These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#361 - 2012-09-09 20:11:39 UTC
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, each with a 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.)
Konrad Kane
#362 - 2012-09-09 20:15:24 UTC
Before the CSM think about the voting method maybe they need to think about what they want to achieve?

Wanting every vote to count and wanting every major play style represented aren't the same thing. The proposed system means people aren't going to be sure if the person they vote for will get their vote. It just seems a recipe for confusion and bitterness.

This is a Massive Multiplayer game so trying to nerf the votes of groups that have massive numbers by essentially creating a weighting system were votes for less popular CSM candidates carry more weight than votes for more popular ones isn't going to be popular and pretty much guarantees someone tries to break it just to prove it can be broken.

This system doesn't address fair representation question either as there still isn't clear requirements for play styles to be represented, people get voted in then say they are representing whichever style they choose to.

I still think that it would be easier to categorise the play styles into broad areas, assign two seats to each category. The people getting the highest two vote counts get those seats. Can it be gamed? Probably. Is it simple to understand, yes.

Wrapping this topic is pseudo political science isn't really helping. You're trying to find a way experts in play styles can represent those styles issues effectively to CCP. Work that out first, then suggest a voting method.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#363 - 2012-09-09 20:15:36 UTC
The real problem is expecting an election in a video game where players can legally have multiple identities and frequently go comatose for weeks if not months on end is really meant to have comparable voter turn out to real life elections over things that actually effect people's lives like social services and foreign policy.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#364 - 2012-09-09 20:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Regarding tinfoil, just to make it blatantly clear:

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

We all know who some candidates are.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

[...]

3) 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.

Again, we all know what you mean by "highly organized voting blocs", and "one voting bloc".

Tinfoil BS my big, fat, lardy arse.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2012-09-09 20:22:42 UTC
Yeah it's pretty transparent that "highly organized voting blocs" are the CFC and TEST, and claiming a hypothetical voting powerhouse of Eve University would be hit just as hard, as Hans tried earlier, is as dishonest as it gets: it's purely hypothetical, and the only people directly (and not just potentially) impacted by the proposed change are CFC/TEST.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#366 - 2012-09-09 20:38:12 UTC
Seleene wrote:

The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it.

The intent being to minimize the power of organized voting blocs was mentioned several times, by "you guys". Calling it tinfoil is disingenuous, and you know it.

Quote:
If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.


Change nothing except to reach out to more voters. Have a login screen popup that allows you to vote or abstain, something along those lines. If, as you claim, you want to reduce the power of organized voting blocs, diluting that power by adding more voters is the proper way to do it. Do anything else, and we'll just find a way to game it.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#367 - 2012-09-09 20:48:48 UTC
Don't **** on our head and tell us its raining

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#368 - 2012-09-09 20:50:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Either CSM Chairman Seleene is backing propositions without having actually read them, or is really bad at deceiving the player base he is intended to represent. Which is it?
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#369 - 2012-09-09 21:01:45 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Either CSM Chairman Seleene is backing propositions without having actually read them, or is really bad at deceiving the player base he is intended to represent. Which is it?


Perhaps both. Seleene is not exactly known for his political acumen...

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#370 - 2012-09-09 21:12:14 UTC
Hi, we're having democratic elections here. What do you mean, the number of voters backing a given position might have an impact on the outcome? Okay, are we absolutely sure we need to have democratic elections? Well, ****, listen, what we're gonna do is...
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#371 - 2012-09-09 21:20:11 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Sal Volatile wrote:
Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling.


There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.

My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.


well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in and if your now ready to read an idea through all the goons subtafuge and sabatage i think i may have a way to try getting it fair to the point that as many people as possible have a say.

my idea is as follows and yes it requires extra work by ccp on the fact of having to vet every candidate however i think this is needed or people are going to game the system .

have any system in place that you wish but split the seats up in a similar fasion to 2 seats for null sec representatives, 2 seats for low sec representatives, 2 for high sec and 2 for WH the rest of the seats would be allocated going on a similar bassis and im sure ccp could figure them out.

this can be gammed in many different ways but this is why i said at the top each character would have to go through a vetting procedure to ensure that new characters werent created for that purpose.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#372 - 2012-09-09 21:21:56 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
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, each with a 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 have made this suggestion already i also still say there has to be more promotion and things that draw peoples eyes or they will just miss it.
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#373 - 2012-09-09 21:23:32 UTC
serras bang wrote:
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in

Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#374 - 2012-09-09 21:24:32 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frankly, I'd like to hear if The Mittani would have actually supported this STV initiative if he was still the CSM chairman, which your peers are trying to infer but as shying away from actually claiming. He can post, right?


He doesn't touch anything CSM-related with a ten-foot pole and I wouldn't hold my breath for him to state an opinion on it publicly (or privately, for that matter)

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#375 - 2012-09-09 21:25:22 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in

Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?


when did i ever say that ?
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#376 - 2012-09-09 21:26:44 UTC
serras bang wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in

Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?


when did i ever say that ?

Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for.
digi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#377 - 2012-09-09 21:27:43 UTC
Seleene wrote:


There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.



You should be annoyed. This thread has nothing to do with fixing our spaceship game. What the hell are you people doing on the CSM?

Go fix our game. You were elected to do a job. Go do it. This thread should have never happened.

Holander Switzerland
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#378 - 2012-09-09 21:27:47 UTC
I honestly don't understand how the CSM thought this was a good idea. Even more so when they admit in the proposal itself that the reason for these changes are meant to disenfranchise bloc level votes. All while later in the thread admitting that the proposed changes wouldn't actually work. In fact let me quote it:

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

3) 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.


Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.


And this is with your estimates of the game ability of your system. Nerds who know way more about this stuff than me have already figured out how to game the proposed system even harder than the current.


I mean, how bad at your job are you. You didn't even get the voting system's name right because you changed it to be pretty much the exact opposite of what the system actually is. I'm going to spell this all out very clearly. An STV voting system is based on the idea of not wasting votes. In a normal STV system whenever a candidate reaches the quota of votes, they are elected and the quota is subtracted from the voting pool. Leaving whatever votes went over the quota for that candidate to go down the list and not be wasted. This is not the case with the proposed system:

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

The determination of the results is straightforward:

In each round:

* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)


This system removes the amount of votes the candidate receives from the pool of votes, not the quota. The quota could be 10 votes and a candidate receives 20. The 20 in this case is subtracted from the pool leaving 10 votes wasted. This disenfranchises voters by throwing their votes away.

All this has pretty much been stated in the thread but I just thought I'd put it all in one easy to read post so its a bit more understandable why this is so outrageous.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#379 - 2012-09-09 21:28:38 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
serras bang wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in

Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?


when did i ever say that ?

Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for.


i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#380 - 2012-09-09 21:33:51 UTC
Holander Switzerland wrote:
This system removes the amount of votes the candidate receives from the pool of votes, not the quota. The quota could be 10 votes and a candidate receives 20. The 20 in this case is subtracted from the pool leaving 10 votes wasted. This disenfranchises voters by throwing their votes away.

All this has pretty much been stated in the thread but I just thought I'd put it all in one easy to read post so its a bit more understandable why this is so outrageous.

This is reminding me of real-life politics.

So I guess next is trying to jerrymander which sec you're "part of"? Actually wait, people have already been doing that in GD.

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 ?