These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Gallente Federation
#741 - 2012-09-10 07:45:53 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.

Except if they're in a powerbloc, then the votes which are deemed "excessive" are deemed unworthy of further usage and as such chucked out the window, but those who are for the weak, the few, the unorganized, they ... they will be cared for, nurtured, and brought forth to make sure the goons stay properly ******.

It is known.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

I've yet to see any actual reason for this "reform" other than "them goons, they sure are organized. we'll have to try to get that nerfed.", sprinkled with "oh well it's for the little guy (bend over and take it, you stupid goons)".

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed. This needs to be handled more elegantly.

This has fuckall to do with the election system. If Obama was shot the day after he was voted into office, would USA suddenly go "OH HOLY **** GUYS WE MUST REFORM THE VOTING MECHANISM SO THE LITTLE GUY CAN GET HIS VOICE HEARD"? No. No they wouldn't.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win?

How many people's votes were you planning to throw out with the bathwater just to "make sure the ebul goonies can't be organized"?

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

So instead you guys decide to bring forth a system to basically try to **** goons, because we're "many" and "well-organized".

And, when we tell you to remove the **** goons requirements, you basically tell us to go **** ourselves, and you have the audacity to complain that we're not being productive?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Gallente Federation
#742 - 2012-09-10 07:49:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.

CSM6 was also nullsec's response to CSM5's "**** nullsec" attitude. CSM7 was a return to a more balanced CSM - only without the mittani at the helm it looks like it's a CSM which is going full steam ahead to derpville.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.

Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

#743 - 2012-09-10 07:52:04 UTC
Well this thread is just another super whine maybe it needs moving to GD to go with the rest.

But any way here is what I propose for future elections


  1. 1 Vote per account
  2. Candidates may select 1 candidate to receive their votes if they are knocked out using the lowest number of votes as a starting point and working up
  3. Only the votes received by a candidate may be passed on if elimination occurs.
  4. A fee of 2 Billion is is required for registration as a candidate
  5. Voting buttons as Per Poetic Stanziel suggested "One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform."
  6. Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
  7. Update the "What is the CSM" page.
  8. In the case of disqualification, those people who voted for the candidate are subject to there votes disappearing down a black hole.
  9. Dev blogs like the winter expansion should have by lines acknowledging the work of the CSM.
  10. The CSM should continue it's wonderful transparency and communication with the playerbase.


These changes will effective make the number of votes required for lowest seats higher.
They will also lessen the chance of joke candidates, as these people are supposed to be knowledgeable in the game and if they can not come up with a measly 2 Billion isk then they probably do not know how to play the game well enough.
It will increase voter participation lessening the effect of minorities
It will increase the CSMs profile within the player community.

These are my suggestions but at the end of the day it is the CSMs job to decide for them selves what system they want to put into place. This is one of the tings they were voted in to do.

Good luck and thank you for your hard work.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Caldari State
#744 - 2012-09-10 07:53:15 UTC
Hykke wrote:
we might even get a genuine high sec dweller on the CSM


The current CSM already has 2 (Kelduum and Issler).
Gallente Federation
#745 - 2012-09-10 07:56:51 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.)

You're assuming to how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable.

If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.

Where in that quote do i assume how anyone will vote? Where in my answer is the word "participation"?

It may not be in the answer, explicitly, but since you haven't done anything to even try to deal with the **** goons minimum requirement put in by "The CSM", it is implied that the "big blocs will vote a certain way", and this "certain way" is something which you're trying to game into a voting result which you people find more acceptable.

It has been asked of you, time and time again, to remove the **** goons minimum requirement. This has not been done, and from what I've seen the past few days, no matter how much you people keep saying "this is Trebor's idea", this is still something which "The CSM" is behind.

But hey, if you absolutely want to pull a Hans and throw Trebor under the bus then that's your choice, I guess.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Gallente Federation
#746 - 2012-09-10 07:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.

The only CSMs that matter in this discussion are CSM5, CSM6, and CSM7. Everything before CSM5 was ignored, for the most part, by the playerbase and CCP.

You stated elsewhere that you believe CSM7's broad representation to be an outlier and not the norm.

I have a strong feeling that CSM6 is actually the outlier, and that 10 nullsec representatives on a single CSM is not the norm.

I haven't checked every CSM5 candidate's background yet (perhaps someone else can), because I am tired ... but just looking at the list of names, it would look like it too has a broad base of representation, similar to CSM7. (Again, this has not been confirmed.)

If CSM5 representation proves to be similar to CSM7's, would you agree that CSM6's representative profile is indeed the outlier? And if you agree with that, would you then agree that voting reform is unnecessary?


AGAIN, MY STANCE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED TO MOTIVATE AND EDUCATE PLAYERS TO VOTE IN FUTURE CSM ELECTIONS. THAT IS THE SUREST WAY OF REALIZING THE SORT OF REPRESENTATION YOU WANT.
#747 - 2012-09-10 08:07:55 UTC
A few comments


Two step wrote:

2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful.


I think this is where this proposal gets itself in a muddle. You either align the CSM to gaming areas (null,low,high,wh,ming etc) or to player votes as the current system. You can't have both without making a hugely complex system.

If you align to gaming areas why do you need to to weight the seats to player population? Why would three null sec seats be more effective than two? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that most null sec alliances agree on 70% of the topics of how null sec could be improved and lets be honest the CSM hasn't a hope in hell of addressing 10% of the issues in a term.

Two step wrote:

3) My previous suggestion, where candidates rank all the other candidates and a real STV system is run using candidate choices in place of voter choices. I think this is worth discussing, and could even be extended if CCP is able to devote development resources into a true STV system, where people can either use a candidate's preferences or enter in their own.


The moment you let candidates distribute their 'spare' votes aren't you just moving the organised block into the CSM? Indeed wouldn't that just make it easier for very large alliances to game the system. Frankly I simply won't vote in a system where the candidate can give my vote to one of their chums to get them in as well.

I really the think if the CSM want to look at this they should start with discussing how they are structured to represent the players once they understand that then they can talk about voting.
Caldari State
#748 - 2012-09-10 08:31:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sebastian Hoch
What truly surprises me about this is that anyone of moderate intelligence would believe that a system that leverages votes differently by design and intent is at all political viable. This is a non-starter. Try to stuff this down people's throats and they will gag and throw it up.

The current system might leverage votes, but its by the voters choice to put support behind an unlikely candidate. It is something that happens, not something that is designed. There is nothing wrong with this. it is a fallacy that a vote for a failed candidate is wasted as its only by such action and support can a new movement gain political momentum.

As has been stated you can't have simple and comprehensive. If you want to make this better, you have shoulder STV, or primary elections that give more fragmented blocks the ability to organize around their candidate.
Goonswarm Federation
#749 - 2012-09-10 08:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Harataka
Other people have mostly said what I wanted to say about this, but honestly people, I understand you don't like us very much. Not liking us is not a valid reason for blatant manipulation of a voting system to fit some conjured equity. If the demographic groups you are so worried about not getting representation cannot organize to get a candidate in, then maybe they don't care enough?

Like others have said, instead of taking ultimate choice out of the voter's hands and putting it into a system ripe for collusion between candidates, think of ways to educate people on the importance of voting. Oh wait, you guys have gotten jack **** done this time so convincing people of how important the CSM is is going to be really hard isn't it?

Also, in the United States, what happens when the President gets impeached? There isn't some crazy re-shuffling of votes or any other dumb stuff. Everyone just moves up a spot, just like what happened in CSM7. I'm sure it's similar in other countries as well. There is no need to change what works for the real world just because something happened people weren't expecting.

Shelve this dumb proposal and actually get some real work done, instead of trying to fix what isn't broken in the first place. Stop wasting the time your constituents gave you to address their issues on your silly grudge matches.
Caldari State
#750 - 2012-09-10 08:57:46 UTC
Can i get a list of the CSM members that dont support this idea? So i know who to vote for next time.
Gallente Federation
#751 - 2012-09-10 09:04:47 UTC
Katarina Reid wrote:
Can i get a list of the CSM members that dont support this idea? So i know who to vote for next time.

Here's the list of CSM members who don't support this idea:

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Gallente Federation
#752 - 2012-09-10 09:06:02 UTC
Okay, that's an incomplete list, Hans quickly distanced himself from the idea very early on by saying it was Trebor's idea.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Goonswarm Federation
#753 - 2012-09-10 09:37:06 UTC
Jesus christ how is this thread still going?


Doing anything other than 1-character = 1 vote is stupid.


If you're upset over voting blocs or whatever, start your own. In the real world, that's what political parties are for.
Gallente Federation
#754 - 2012-09-10 09:44:34 UTC
Why should my vote count for less because I happen to be part of a group that shares similar views?
Goonswarm Federation
#755 - 2012-09-10 10:34:45 UTC
here we go this is how csm delegates should be determined

change sisi so it never goes offline, remove all stations, outposts, and POSes

throw every person who wants to run on the server and lock everyone else out

put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm

my idea is only slightly less ******** than the one currently presented
Goonswarm Federation
#756 - 2012-09-10 10:38:14 UTC
Your idea has the added advantage that Goonswarm would never again get a seat because we're terrible at this game. So it should be perfectly acceptable to the CSM!
Gallente Federation
#757 - 2012-09-10 10:38:19 UTC
but but but how can hisec be represented when the metric to be measured by is pvp? :confused:

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Goonswarm Federation
#758 - 2012-09-10 10:49:35 UTC
how is10% of the game even holding the game hostage the math just doesn't add up

oh wait there's no isk/hour in voting lalalala
#759 - 2012-09-10 10:56:26 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
Two step wrote:

2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful.

If you align to gaming areas why do you need to to weight the seats to player population? Why would three null sec seats be more effective than two?

Keep in mind that the CSM is a representative body, intended to act as an interface between CCP and the playerbase. It is not a legislative or ruling body.

Based on this premise, null sec (and any other area) does not need more than one seat, in order to represent all null sec specific issues to CCP and provide them with a conduit for getting feedback from the null sec playerbase.

However, allowing the CSM members to choose the seat allocation would be a conflict of interest and a general player vote on seat allocation would be counter-productive, since using the current popular voting system would end up gaming the results in favor of minority blocks in the same fashion as the general CSM elections.

The obvious and practical method for seat allocation, by area or issue, is to let CCP decide, based on what they consider to be their priorities of the game's future development and whose gameplay POV they most want to solicit, from members of the CSM.
Caldari State
#760 - 2012-09-10 11:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Cass Lie
Serious proposal incoming.

Let me start off by saying that I think the current system is fine and the best way to "improve" it is to increase voter participation.

With that out of the way, let's look at the CSM arguments for changing the system.
First: 25% of votes getting lost. I personally don't see this as a problem in itself.
Second: If two strong candidates from a certain playstyle are running, say for wh, fw or incursions, chances are neither will be elected. I can see how that could be a problem, for instance when you get a null/empire centric CSM, which typically doesn't have much experience with wormholes and isn't thus much use to CCP on this topic. And I hope being a better use to CCP is what this CSM wants to achieve.

OK, with that premise, the original proposal makes some sense, but there are fears of the system being overly complicated and prone to gaming. So what if there was only one person the unsuccessful candidate could transfer votes to and not the whole amount was transferred but only a half (for example). Determination of the results would stay the same as in the original proposal. That way a voter would still lose something for voting for an unsuccessful candidate, but it would hopefully somewhat mitigate the second problem mentioned above. If there were three strong candidates running and couldn't agree on a single person to eventually push through, that would be their fault and their voters. High sec could also get a strong vote if all the small candidates running could agree on a few strong candidates who would eventually make it.

Gaming the system would be somewhat harder and if all the various high sec candidates ended up listing as their candidate a goon alt, well tough luck, at least he campaigned well and is supposedly not ignorant.

This way a vote for unsuccessful candidate can be worth half a vote, while an excess vote for an overly successful candidate is basically lost - you can try similar mechanism for transfering overvotes, but here I am not sure if it would not be overcomplicating things and prone to further gaming.

This whole designing voting system business is dubious anyways, since the purpose and the power of the CSM is vaguely defined. Goons/nullsec wouldn't much "benefit" for getting 80% of seats since there is no voting mechanic, same as someone won't benefit from getting 3000 more votes than was actually needed, since there is no formal power derived from that.
Forum Jump