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.

We've looked into this and it isn't doable for the CSM8 elections.

(I personally would really like to do it for CSM9)

You've got to be kidding me.
Compulsory suffrage is a really bad idea.

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.

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.

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.

I would prefer something flashing in the NeoCom, but at least this is better than your original idea, which was to give everyone a permanent suspect flag until they voted.

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..

Personally I think we should give a big red icon on the forum avatar of every character that did not vote in the most recent CSM election (if they were active at that point).

Personally I think we should give a big red icon on the forum avatar of every character that did not vote in the most recent CSM election (if they were active at that point).

Then let us Devs filter their posts out of our feedback threads.



Just kidding (mostly).

Personally I think we should give a big red icon on the forum avatar of every character that did not vote in the most recent CSM election (if they were active at that point).

Then let us Devs filter their posts out of our feedback threads.



Just kidding (mostly).

Personally I think we should give a big red icon on the forum avatar of every character that did not vote in the most recent CSM election (if they were active at that point).

Then let us Devs filter their posts out of our feedback threads.



Just kidding (mostly).

I would prefer something flashing in the NeoCom, but at least this is better than your original idea, which was to give everyone a permanent suspect flag until they voted.

if(_currentuser.loggedInPosition.isDev)
{
-á-á-á-áFilterOut(_currentThread.GetElements().Select(post => post.GetOwner().VotedForCSM));
}

How do we know you don't already have this?

Which of course neglects the fact that those same large blocs will have their vote split just as efficiently (and honestly better as they'll have preference lists figured out before the election), whereas under the old system vote splitting was theoretically possible but essentially a gamble.

It also neglects that the "CSM itself votes for chair" and "2+5 go to Iceland" changes encourages having as many friendly voices on the council as possible, whereas the old system didn't really have any benefits for more than one member of a bloc (and if they were going for chair, it was actually better to put all of your votes into one candidate instead of several).

Lets look at that case.

...

5 seats go to block G, about one third of the total. They also cast one third of the total votes, so they got proportional representation.

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.

Personally I think we should give a big red icon on the forum avatar of every character that did not vote in the most recent CSM election (if they were active at that point).

Then let us Devs filter their posts out of our feedback threads.



Just kidding (mostly).

After giving some thought to this, I'd say the simple-vote + multi-vote combo exemplifies how the thought process went here: they put a lot of effort raising every single issue they could find in the old system, then did their best to solve each one of them individually. What we got from this is a big patchwork, each piece on it's own supposedly addresses something, but the solution as a whole makes no sense.

The result is some nonsensical things, like making dozens of thousands of people to vote to eliminate five candidates, at most, out of a pool of some 50 to 60*, and then two weeks later making all these people vote again for the election result, now with a ranked ballot.

It really seems like they are so immersed in a problem-solving mentality that they are unable to make an objective analysis of the changes they are making as a whole. Instead of recognizing that, maybe, all these complains are not entirely unfounded, what we see in this thread are responses doubling down on their decisions. And with this they are failing to consider that, as the rules change, so do the incentives and thus how people will approach the subject of placing representatives in the CSM.

Seriously, there would be a lot more pleased comments in this thread if all they did was announce just two of these changes:
- Secretary and vice-secretary positions selected internally.
- A big effort to increase the awareness of the election, yet to be disclosed and the main problem here.
Instead of iterating on the process they are changing too much at once, and thus putting a lot more in jeopardy.


* I'm already expecting a larger pool of candidates as there will be an STV system in place.

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?