The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option.

So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible.

I'm making a note not to take anything you say during my term seriously. After all, if you're saying you're not going to vote, you don't deserve to have my ear, or for that matter, one of any other councilmember.

I'm sure you wouldn't believe me, but I'd listen to anyone who can make a good argument.

And if CSM8 is nothing but nullsec players, it will be because we managed to capture something like 27/28ths of the voting pool. That's decidedly unlikely, although you encouraging people to not vote certainly helps.

"As to the fact that people really should not bother, well frankly why should they? The deck is well stack towards organized voters, more than it used to be and then on top of that CCP decides who goes to Iceland (with CSMs help and who do you think gets final say there?) and subsequently who gains the larger notoriety. Now if you were CCP would you chose 5 people who were pissed at your poor customer service skills, seeming lack of focus and poor communication or 5 people who just nod and agree with what you want?"

So you just want to go to iceland, or for someone to be sent there, to just troll CCP?

You should just send pics of yourself naked to them. Probably create more change then anything else.

That's not fair. CSM 7 has done a good job in general terms and has been very involved and worked very hard, and they certainly have seen improvement for their special interests (as long as those interests were coincident with CCP's, something the new 5+2 system is going to reinforce further).

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.

The solution to not being overwhelmed by Null sec blocks is the same in this system as it was in the last: more voter participation.

People like you aren't part of the solution -- you are part of the problem.

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.

Compulsory suffrage shouldn't mean that I have to vote for some one. Voters should be allowed to vote for no one. Then if CCP wanted, for further analysis, they could break up the non-votes into sub categories.

- I vote for no one because I don't care.

- I vote for no one because I am uninformed about the candidates.

- I vote for no one because I don't approve of any of the candidates.

etc.

There's also the issue of whether CCP just wants more votes, or more participants in the CSM system. If your numbers go up but it's just a load of players Donkey Voting and then ignoring the CSM until the next time they're forced to look, then what value is that?

But I CAN talk about decorating my house before it is built. And talking about changing the election system also brings out peoples' opinion about the current election system.

It's not nefarious, it's just the closest some nerds* can come to solving a social issue with math.

* I say this in an endearing way

The first election is not FPTP since there is no limit on how many can qualify. It's just a hoop you have to jump through.

No decision has been made (AFAIK) as to whether there will be any indication that candidates have made it past the threshold. My personal position is that CCP should inform the candidates when they have qualified, and leave it up to them whether they want to reveal that information. Also that the preliminary election is probably not going to achieve what they want.

Its a business Frying Doom, the waste gets cast aside. Into a lake or an ocean even for the better.

Those wasted votes on the prelims, aren't business enough, or matter too much, so they are caste aside. That way people will focus their strength into voting that will mean business, so no votes are wasted then, so business won't be hurt.

You have to look at determining waste in the business sense Frying Doom to understand this. Waste that has no strength or focus is really waste then.

You keep acting like CCP is a political body over the game or new eden universe, its not, they are a business. This is how you have to look at things to understand, what is happening.

Most of this makes perfect business and what else would you expect from an expert masterful business.

What's really funny is that the "minority" you refer to (obv. you mean nullsec) was pretty firmly AGAINST any kind of change to the voting system (you can check Xhagen's voting reform thread in Jita Park if you don't believe me). If CCP was swayed by anyone (and that's a big IF), it was by people like yourself and Frying Doom crying and screaming about NULL SEC LOBBY GROUPS and other such nonsense that would lead CCP to believe that the current population was not being fairly represented.

So hey, congrats, I guess?

Yeah, you did, but when you say that sort of stuff in the same breath as all of your other garbage about the CSM being a nullsec lobby group (when it was about as diverse a CSM as you could get), the real message comes across loud and clear (i.e. the CSM is not fairly representing players). Besides, as we can see with these developments, by the time Xhagen's thread came around it was already too late - CCP was going to change the system and that was that.

Well most people would say all a business does is contaminate the political wilderness. Or just spend lots of money for certain candidates.

Besides a lot of people have negative views of great companies. (Talking about negative views towards companies, you still haven't given me that job I wanted and you semi promised me.)

I mostly mean you want political improvements from a company really. Its kind of a strange notion.

CCP isn't really doing a bad job, but it is a business trying to wade into politics, so expect bumby roads and such.

Yeah, probably right on the quantifiable. On the other aspects to the game, seems they focus on the quantifiable as well.

Which is kind of business as well, but it seems your more interested in hostile takeovers or biting off a lot as well as finishing the job, aspect of business. (Perhaps it is best for me to wait, before I get hired by you, probably be fired pretty fast, with your business motto.)

I think there are some aspects that I wish CCP would bite it all off, as you say they should. Never really thought the CSM election really needed a huge overhaul, or biting off and finishing the job.

Besides it could be hard to educate the player base. If one plays EVE but doesn't interact, thus never knowing of the CSM. Most players use ganking to bring awareness to them, which could be too harsh. CCP being a business could use mass indoctrination. (Which I could make it half way through, so its tempting.) But a lot of players hated, Trebor's mass indoctrination so maybe not so wise for CCP to go that way.

But anyhows, are you really up to teaching EVE players? You should go read all the ship balancing threads and what not. To see what you are getting yourself into. You are gonna need all the employees you can find to get that job done. I.E. Hire me :)

If it wasn't for the fact I wanted Malcanis in the CSM, I'd give this new system a wide birth.
The cure to not enough voters, isn't to ask for people to vote more than once.

We'll see what happens. But seeing the system and understanding what can happen with the well organised groups we have, I don't have much faith.

That actually brings up another interesting question that will no doubt be ignored by CCP and CSM alike - how exactly does one measure "hard work" in an advocacy group like this? Aside from specifics like finishing Summit minutes (twice a year) or say, the Secretary/Vice Secretary's work. What "work" is there that can be measured by how hard someone works at it?

Curiosity QuestionGǪ.

How does the solo player gain representation on the council when it takes votes that theyGÇÖll never be able to accumulate to be considered based on their chosen method of game play?