These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-09-08 15:53:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

This is just one proposal, out of a hundred ways to approach this, and everyone is certainly welcome to disagree about whether or not it is an improvement over traditional STV systems. Trebor's approach stems from his interest in keeping things simple.


A google search for "Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote" returns this 5 hour old thread on the front page. Voting reform is quite a hot topic in a number of countries at the moment but you guys are the only people to even suggest something like this. Either you're smarter than every single politically minded person in the world or your idea is so stupid it was dismissed almost immediately in every serious discussion.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?


Every single member of the current CSM holds a higher percentage of the council seats than their percentage of players because of the abysmal voter turnout. These changes do nothing to alter that (and potentially make things worse due to being confusing as **** and throwing away votes needlessly). You're also assuming that a block of voters is putting forwards multiple candidates just for ***** and giggles rather than having a number of specialists they feel would meaningfully contribute to the CSM.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#62 - 2012-09-08 15:56:00 UTC
The read of the full simulated election was interesting. While not an accurate way to evaluate how the election would have gone becouse we do not know how the rest of the candidits would have placed as there second choices it still elected 11 of the 12 current CSM but not in the same order.

Will there be a run using the Goons desired formule?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#63 - 2012-09-08 15:57:23 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.


No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.

Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-09-08 15:58:16 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?.


So did your votes come from 7% of the player population?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-09-08 16:01:32 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.

Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-09-08 16:02:03 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
You're absolutely right. Invading was a poor choice of words, it implies that Goons don't have a right to be here. Thank you for pointing this out as it was not my intention. I was commenting more on the speed and force with which they responded.

You know why the response was what it was? It was because it was FW farmville level of openly gameable, and the fact that it's so openly designed with one specific goal in mind (nerf CFC) makes it even worse. It's seriously like going back to the ankh-era of navelgazing combined with CCP-quality game mechanics design of the past few years (titans own subcaps? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW was gameable as all hell? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW is now farmville? shucks, didn't see that one coming.)

How long have you guys been discussing this topic, anyway? Since the whole CSM "how can we vote someone off the CSM?" meeting where the CSM meeting minutes were from?

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Every player has a stake in how the elections are reformed, and is welcome to speak up about this.

Good thing you're not coming in here telling us to shut up because we're not positive enough, then.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Blawrf McTaggart
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-09-08 16:03:31 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
"We are posting this idea as a call for discussion"

*people start a discussion on why the idea is bad*

"Grr why are people INVADING and TINFOILING this thread, we wanted a discussion"


goons INVADING my thread
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2012-09-08 16:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different?

It would, as now, systematically throw out votes for qualified and effective candidates because those are a political threat.

Currently, if I vote for Eminiently Qualified Candidate, and you vote for Random Shirtlord Running A Vanity Campaign, but my Eminiently Qualified Candidate already has a quota, you throw out my vote. However, your Random Shirtlord Running a Vanity Campaign vote is preserved (and moved to Random Shirtlord #2). That's what's going on here that's unacceptable.
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-09-08 16:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Sal Volatile
A "bloc" of players (however you define it) might also have internal divisions or groups who, while agreeing on most issues, might disagree on a few things or just have different priorities.

Additionally, organized blocs do not even have to run candidates themselves to be powerful. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if a large coalition like the CFC or HBC pointedly did not run candidates or make official endorsements, but strongly encouraged their members to vote, and see what the overall shift to the political landscape would be as CSM candidates tried to court their votes.

Suppose this did happen, and an otherwise completely independent candidate managed to court a huge overvote without intending to. Under the proposed system, all those overvotes will have to be thrown out. How is that fair to the voters who independently cast them?

Essentially, this proposal seems to take as a given the often asserted but patently ridiculous idea that voters in large blocs do not actually have free will and are just toeing the party line, rather than making a conscious choice to express their concerns in participatory democracy. This proposal quite openly designates their votes as less valuable.

The proposal is, itself, dehumanizing, and I can see why people might actually "take it personally."
digi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-09-08 16:05:50 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.


No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.



How is this even a problem? Before you laugh, understand that I ask this question honestly. What exactly can you lay at the feet of the current system? You are on the CSM right now. It's up to you to fix represent us. How has the current system influenced the game since you've been appointed to the CSM? If there are issues internally to the CSM, you have no one but yourselves to blame. That isn't a player problem, it's a CSM problem. If you are trying to pin your current failures on the CFC, then good luck, because it's not the CFC's fault you are ineffective at your job.

Here's a tip about voting: the majority wins. I know this is a strange concept but there will always be a majority. Democracy is crazy, right?

The voting system isn't broken. You and the rest of the CSM are broken. I'm disappointed in you. I could say many things about the majority of the CSM, but I had hope for you and you've flubbed it.

Again, I reiterate: do your damn job. Leave this thread and go make our game work.

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-09-08 16:05:54 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Alchenar wrote:
Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions?


I'd say the chance of that correlation existing is extremely high. Cool


I would also say the chance of people being competent/good that are in smaller organizations with with no record of success probably also correlates.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-09-08 16:07:46 UTC
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#73 - 2012-09-08 16:08:13 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.

Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount.


What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
#74 - 2012-09-08 16:08:45 UTC
serras bang wrote:
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.


Alt alliances, been there; done that.
Kitty Vintner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-09-08 16:08:51 UTC
Andski wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?.


So did your votes come from 7% of the player population?


Assuming 350,000 subscribers Hans' votes (2,439) come from .7% of the player population. That's 7 tenths of 1 percent. Mittens' 10,058 votes represent approximately 3% of the player population.
HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2012-09-08 16:08:57 UTC
THERE ARE NO SECOND CLASS CITIZENS IN NEW EDEN

except fweddit

Follow me on twitter
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2012-09-08 16:09:28 UTC
serras bang wrote:
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.

The system is setup to nerf the voting power of the CFC. How many alliances are within the CFC? How does this affect your suggestion?

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

RIP Vile Rat
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-09-08 16:10:01 UTC
David Carel wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.


Alt alliances, been there; done that.


lol to bad i still win :P
David Carel
SWAT Team Sales Consultants
#79 - 2012-09-08 16:10:36 UTC
serras bang wrote:
David Carel wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.


Alt alliances, been there; done that.


lol to bad i still win :P

What?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-09-08 16:10:55 UTC
Kitty Vintner wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?.


So did your votes come from 7% of the player population?


Assuming 350,000 subscribers Hans' votes (2,439) come from .7% of the player population. That's 7 tenths of 1 percent. Mittens' 10,058 votes represent approximately 3% of the player population.


It was a rhetorical question. Of course everyone in the CSM is "over-representing" their individual "constituencies."

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar