Jita Park Speakers Corner

First off, I don't see any reason to stop people from organizing in groups - as you say, it can't be done. The point is to create a method to further dilute the power of the voting blocks.

One method is to get more people to vote, as you stated occurred with CSM7. This is difficult to achieve.

Let's look at your stats:

Not exactly an impressive turnout. But, if you know of a way to get even a 50% turnout, under the current election system, then please suggest it. No one is likely to complain about that solution.

To be honest, though, I don't think it can be done, for reasons I've stated in previous posts.

My proposed system is designed to encourage more potential voters to actually vote (and isn't this what you are saying needs to happen?).

First, by making voters believe that they are voting on a seat that specifically represents their interests, and, second, by empowering them to be able to vote "against" the voting blocks, without needing to join another voting block themselves.

Obviously, we would not be having this discussion, if the current election system worked as CCP Xhagen would optimally like to see. Also, the stats presented by Poetic show that the voter turnout isn't all that impressive.


Nope, the problem is that the majority of the eligible Eve players are not voting.


Hmm... it is a word, according to Merriam-Webster.

Voter turnout is increasing leaps and bounds annually. Your advocating of overhauling the election mechanic, in order to correct what is likely a matter of advertising, is without base.

Logically, if increasing voter turnout is your priority, then not changing the system should be your top priority since so far the current system is delivering increased turnout each and every year.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omg
Merriam-Webster also defines "OMG" as a word. hth

OK, I'm with you.

Still, the fact is that those efforts are being undone by people actively spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people that it's just not worth voting, so it's hard to say what their effectiveness would be in a neutral environment.

Absolutely correct.

It is pretty much an axiom of US politics: "If I can't get you to vote my way, then I'd rather not have you vote at all."

Or worse, you become loyal to the party itself instead of the platform, and so whatever platform the party adopts is the one you support, and candidate the party selects is the one you vote for. At that point, voting is reduced to rooting for "your" team instead of "their" team, even if "your" team doesn't have your interests in their radar at all.

That's one reason why I want the least possible amount of abstraction of the process. It may be convenient to offer pigeonholes, and it might even goose voter totals somewhat if there's a really simple choice, but the inevitable loss of information is staggering. The CSM will suffer for that, and so will the game.

To answer an objection that Hans raised, indirectly, to my insistence that candidates should elaborate on their positions: We can get a pretty good sense of how hard a candidate is willing to work, how much time they can commit, and how well they communicate during the election itself. Unless you're a huge bloc or protest candidate, you have to work to get on the CSM. Yes, you have to be able to react to the unexpected, but that's easier to do from a solid base of reasoning and knowledge, which is where the position paper comes in (not to mention that the election will likely test a candidate's reflexes!).

If someone actually said that, I'd probably vote against him/her. We're not hiring union leaders.

The role of a CSM member is not to guarantee that CCP will fix anything, nor to guarantee that CCP won't break anything. That is ridiculous. I don't blame nor praise any CSM member for any game changes, good or bad, past or present. These have all been CCP decisions.

CSM is a conduit between the players and CCP, on game issues. It is not a CSM member's role to champion just one point of view - neither for CCP nor for the players.

If CCP decides to nerf high sec industry in favor of buffing null sec industry, then the CSM's role is to understand why CCP has taken this position, explain it to the players, get the players' constructive feedback, then summarize and communicate back to CCP.

If CCP thinks Incarna is a good thing, I want to know why. And, I want to hear them explain it, either directly or via the CSM. If the explanation is reasonable - ex. because CCP thinks it will be a viable source of new players and new revenue, to replace diminishing subscription revenues - then I'll listen and support it. If I have a better idea, then I'll propose it, via forums or via my CSM rep. In the end, the decision is CCP's - it is their game and their business. But, at least, I will feel that I am in the loop and the decisions are not being made arbitrarily, in a dark closet, after a couple dozen six-packs. CCP will also know whether I'm likely to go on a forum rampage or not, and can make their decision base on whether they care about losing my sub, or not.

Making the game better is about communications, not finger pointing, kicking asses, dickpunching, etc.


You tend to exaggerate in an attempt to make your point.

I don't believe I've ever met anyone in-game who is an "obsessive nerd who'll obsess about the minutiae... to the exclusion of the rest of the game", and if they do exist, I really doubt they are interested in running for the CSM. And, if they did run, it is unlikely that such a person would get elected, under the current system or my proposed system.

As for the "bigger picture", it is made up of the details. You don't fix the "bigger picture" - it is a goal. You fix the details, in order to achieve the "bigger picture".


Good question. And I think the answer is: when every player in the game believes that their vote counts and shows it by voting in the elections.

That is to say - when the *player* actually believes it to be true, and not when you, me or CCP tells him that he/she should believe it. There is a distinction.

"lets keep marginalizing the engaged, motivated voters until some npc corp demagogue who speaks 'for the players' is satisfied. voters not turning up after my panacea of election reforms went through? we musn't have limited those specific voters' voting power enough"

And now we get to the real motivations behind Void's proposals.

The problem with "likes" is that everyone can click like on every person and dilute the pool. I think you can do a couple things to minimize this.

You can limit the number of candidates to say 50 and for those 50, they have to meet a certain minimum of pre-votes which each account gets a top 3. This weeding out could happen a month or so before the actual final vote.

So "the CSM is nullsec-biased and just wants to nerf hisec" isn't us blaming the messenger whenever there's a talk of, say, increasing sales tax in hisec?