| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
267
   |
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Xhagen and I are here to bring you the newest changes to the CSM election processes, CSM White Paper, and Election Schedule. All these details and more can be found here.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:
Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7
1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. etc....
There is no longer an "Iceland 7". Please re-read the Dev Blog I linked in the first post of this thread.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 15:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
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.
Actually the 2 candidates who will be permanent attendees will be those with the widest appeal. Because the top 2 are chosen based on a secondary STV with only 2 seats, they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:CCP Dolan in a GD thread he consequently closed directing here wrote:My original post in GD can be found here 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): World English Dictionary wrote:
disenfranchise or disfranchise (-îd+¬s+¬n-êfr+ªnt-âa+¬z)
GÇö vb
1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship
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
I'll attempt to address some of your concerns. I have added numbers to your points to make it more clear as to what I am responding too.
1. Your definition of disenfranchisement is not how the term is used in modern voting theory. I suggest you look here for more information on its modern use. Particularly the sentence, "Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective."
2. In our new system every vote has increased power. And the votes of those who are not organized receive a greater increase in power per vote in the new system. The concept of "Bloc Voting" is not in itself a problem, in the same way that political parties or religious groups who encourage their supporters to vote a certain way are not a problem. The concept of "organized bloc voting" however was a problem, in that members of certain blocs had more information from things like exit polling and therefore could more effectively place their votes. With Single Transferable Vote everyone can express their vote on an even playing field, and the people who have the most voter support will make it onto the CSM.
3. First-Past-the-Post statistically has the lowest percentage of voter turnout of all major voting systems worldwide. While it might be simpler to vote for a single candidate than to list your preference, the fact that in our system a vote had less than a 50% chance of having any impact on the result was certainly discouraging to voters and to us. Also, those who are truly bewildered by the new voting system may still vote for only 1 candidate, but they do so at the potential cost of their own voice.
4. If you would like to propose a different system that would allow us to properly represent our playerbase without them voting I would like to hear it. We have looked at it extensively, and come to the conclusion that any attempt by us to organize or place some sort of label on our players would at best be inaccurate beyond reason or practicality and at worst consist of rampant gerrymandering and ballot stuffing.
5. Thank you for you best wishes. We are looking to make some changes to address voter turnout this year. In the future, with a larger team behind the CSM and greater development time, we hope to make some even better changes for CSM9 now that we have a more representative voting system.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:CCP Dolan wrote:1. Your definition of disenfranchisement is not how the term is used in modern voting theory. I suggest you look here for more information on its modern use. Particularly the sentence, "Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective." 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. CCP Dolan wrote:4. If you would like to propose a different system that would allow us to properly represent our playerbase without them voting I would like to hear it. We have looked at it extensively, and come to the conclusion that any attempt by us to organize or place some sort of label on our players would at best be inaccurate beyond reason or practicality and at worst consist of rampant gerrymandering and ballot stuffing. 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.
I think you'll find that my definition of disenfranchisement is accurate, if you wish to dispute that then you go against the vast majority of scholarly work on the subject since 1870. As for the previous election, while a significant amount of voters cast a ballot in support of a candidate who was ultimately victorious, the majority of votes cast by those voters had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election and were completely ineffective. This outcome completely fails the basic concept of proportional representation. To put this in perspective, the voters who supported the CSM member coming in 14th place were much more represented per voter than any other candidate.
I can guarantee that my mind wasn't made up on the subject until very recently, mostly because I wasn't a CCP employee or in any way involved with the CSM (aside from running for CSM7) until very recently. We recognize that voter turnout is a real issue, and we are taking steps to help increase turnout this year (as I have stated previously). However, First-Past-the-Post voting was still going to be an issue no matter the voter turnout. The existence of the voter turnout problem does not provide a compelling reason to let the problem with our voting system persist for another year.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Compulsory suffrage.
We've looked into this and it isn't doable for the CSM8 elections.
(I personally would really like to do it for CSM9)
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
276
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.
The names are, and have always been, listed in a random order. To do otherwise would blatantly skew the results.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
276
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote: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.
I don't see a problem with a page that would appear once on start-up and allow you to abstain with a single click.
Ultimately, any changes like that would not be my call, and are far in the future. I would have to convince quite a few people that it would be a good choice. Right now I am entirely focused on this election period, and will likely won't focus on possible changes like this until the winter summit of CSM8.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
281
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 17:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just an update for all those interested in the counting method we will be using for the Single Transferable Vote.
We have decided to use the Wright system for counting the votes cast. We feel that it is a fair system and is free from potential abuses that exist in some other voting systems.
More information on the Wright System can be found here.
We will be posting a full version of the code we will be using to count votes for the community to review once the code is completed.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
281
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 18:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Dolan wrote:Just an update for all those interested in the counting method we will be using for the Single Transferable Vote. We have decided to use the Wright system for counting the votes cast. We feel that it is a fair system and is free from potential abuses that exist in some other voting systems. More information on the Wright System can be found here. We will be posting a full version of the code we will be using to count votes for the community to review once the code is completed. what code language are you using to code this?
That's a question for CCP Veritas, code makes about as much sense to me as Icelandic.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
290
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 14:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dev Blog is going out soon. All information for applying will be found there.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
| |
|