Jita Park Speakers Corner

Now, Now, Snow Axe give them some time to adapt, they are just starting to take their first baby steps at political back stabbing and voter manipulation, it will take them some time to perfect it.

True, so the key is maybe to advertise the voting more -promote it more.

I really don;t see anything wrong with the current process, other than some peeps being afraid that they won't get a top seat on CSM8...

The fact it was worded, very specifically, to try to counter CFC, is not tinfoil. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

Trebor's criteria for ANY new voting system aimed at reducing the power of large organized voting blocs.

The example of a voting bloc he used in said criteria referred directly to the CFC. No other bloc could even mathematically accomplish what he said (or even come close to it).

His proposed voting system made any votes that would end up being for the Top 1 candidate non-transferable, while votes for all the other candidates remained transferable. This is something that does not exist in any form of STV that has been used. That's an important detail, since it means the direct disenfranchising of the Top 1 candidate's votes compared to all the other votes is not some unintended consequence of a broader system. He created that extra bit himself. Oh by the way, guess which voting bloc the Top 1 candidate represented?

Tell me Hans, if the narrative we adopted is so wrong and tinfoil, what's the correct one? I mean, what actually HAPPENED here?
You and the other CSM's in that thread were so quick to dismiss what we had pointed out, to call it tinfoil, and now you've joined the ranks of Seleene and Aleks in not backing down from that.

So here's your chance, tell all of us what ACTUALLY happened? How did Trebor come to create a system that disenfranchised the CFC alone? Why did he present it as a CSM idea, rather than a Trebor idea? Why did you defend it before you even attempted to understand it, especially if it was just a Trebor idea? Seriously, if you know enough to tell us that what we think is wrong, then enlighten us.

Or alternately just post a few more paragraphs of your oh so droll brand of takes-forever-to-say-nothing blandness. Either way.

I'm going to address this to the DEVs rather than the lilliputian CSM members pushing a clear agenda here:

Leave the voting system alone. The only way to cure voter apathy is to give them candidates and issues they care about. That has to come from the player base itself. I rigged voting system is not going to bring in new voters, it may even turn off existing voters from wanting to be involved.

The question becomes how do you get people to care? That's a legitimately hard question but having a CSM shouting for blatant voter disenfranchisement with the landslide of criticism that follows only makes for more eye rolling and apathy. Who would take a CSM seriously if your votes are going to be adjusted and some voters only counted as 3/5ths a person? Likewise who would take a CSM member seriously who seriously believes this is good for the game, and I am sure there are people in CCP going why do we have a CSM if it churns out garbage like this.

When know from real world examples that get out and vote campaigns goal is to simply increase voter turnout with the goal of seeing what many would characterize as marginal gains. Even still it is worth it for them if a few new voters get involved. For us here in the land of internet space ships that means we hopefully get someone new informed on the issues to vote. So how do we get our excited and educated voter to partake in our little democratic experiment? Here is what I think:

From CCP:

Dedicated Election Blogs.

Festively reskin your forum when the elections get close, a subtle reminder.

Have a couple NPC ships fly through systems announcing in local the upcoming elections.

Have agents remind mission runners elections are coming.

Sponsor candidate debates, do candidate spotlights and login banners dedicated to the election weeks in advance.

Create a screen when players login into vote with a cheat sheet on what the candidate stands for and links to previous sponsored debates. The player can retain the option not to vote somewhere at the bottom of the screen but it does make voting a lot easier.

From Potential Candidates:

Make sure you have something worth saying.

Make sure you make the most of the platforms available to get your message out.

Go read a book on making friends and influencing others.

Map out exactly what it is you want to do as a CSM member. Spare us the cliches and platitudes, give us the kind of plan you could build a home with.

What I Don't Want From The Current CSM:

Not another peep about what you think is a "fair" system of representation. If you intentions were not aimed at particular groups and this was all done out of good intentions then sweet God who did we elect? If you did do this with the intent everyone except the CSM sees it for, I won't even address how wrong you were. What I will address is how poorly you veiled your intent and the broken logic you tried to shore it up with. No one wants to be represented by a confederacy of dunces. Previous CSMs have worked hard to be a strong representative force for players in the game, engaging in farces like this destroys the relevancy of the CSM. I know that there is little chance of getting certain members of the CSM to not smear dung on a page and call it a post or working paper on "fair voting", but someone has to at least ask.

The bolded statement in particular holds great interest to me. Would you allow a non-engineer to design a water purification system meant to improve the current level of sanitation in a city? It is a leading question after all - and the answer to this question is most certainly a "no". The result, to say the least, would be disastrous. Why then would you have non-political scientists attempt to design a voting system?

There are obvious answers to that question - one humorous (and cynical) and one realistic. The humorous answer is that you want non-political scientists to design it because a political scientist would design it to maximize his own benefit. Please put on your tinfoil hats at this time and call it electioneering, if you will.

Realistically, you want political scientists to design the system because they understand the limitations of just about every electoral system out there and they'd be able to tell you, with absolute certainty, that it's next to impossible to get away from the system you start with. The United States has never changed its system away from a First-Past-The-Post system since its founding, and any attempt to do so will end in failure. Likewise, systems using a parliamentary system seldom move away from their blend of FPTP and Proportional Representation. You are unlikely to find a better way to vote in EVE Online since not only has the community become accustomed to how it works, but as you are now discovering any attempt to change it reeks of political opportunism. Just look at voter identification laws in the United States - many of them are being thrown out of courts because the change can disenfranchise voters in favor of certain other politicians. Even the Pennsylvania State Legislature crowed that the voter ID laws passed there would help the state go to Mr. Romney. Straight from the horse's mouth - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

Compare that statement to some of the posts by the CSM in relation to the suggested changes? See any parallels? I'm glad you're no longer surprised when one of the proponents for the changes basically states "**** Goons" and the change is designed to target them, that the Goons protest heavily. The CSM and EVE devs deserved to be educated in this manner, because quite frankly they asked for it.

As for the issue of voting, even an amateur political scientist can tell you that there is no compelling reason to vote aside from civic duty. And trying to quantify civic duty is a fool's errand - qualifying it, by describing it as issues that people care about, is an easier exercise. Arguably, you could say with EVE Online that since you have a smaller population, each vote counts more and as such, people are more involved because their vote is "worth something". Even so, on an individual level a vote counts for squat. The only way they do count is if you organize into large voting blocs and *surprise surprise* the system that you started with promotes the formation of large voting blocs. George Washington's farewell address warned Americans of the dangers of factionalization, but the system they implemented - FPTP - works best with two separate factions. You may warn people of the dangers of null-sec voting blocs, but the system as it stands encourages them in order to ensure representation. The current system is working as intended, as it promotes the metagame that defines EVE Online as being above and apart from other MMOs. If Goons (or anyone else) has the logistical capability to field 10,000 votes in a 60,000 vote election to make their man chair, then they deserve their day at the polls.

Don't change the system - it's not going to work and if you do, I wouldn't be surprised if Jita burns again and sub numbers decrease. If you want people to care more, then grant the CSM more power. This might involve not hamstringing them with NDAs - classified information does not win elections as it's not something that you can show to constituents. Any other suggestions are more than welcome because, you see, I am no scholar of the CSM or EVE Online - just political science.

If "maybe we should read things on our internal forums before they go live" or "maybe we shouldn't troll players before even attempting to understand their concerns" are valuable lessons that need to be learned on the fly, suddenly that trollish Recall Vote thread makes a lot more sense.

The best limit to the minority blocs that exist is simple to get more people to vote. then maybe we will have a higher bar than 1/3 of 1% of the EvE population to get a seat, that or just change the name to The Minority Council of Stellar Management, at least that way it would be a constant reminder to CCP they speak for minorities.

I saw all the text. The point is that even goals or objectives in reform, not just proposals, all of it should be player-driven in the end. "The CSM", Trebor or otherwise, could share their opinion on the matter but in MY opinion the CSM's opinion is fairly irrelevent even if its not a crime to share it. Knowing that it would go to the public here which would have the final say, "The CSM" could have said voting reform should involve CCP Guard travelling around in a party bus collecting beer bottle caps into old-fashioned vote stumps and I would have laughed and just moved on to the public debate anyways.

Xhagen has always said he gets final say, and that it would be decided through public discussion not by CSM preference. This was my understanding from the beginning. Why should I be particularly worried about what Trebor said when it was clear it didn't carry weight from the beginning?

Nah, I'm here voluntarily. I can certainly understand the reluctance of others to respond, but I'm not afraid of criticism. There's lessons to be learned here and its important to debrief when something goes wrong.