Jita Park Speakers Corner

As I said like 10 pages ago, the simplest solution is still to just list the 12 candidates and let people pick 7. If a large bloc wants to improve their odds, they get more candidates in the 12. The large bloc would most likely get all their candidates in, but that's how voting works, the people with the most backing get in. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't agree that people in general have a problem with it. CSM should be dominated by the active player base, whether it covers the majority of the player base or not. In reality, there are very few issues that really matter to high sec that aren't an issue in low/null/WH as well.

Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ?

So I still haven't heard Hans justify how disenfranchising members of an organized bloc, whether it's the CFC or some other mythical group, is okay.

We're waiting, Hans.

They're probably in their lil Skype channel talking about how to approach this trainwreck of a thread

It's ice hypnosis. Once you've stared at the glow of the mining lasers for too long, it's all you really see.

I'm laughing at the fact that Trebor and his team have wasted a CSM term and now suddenly come up with "voting reform" to set all those wrongs right. Screw fixing the game mechanics, it's the CFC's fault that we don't do our jobs! Next year will be different after we reform this voting system!

I mean, the voters are clearly to blame for this year's ineffective CSM, right Trebor? The results of the last election is THE reason why you haven't done ANYTHING! Boggles the mind but there you have it!

I seriously cannot look at Trebor and not see Smeegle cuddling his precious votes.

It is only a train wreck as minorities would like everything to stay as they are. Isn't it amazing how this thread looks like what happens in RL when political parties talk about reducing funding or interest group access.

You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes.

But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote.

from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/csm7-voting-reform.html

The tl;dr for todays post is that the problem with CSM voting is not the people who vote, but the number of people who can't be bothered to vote. Read the last three paragraphs if you're an exceptionally busy person.

Today the CSM posted a voting reform thread. Basically it's just a single idea they all pulled from their collective asses. They didn't present a voting system from existing sources, the sort of voting system already successfully implemented somewhere in the world, a system that's known to work. They didn't present a new voting system that's been debated on by scholars for years, that has a lot of statistical analysis and theory behind it. No, the CSM decided, in their great wisdom, that they could create a new, never-seen-before voting system. You know, because these guys all have doctorate degrees in Sociology, Statistics and Political Science.

That's their first win of the day.

Two reasons that the CSM gives for this reform are enlightening:

• Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.


• . . . that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
They're not responding to any actual problem from the CFC/HBC (the two groups they're targeting as problematic), they're responding to tinfoil-hattery, problems they think could/might happen, but have not actually happened.

(Spreadsheet: CSM6/CSM7 Representation)

In each of CSM6 and CSM7, the CFC/HBC bloc voted two candidates to positions on the CSM. I fail to see how this is a problem. Are they to be punished because a) they're motivated voters, and b) they are highly organized? Pandemic Legion (who generally pride themselves on being independent) voted two candidates into CSM seats for CSM7. Are their votes any worse (or better) than the CFC?

Heaven forbid that the CSM actually elect individuals who have strong aptitudes for organizing and motivating large groups of people. What the CSM needs more of are the Meissa Anunthiels, Issler Dainzes, Darius IIIs and Kelduum Revaans, invisible people who are more interested in the vanity of a CSM position than actually doing anything useful for the playerbase.

That's the CSM's second win of the day.

If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.

It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.

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 and short candidate-written summary of their platform. Simple as that. I bet that sort of in-client interface would increase voter turnout at least three-fold. (I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is the sort of thing that should be the focus of the CSM with regards voting, making it easier and more convenient for people to vote.)

I could not agree more the login script would be awesome, but wait for the "oh no it won't" from the usual suspects.

Please feel free to delete my comment off you blog if you wish it was more for info.