These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#121 - 2012-09-10 22:05:36 UTC
that's why their votes are worth more than the other votes
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#122 - 2012-09-10 22:06:29 UTC
I mean I get it, you believe that goons are some kind of blight on the eve universe and thus have to have less voting rights than the proper players, but I thought we rid ourselves of that kind of thinking w.r.t elections in the 60s
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#123 - 2012-09-10 22:13:13 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
I mean I get it, you believe that goons are some kind of blight on the eve universe and thus have to have less voting rights than the proper players, but I thought we rid ourselves of that kind of thinking w.r.t elections in the 60s

I guess we'll just have to be taken to "the camp" and be "dealt with".

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#124 - 2012-09-10 22:13:54 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
Actually, there is one way to reduce the advantages held by blocs without really penalizing them, and that's by increasing participation across the board.


And this is by far the best way to improve things, in my opinion. How to increase voter turnout, and how to reform the election process itself, are slightly separate monsters. But I believe, as Seleene does, that if you succeed in the former, the latter is unnecessary.

Quote:
Because that's really all the specific bloc (not "blocs" -- come on) does to get results.


Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.) I've heard all kinds of things about how elections are run within the bloc, but rumors where Goons are involved are a dime a dozen. Whether or not freedom of choice (both in actual participation and in candidate choice) is protected within the bloc is highly relevant to whether there is any abuse of power going on that needs measures to control it in the first place.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#125 - 2012-09-10 22:15:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Hans, how is Goonswarm as an alliance able to enforce the voting of a candidate in a secret ballot exactly?
All they can do is encourage. My alliance leader endorsed voting for Trebor (lmao) but that doesn't mean I voted for him.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-09-10 22:16:22 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation?

[Tell] me how a secret vote can be enforced by anyone.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#127 - 2012-09-10 22:16:40 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.) I've heard all kinds of things about how elections are run within the bloc, but rumors where Goons are involved are a dime a dozen. Whether or not freedom of choice (both in actual participation and in candidate choice) is protected within the bloc is highly relevant to whether there is any abuse of power going on that needs measures to control it in the first place.

Well due to the fact that it's possible to tell exactly who any given person voted for we naturally have strict penalties for voting for the wrong candidates, including but not limited to plungerheading, flogging, seizure of lands and vassals, and trepanning

no you fucking shirtlord how could we possibly enforce any kind of rules, are you high
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#128 - 2012-09-10 22:21:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation?

[Tell] me how a secret vote can be enforced by anyone.


Fair enough. Obviously there is no way to enforce a choice. Perhaps the better question should have been, during the exit polling that is conducted, what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2012-09-10 22:21:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
And this is by far the best way to improve things, in my opinion. How to increase voter turnout, and how to reform the election process itself, are slightly separate monsters. But I believe, as Seleene does, that if you succeed in the former, the latter is unnecessary.
Glad to see you coming around to the CORRECT way of thinking.

Let's show how increased voter turnout affected CSM7 compared to CSM6.

(This is part of a post I'm writing, but it seemed worthwhile to post it as a separate bit here on the forums.)

One major complaint of the CSM election process are the voting blocs. This was an especially loud complaint during CSM6, where nullsec candidates took ten of the fourteen available CSM seats.

I don’t personally see voting blocs as a problem. If you're a group that is motivated and well-organized, you're going to dominate any election. Motivation and organization are two traits that should be encouraged. We want to see people passionate about the political process. We should want to see the number of voters increase, year-by-year. For those concerned with organized voting blocs, the only legitimate way to dilute their voting power is by adding more voters to the process.

Let's do some CSM6 and CSM7 comparisons. CSM7 did see a substantial increase in voting numbers, so we should expect to see the voting bloc influence somewhat diluted.

For CSM6, 49096 votes were cast out of 344533 eligible accounts. 26366 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 53.7% of the total vote.

CSM7 saw an increase of 10000 voters, up to 59109 out of 355436 eligible accounts. 24695 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 41.8% of the total vote.

The larger voting blocs were still able to push their candidates into CSM seats, but we saw a marked dilution of their vote, as candidates with smaller bases won seats. The increase in voter turnout tended to favour non-nullsec candidates. In the end, nullsec did not dominate the final results, only garnering six of the fourteen available spots (a loss of four seats from CSM6.) Of areas of the game that saw new and renewed representation, industry got their candidate in Issler Dainze, faction warfare got their candidate in Hans Jagerblitzen, mercenaries and pirates got Alekseyev Karrde, highsec got Kelduum Revaan, wormholes got Two Step, and the everyman got Trebor.


As you can see, dilution of voting blocs can only continue as long as voter participation continues to increase. That should be where the CSM focuses its efforts. Not on artificial ways to disenfranchise voters (i.e. voting reform), but through increasing actual democracy. The more voters, the more varied the representation will be.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2012-09-10 22:22:30 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation?

[Tell] me how a secret vote can be enforced by anyone.


Fair enough. Obviously there is no way to enforce a choice. Perhaps the better question should have been, during the exit polling that is conducted, what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

this just in, blocs are to be penalized in polling numbers for having a trend to vote for a specific person

if any correlation exists, the cause must be so and as such penalties will be levied
EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#131 - 2012-09-10 22:23:39 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Any CSM member feel like saying "after careful consideration we've decided to remove the third requirement of Trebor's original post"? No? Yeah thought so


So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead?

The original post was not a draft to congress made public for review. It was a conversation starter, and was explicitly described as such. There's no need for line-item vetoes on other people's beliefs.

We haven't really gotten a lot of replies out of the CSM. Really, we've gotten some out of you, but beyond that Trebor has made one post about the merits and that is it from the CSM. There's no back and forth here, which leads to the perception that the ideas will simply be ignored and then swept under the rug. The best counter to that is to make them over and over and over until simply ignoring it becomes untenable.

If Trebor et. al. would actually show up and discuss the system we woundn't need to repeat the same things until they do.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2012-09-10 22:24:27 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

Bacon.

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

RIP Vile Rat

EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#133 - 2012-09-10 22:27:24 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.)


There's no attempt to enforce votes, nor would we try. It's impossible, and it's counterproductive. Instead, we campaign internally and encourage everyone to vote, and really convey to people why it matters that we have someone who knows their **** on the CSM, and why that means you should vote the way we want you to vote.

The goonswarm "get out the vote" program is basically the same as the "get out the fleet" program: encourage people to come, wave the flag, let people know what happens when we win.
EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#134 - 2012-09-10 22:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Fair enough. Obviously there is no way to enforce a choice. Perhaps the better question should have been, during the exit polling that is conducted, what percentage of the CFC members vote for members outside of the CFC?

I believe we didn't bother to track that: people were asked to vote, then given a popup where they could submit how many votes they gave each candidate we were running (or say "stop bothering me" and it wouldn't pop up again). If someone wanted to vote for you, they'd just say they voted zero times for our guy.

After all, we don't really care about any numbers besides our best estimate of the number of votes (diagoras or someone else usually is supplying these in updates on eveo), and the number of votes we have. Plus, the more data you collect the more people are likely to get bored and ignore it or give false answers.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#135 - 2012-09-10 22:38:00 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
as long as your electoral reform starts off with the premise that some players should have more relative influence than other players, there's nothing to discuss really


Voter A votes for a candidate that wins the most votes, and is elected to the council. Voter A ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter B votes for a candidate that wins an excessive amount of winning votes, and is elected to the council. Excess votes are not transferred. Voter B still ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter C votes for a candidate that doesn't win enough votes to be seated, and thus ends up helping to seat a candidate that was not his first choice, but ends up seating a candidate nonetheless that will (likely) represent their ideas.

All three voters cast a single vote, and all three voters end up with their preferred candidate on the council, except for C who gets 2nd or 3rd best. How is Voter C enjoying a more privileged outcome than voter B?

Again, honestly asking questions here. I want to make sure I understand how Trebor's proposal creates a situation where you vote for a preferred candidate and that candidate doesn't get seated because there were too many votes, thus "invalidating" the intent of the voter to seat that specific candidate.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2012-09-10 22:44:15 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Voter A votes for a candidate that wins the most votes, and is elected to the council. Voter A ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter B votes for a candidate that wins an excessive amount of winning votes, and is elected to the council. Excess votes are not transferred. Voter B still ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter C votes for a candidate that doesn't win enough votes to be seated, and thus ends up helping to seat a candidate that was not his first choice, but ends up seating a candidate nonetheless that will (likely) represent their ideas.

All three voters cast a single vote, and all three voters end up with their preferred candidate on the council, except for C who gets 2nd or 3rd best. How is Voter C enjoying a more privileged outcome than voter B?
Because you ignore the situation where the votes transferred from Candidate C to Candidate D, actually oust Candidate B.

Somebody somewhere, wrote a reply with this exact scenario ... where the people who voted for B, who would have ordinarily won a seat, loses a seat due to this transference of votes to these second-class candidates.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#137 - 2012-09-10 22:46:37 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Glad to see you coming around to the CORRECT way of thinking.


Coming around? Lol Fact check: This was one of messages during the last campaign: stop whining about Goon power and get out and vote if you want to make a difference. I've never not felt this way about the election. Just because I believe strongly in the power of voter turnout doesn't mean that there is something wrong with discussing electoral reform. They're not mutually exclusive, and simply participating in a conversation doesn't mean that I think electoral reform is more important.

Go back and find my post where I say that we need to fix elections first and foremost before we worry about voter turnout. If you're going to call me out on a backpedal, at least back it up with some evidence.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#138 - 2012-09-10 22:46:44 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Are you able to confirm that the CFC does not tell its members who to vote for, and merely encourages their participation? (This is an honest, non-rhetorical question.)

There's no attempt to enforce votes, nor would we try. It's impossible, and it's counterproductive. Instead, we campaign internally and encourage everyone to vote, and really convey to people why it matters that we have someone who knows their **** on the CSM, and why that means you should vote the way we want you to vote.

The goonswarm "get out the vote" program is basically the same as the "get out the fleet" program: encourage people to come, wave the flag, let people know what happens when we win.

We got to go to Jita and blow up freighters. Sure, it was a little ~delayed~ but hey, people went kaboom and the forums were filled with hilarity.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#139 - 2012-09-10 22:48:50 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Voter A votes for a candidate that wins the most votes, and is elected to the council. Voter A ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter B votes for a candidate that wins an excessive amount of winning votes, and is elected to the council. Excess votes are not transferred. Voter B still ends up with the council member that best represents their ideas.

Voter C votes for a candidate that doesn't win enough votes to be seated, and thus ends up helping to seat a candidate that was not his first choice, but ends up seating a candidate nonetheless that will (likely) represent their ideas.

All three voters cast a single vote, and all three voters end up with their preferred candidate on the council, except for C who gets 2nd or 3rd best. How is Voter C enjoying a more privileged outcome than voter B?
Because you ignore the situation where the votes transferred from Candidate C to Candidate D, actually oust Candidate B.

Somebody somewhere, wrote a reply with this exact scenario ... where the people who voted for B, who would have ordinarily won a seat, loses a seat due to this transference of votes to these second-class candidates.


That helps greatly. Thanks.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#140 - 2012-09-10 22:50:44 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
We got to go to Jita and blow up freighters. Sure, it was a little ~delayed~ but hey, people went kaboom and the forums were filled with hilarity.


Sounds like fun. Perhaps I'll join the CFC once my days in FW have come to a close. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary