// Edit:
I do have a question tho at CCP:
If we have e.g. voters Alice and Bob, candidates Yannik and Zulu.
- Alice votes for Yannik as primary, Zulu as secondary
- Bob votes only for Yannik
Now we reach a point where either Alice or Bobs vote has to decide for Yannik.. which one will be taken? Or rather, will Alices secondary vote count?
(I don't know the algorithms indepth, so the issue might be inherently avoided.)

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.

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.



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.

Quite the opposite than "without them voting ": Compulsory suffrage.

How would you differentiate the submissions of indifferent voters from random noise?

Like you would any way.

And frankly if CSM8 is anything but Null sec people you guys really need to sack your alliance leaders for incompetence. CCP has made this so easy for block voters to completely control the CSM that anything less just shows your leaders inability to get things done.

As to voting myself, I said I would so I shall even though it is a complete waste of my or anyones time to bother.

"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."

I guess I don't understand why null players aren't more vocal over this. I'm still missing something. Instead of having a null delegation composed of individuals from many large groups, lots of voices and perspectives, won't the STV system favor an outcome whereby the null delegation is composed of multiple winners from only the largest groups?

There was plenty of vocal opinion in the earlier Jita Park threads on the subject (this has been ongoing since September) and they were basically ignored. I wouldn't dare put words into anyone's mouth, but going on the opinions in these threads I think at this point the prevailing opinion is "if that's what CCP wants, we'll give it to them".

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've really got to invest more time in visiting the other areas of the forums. I spend most of my limited forum time reading through GD (for its activity) and CCPs Information Portal (for the gospel.) I just recently added Features and Ideas to the list when the BC changes were brought to my attention (on EVE Radio.) Now I need to read Jita Park too? Geezus. Most of these areas used to be dead. lol Thanks for the heads up Snow. I'll make my way there to see what I've been missing.

YK

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.

This is an interesting system and even if it helps organized blocs it also helps disorganized blocs. The "silent majority" of hisec that is so vaunted by noted NPC corp posters can now rise up and ensure their domination of the CSM!

I mean, they really do exist and care enough about the game to vote....right? Right?

Anyway, that's how its supposed to work to keep groups from becoming unrepresented, and large single blocks from dominating.

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.

No voting system can prevent people from disenfranchising themselves.

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)

Too bad ( I'm surprised a requirement to agree to the EULA is possible yet this isn't ) It'd make elections much more interesting( AND VERY MUCH INFORMATIVE FOR CCP'S MARKETING DEPT ). Expect the entrenched voting blocs to howel bloody murder if it is imposed on CSM9 then with the most ridiculas arguements that only Rush Limbaugh or Jim Crow could agree with.

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.

One other thing Myanna, who is the 5 best suited to a discussion.

Lets say it is on Null sov and industry. So does that mean the 5 that go to Iceland should be Null sec people?
Or should it be people from all areas like Hi-sec,Lo-sec, Wormholes and Null.
Or should it be people whole focus on the game as a whole like Malancis for example?

So what type of people do you believe should be in those 5?

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.

Up until this devblog this topic has been largely CCP Xhagen's baby with input from CCP Veritas. Did you have any hand in either the decision to change or the specifics of the change itself?

Also, I'm curious to hear how much thought and consideration went into whether or not a drastic alteration of the voting system (from the flawed but incredibly simple FPTP with no primary to a far more complex STV with a primary) and the CSM rules themselves (CSM picks chair, new 2+5 to Iceland system) could seriously hinder your plans to increase voter turnout?

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?