Jita Park Speakers Corner

your votes do as you please with even a high sec char can vote for a nully if they wish but they would still only recieve 2 seats.

Why do you think my vote should count for less than your vote?

As a Canadian I'm well aware of disproportionate regional representation.
Putting aside the fact that huge swaths of the playerbase can't be pigeonholed to a single region, the idea that a 'wormholer vote' is worth ten times a nullsec player's vote and twenty times a highsec player's vote in terms of CSM representation is insulting.

but if you went on the bassis of everyone in the game voting (i know this dont happen but bear with me) a null sec and wh vote would infact be worth more as im sure hi sec could produce more possible canddates than null.

Mining and ganking is certianly 2 issues that would be good ones however my idea for mining and ganking may not neceseraly help or buff hi it may help people get into low but i wouldnt neceseraly help hi

I think this system that you/the CSM/whoever is proposing is a step in the wrong direction in terms of trying to do what you're trying to do. This system from what I have seen and from what I have seen discussed will just be abused more than the current system. I don't think it should be implemented, and I think the system should stay the way it currently.

I also think that any suggested "required voting" would be in poor judgement, because to vote correctly you need to be informed about the candidates sufficiently. If you just go off a blurb and think "oh I like how that person sounds" then you're going to elect someone who most likely will not properly represent what you want, and will probably just not get the job done. Having the thread that is the voting platform and having as much information out about the candidate is a good idea, and those who at least make an effort to be somewhat informed will vote.

I'd also like to touch on something that stuck out at me:



The only time I would see this goal as acceptable is if you were a business that would be threatened by organized groups of consumers. In this situation, it is an attempt by a large amount of consumers trying to get their demands through to the business they consume from. CCP wants to know what the majority of their subscribers want.

What this attempt to reduce the power of organized voting blocs seems to be is an attempt to promote whoever's minority to be as important as one of the larger groups. CCP is running a business, and what people in wormholes, for instance, want is probably going to have less of an impact than what say, highsec AFK ice miners want, because the miners make up a much larger portion of the overall subscriber base. CCP prioritizes content production if I am correct something along the lines of how long something takes to make, and how much of an impact it's going to have on players. If a small number of players are affected by it, then it's probably going to be a low priority idea to implement. As such, if a group can't get the votes to have a representative of their interests elected with a high enough vote count, then tough; that's how voting works.

If you are worried about special interest groups being drowned out by the larger masses, then I do have a suggestion:

You could have the runners-up to the CSM collaborate and prepare some concise issues to bring up with the CSM that goes to talk directly to CCP. Time could be set aside to discuss these issues, as I'm sure at least one person at the meeting will have a decent understanding of the issues brought up by the smaller interest group. This is just a quick and not very fleshed out suggestion, and can obviously be expanded upon.

and why you say that ? it depends what people do with what im thinking if ccp accepted it. it could also potentialy open up other carrer paths for hi sec player perside there may well be certian hi sec players that would like to get into null sec but cant due to certian barriers.

Oh, you've already started thinking ahead about the possible effects of changes.

It's not too common in certain places...

At which point we'd say "well, we want L4s to get nerfed" so we take that seat and tell CCP that L4s can happily be nerfed to balance against low/null. Cue hisec whining yet again because "they're not being represented".

^ This

Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system.

Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system.

The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post.

The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes".

Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it.

I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.