Jita Park Speakers Corner

Counterpoint: selecting multiple candidates requires understanding every candidate's position, and may/may not lead to lower turnout.


There's also a lot of candidates which do nothing but suck up votes into a black hole. Getting rid of no-hope candidates such as xenuria would mean less votes lost due to candidates having absolutely no hope in winning a place at the seat. Personally I think cleaning up this would yield a higher votes to candidates ratio.


What system has been invented which can't be gamed to some extent?


I don't think the election itself is the problem, but the perceived CSM effectiveness. Why bother to vote if the CSM they end up voting in is going to be toothless/just do petty political bickering/scheeming?

I'll be interested to see what the turnout is for CSM8, and whether it goes up or down compared to the previous 2 terms.

Just can the this whole CSM idea..... please.

The system can be gamed easily, because there are 60K votes, and 1/6th of those come from a single bloc. So, no voting system is safe from being gamed to hell.

The only solution is to increase the number of voters, thus decreasing the overall effectiveness of that single bloc.

Not the only solution, it's best if it's combined with the elimination of such illustrious examples as darius 3s from the candidacy list, to reduce the number of votes wasted on certain dead ends.

1. So? The CSM isn't a Parlimentary body. Nobody's shown that strict proportinality is something to strive for.
2. So? That's how elections work. And again, the CSM isn't a parliamentary body.
3. So? The one group in a position to dominate due to strategic voting hasn't because, again, the CSM isn't a parliamentary body. Having 14 people advocating the same thing is no more effective (might actually be less effective) than one or two.
4. A system that's harder to understand is likely to make people trust the system less, not more. A good number of people aren't going to understand how a more complicated voting system works/is fair (especially when it comes up with a different result than FPTP), and thus not trust it.*

EDIT:
*Example. The Electoral College. People distrust it because it has the potential to produce a result that differs from what a FPTP vote of the general population (even though that's only happened a few times).

You can't remove them with a voting system, but if your aim with voting reform is to elect the people who inspire the least hate thats all you'll get because nobody can risk a radical opinion. Eve is a game about shooting people and taking their stuff, any worthwhile opinion is going to attract some hate.

Almost forgot. If you make a system that promotes the least hated option, organized groups will post a figurehead to attract the heat, then quietly elect someone who's running under their NPC corp alt's name.

While I appreciate where you're coming from, all the system does is churn out someone who is the least disliked. Realistically if you put everyone in preference the people you like will be at the top, the people you dislike will be at the bottom and the people you don't really know much about will be in the middle.

I've bolded some of the noteworthy percentages on there as I just want to highlight my personal issue with the system.

Firstly if you look at "who is the most favourite candidate of most the people" (i.e. the first set of numbers) C and A quite clearly win. If for now we accept that having only 28% of the voters say they want you isn't enough, we can assume this result doesn't matter.

Now we look at who is in the top 2. Bear in mind these figures are electing 2 out of 5 people, so this is essentially "Who do you want to be elected?". It would be the equivalent of asking voters "Please, design your own CSM". C actually has OVER 50% of voters including them in their ideal CSM (or whatever we're electing) yet ISN'T elected. It would be like asking 10 players to draw up a list of the next 3 things they want added to the game, seeing one that over half of them put in that top three and discarding it. Personally, I don't think that's actually representing the will of the voters.

The next set of numbers is the ONLY set where E and A (who are the ones elected using the method) are numerically superior. However this number is in "who is in the top 3". As stated since we are electing only 2 people the top 3 aren't really relevant as the 3rd one is the one you either 1) Don't want elected (just not as much as you dont want the others elected) or 2) You don't really want them elected but you'll put up with it.

The final set of number (basically who isn't put last the most) the numerically superior are actually E and B, not E and A as the system elects.

In my opinion a system that doesn't elect the only candidate that over 50% of the voters put down as "I want this guy to be elected" and instead elects the candidate who's supporters only reach 50% when you include a preference that isn't electable (i.e. third preference) is basically wrong (for choosing leaders/representatives).

Finally you may be transparant with the data (I trust CCP... ish) it wont matter if the unwashed masses don't understand it. You can show me plans for a nuclear reactor, doesn't mean I know why it's safe.



1) I would look at systems where you are assigned multiple votes rather than preferences. If you're wanting to elect a multi-member constituency (which you are) and you use preferences it's easily exploited by anyone organised. This is fine in politics as I generally believe political parties are essential. I did link such a voting system in an earlier post. Avoid a system where you have 14 votes and you can only give 1 vote per candidate for the same reason.
2) Raising the qualifications needed to be a candidate to reduce the number of nominees will reduce this. I understand where you're coming from, as you don't want to turn people off thinking "I want to support this person but its a wasted vote" as this happens in most countries and isn't helpful. However I think it isn't a big concern.
3) See 1. Also I actually think strategic voting is HARD in this system. Say I am called The Muttano and my Chicken Feed Coalition wants to elect all 7 main CSM members as Chicken Feed Coalition members. I REALLY have to plan well and be confident in large numbers of voters to achieve this. It involves spreading out your votes which is risky. Most other systems allow you to spread votes easier, making tactical voting easier.
4) Awww isn't that cute

If you want a 'more representative' CSM, the best way to do that would be for the current or future CSM to advocate heavy-handed nerfs to empire based on ignorance, since when the reverse happened in CSM5 the result was to galvanise nullsec powers to ensure they had a strong voice in future. Have a nullsec-heavy CSM discuss moving all level 4s and ice fields to lowsec, scrambling Sansha gatecamps in highsec incursions, and a massive nerf to CONCORD response times and we'll soon see how disinterested in organised voting the highsec masses really are.

Of course, since most 0.0 residents are heavily involved in highsec through alts of various flavours and well aware of the reality of life there, it would be difficult to find such a group of successful candidates quite so blinkered to issues outside their own corner of the game as CSM5 was.

What's wrong with non-compulsory ranking STV? I know organisations who have STV counting software that CCP could use, even ones that are compatible with online voting forms.