I was trying to look it up and having no luck. What is the Big O notation you got for that algorithm?

Results are announced at Fanfest, which is a month later this year.

Will there be increased efforts to raise awareness of the CSM season this time, which in many people's eyes would be a far more important step for the CSM, and do a far better job of making the process legitimate, than fiddling with the voting system? Asking us to vote twice and to make 14 choices on the second occasion isn't exactly going to appeal to the apathetic Joe Random Eve Player.

As far as I know, you'll be able to select any number from 1 to 14. You may be amused to learn that my position was that you should be able to rank all the candidates if you so desired.

This is a system open to neither abuse nor gaming, with absolutely no chance of someone (you know who you are) trying to use it as a "keep the Goons out of the CSM" tool.

This all looks simpler and more transparent than the previous system.

going up to 5 would be better.

Silly Two Step, this change is meant to prevent voting blocs from gaining more influence!

Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time.

The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes.

You're way off base here, Trebor. I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981.

Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7

1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. etc....

Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.

1. Your first bullet IMHO is a complete distortion of the definition of of disenfranchised.
An over vote in no way fits this definition(nor any stretch):
2. I believe your second bullet ignores a common sense belief that more effective NULL bloc vote is going to ensue from its implementation.
3. Your third bullet IMHO is going to further 'a sort of ' disenfranchisement of the masses due to undue complexity further reducing participation in the elections. I expect voter turnout to plumet but hope I am wrong.
4. Your fourth bullet is the crux of my issue with this new system : a skewed voter preference is going to give CCP a false view of accurate representation of the majority of Eve
5. I wish you all the luck in your last bullet ( really I do )

---

I don't envy your position no matter what change you make is going to be is very political and from those being adverslery affected will rightfully accuse you of gerrymandering

Alright, so for the sake of argument I'll say that your definition matches the above for fun (it doesn't). We just had an election where 74.9%* of the voting population ended up directly represented by a candidate. In what realm is that unacceptable? Particularly enough to warrant change?

* For these numbers I'm counting Mittani's votes as successful, as his removal from CSM 7 had nothing to do with voting or a voting system and thus isn't relevant to the discussion.



And this is the crux of it all right here. We're free to suggest other systems. We can't suggest that the system shouldn't change until you've engaged a better percentage of the Eve population to actually bother voting, though (aka "that thing most of us have been doing since September when this topic was brought up originally"). The only thing you "looked at extensively" was other systems, because they were changing no matter what. You'd made up your mind about that a long time ago, so please, don't **** on our boots and tell us it's rain.

Compulsory suffrage.

At the VERY LEAST if you make voting compulsory then have the candidate's names listed in random order for each time the voting page is rendered. That way people don't get elected just because their names are higher up in the alphabet or something ******** like that.

Seriously speaking I think the biggest issue would be, that currently you offer an entertainment service for a subscription. Players then pay it and in turn get access to your servers and the service. With mandatory voting you're basicly telling them, that they now owe you a duty to vote and you're going to deny them access to the service they paid for until they fulfill that duty they owe to you. I just can't see that ending well for you in any scenario. You sell a service and every eligible voter has paid you for it. We don't owe you anything, so it's just a matter of how badly trying to force the issue ends up for you.

what code language are you using to code this?