted to benefit themselves? |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 07:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
But Size, your suggestion doesn't help at all.
1) If people aren't voting because they think their vote doesn't matter against the large blocs, then giving EVERYONE 3 votes for and one against doesn't change anything. Because the large blocs just game the system even more.
2) If people aren't voting because they don't care, giving them more votes isn't going to make them suddenly care, especially when it's just hidden inside a voting game where they pick three and pick one against, only to find the same people for CSM again.
3) if people aren't voting because they aren't aware of what the CSM is or does, then givingthemmore votes isn't going to educate them.
4) if people aren't voting because they think their votes are 'cast away or thrown out' then they have no clue how the voting process works. And giving them extra votes so they can feel like their vote counts, when it most likely again won't, will not help. Eventually, someone is going to use their three votes for three people who lose and their one vote against for someone who still gets in. By your reasoning, their vote doesn't count. People need to realize their vote counts because they are involved in a democratic process, not because their guy won.
|
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 08:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
You do realize the genius of the CFC running for a high sec seat, right?
To use as a sponge for all those high sec industry guys 'against' vote. Forcing them to use their against for that as opposed to a seat they really want. |
| |
|