I look forward to seeing how our team games the system this time around.

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

You will be able to select one, or two, or three, or four... up to 14.

Many thanks to the Community team, and especially CCP Veritas for his extra hours put into this, taking the time to make sure this is done in the best way possible. I'm looking forward to this election and seeing how this all plays out!

I wrote a blog post about what this means for wormhole candidates. It is critical to make sure that all candidates ask their supporters to list *all* wormhole candidates at the top of their ballots.

Encouraging voting for the sake of voting is about as dumb as arranging a system that will land the entire CSM into the lap of one group.

People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support.

What Two step is coordinating is identically equivalent to having a primary, except it takes less coordination and is done during the election instead of prior. It has the added benefit of spare "wormhole party" support (as in, leftover votes that aren't enough to elect a "wormhole" candidate) potentially transferring to secondary preferences. The "wormhole party" doesn't magically gain more votes because of the procedural difference - if they account for 2/14 of the vote they'll get 2 seats, if they account for 1/14 they'll get 1 seat, ect.

[quote=Malcanis] But what happens if there are more - straight top vote getters are in, I assume?

Hmm. So an election that struggles to get people to even vote for one candidate is now going to ask us for our top 14? Seems like it's going to be too much form filling for a lot of people.

What Two step is coordinating is identically equivalent to having a primary, except it takes less coordination and is done during the election instead of prior. It has the added benefit of spare "wormhole party" support (as in, leftover votes that aren't enough to elect a "wormhole" candidate) potentially transferring to secondary preferences. The "wormhole party" doesn't magically gain more votes because of the procedural difference - if they account for 2/14 of the vote they'll get 2 seats, if they account for 1/14 they'll get 1 seat, ect.

On topic: Could candidates post their own voting list suggestions? You know, to get together a strategy to ensure like minded people get elected or unwanted candidates get forced out in favor of less crappy bloc candidates.

Okay I'm really not because I'm not some midlevel bureaucrat but someone is!

The devblog states they haven't even chosen the form of STV they'll use. And that they'll tell us all later, so that we can review.

That must be a joke ... they'll have already coded the system. And there'll be little time to change it even if there were an uproar.

After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why.

Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?)

I believe, as these two comments give plenty of evidence, that a lot of people will erroneous think they are giving a separate vote for each candidate they choose, while in reality they only have one vote (per account). The vote will go for their top-most choice, in case said candidate receive enough votes to be elected. Failing that, the vote is transferred to their second choice, if that candidate can be elected, so on, so on. But in no moment one vote is added to more than one candidate.

So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14.

And as to "The summit attendees will use a new 2+5 system, with CCP and the CSM working together to pick the 5 hardest working and most feature relevant CSMs being flown to each summit and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates"

CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim.

I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg.

Except in the IT guy's own thread about voting reform, the dominant opinion was that low voter turnout was the real issue that needed fixing, and that the voting system itself wasn't the issue (and could actually be detrimental). In that case, it's not "our" fault at all that the IT guy only wanted a solution that could be coded into a website.

Amused that the descendents of the criminal classes of Britain (Australians) can understand and use transferable votes yet EVE players and the current population of Britain can't see the benefits.
Coming and going Malcanis.
I especially like the way you run your mouth off about the system before trying to understand it....exhibiting great CSM potential right there.
Don't worry you are not the only prospective candidate in that territory.

It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter. The CSM has no power, and that's a great thing.

As soon as any power accrues to the CSM, you're going to see all of the corruption we get in real life politics. No thanks.