Jita Park Speakers Corner

Because STV is mega bad. Whenever you get a situation where the main candidate isn't super popular you win based off second or third votes. What this means is you get people standing who know they wont win for the purpose of bargaining their votes to the people who look like they stand a chance.

It wont take long for someone from EVE to figure that out, and next thing you'll know it'll be a bunch of loser candidates telling their voters who to put as what preference.

Plus STV voting for multiple candidates from one constituency (i.e. voting for 14 members from one voting group like ours) means it's easily gamed. Multi-member STV means a big alliance can organise their voters to vote for the 14 candidates they ask for and it'll mean they'll elect practically the entire CSM. Especially as if it's not compulsory to use all your votes they will be wasted as you vote for less than 14 candidates, which most people wont (I can explain why if needed).

Yes the candidates do because the candidates say "If you support me vote for the following people:".

I've studied political theory and electoral system enough, as well as having looked at plenty of real life examples of people using STV in organisations and countries to know this will happen. Hell in Australia the leaflets almost literally say "If you like the Green Party (or whatever) vote for the following preferences". I mean there's even a box to tick that says "vote for the preferences this party tells me to". In France it's not even STV and political candidates who lose the first Presidential election bargain with the candidates in the second election as their support can swing voters who originally voted for the losing candidate.

Want to inspire voting more, try this, CCP could put out a limited edition shirt or top that says "I voted for CSM Yxxx" for everyone that votes.

Redeemable as a gift, tradable, would likely see more voting because of it. Won't fix the apathy issue, but hey, more votes is good, right?

This would realistically result in goons electing zero candidates. Taking the 10,000 votes mittens got as a start, and making the very unsupported assumption that every single one of those voters would follow his voting instructions, that would result in each candidate getting 715 votes.

IIRC, the threshold to get on the CSM is double that, and ~3000 to get into the top 7.

*sigh*

That's not how STV works.

10,000 votes, 50 possible candidates. Say 30,000 votes cast in total. (If you get me the actual election figures I can use them instead).

Each candidate needs 2001 votes to get a seat.

The first round is counted, The Mittani gets 10,000 votes, reduced to 2001 and he is elected.

Then the remaining 7,999 votes go to the next candidate (Goon2).

Goon2 gets the 2001 votes and is elected.

The next 5998 votes go to the next candidate (Goon3).

Goon3 gets 2001 votes and is elected.

There are now 2997 votes left.

Goon4 gets 2001 votes and is elected.

There are now 996 votes left, putting them in a not too shabby position if they are the 1st/2nd/3rd place on everyone elses ballots. Bear in mind that there are only 20,000 votes left and 46 candidates.

In the first round of voting ALONE a 10,000 vote group has elected 4 candidates. THAT is how STV works.




Firstly: No, because no matter how much you think you've polled etc you'll never guarantee a spot if you try to organise your voters to split their vote. Unless I was going to have the majority of, as you put it, an advisory panel, I would rather guarentee one seat then try to get 2 (still a minority) and risk failing.

Secondly: No I'm really not. CCP if they are taking the CSM seriously will not put themselves in a position where most of the CSM members are clearly bias towards one point of view. If you recall correctly this is what spurred Null Sec to get invovled in the CSM in the first place: It was largely represented by one segment of the player base so presented CCP with a distorted view of what players want.

Just because you don't have the ability to "pass laws" or whatever doesn't mean you don't wield influence. I'd read up on the concept of "soft power" if I were you, it might help.



Yes, but not when you have 14 people being elected from a relatively small electorate.

Membership of the CSM brings a massive benefit if you ensure the only players on there are ones that agree to your world view. Doubly so if you get into a situation where 5 members of the CSM (i.e. the majority) are willing to go out in public and speak to the players and journalists about how CCP isn't listening to it's elected player representative it set up and they think they are going in the wrong direction.

The best system is one that ensures if voters want a mix they can achieve one (which they currently can) and allows the best candidates for the job get elected. Systems that favour people who simply appeal to the lowest common denominator (STV, Schluze method etc) are poor imo as you end up lacking quality candidates, the systems are easily gamed etc.

You can disagree with me why the reasons of STV are bad, however respectfully I think you are wrong about it. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

And iirc half of those 10k votes were from hisec (or at least non-goons). vOv

There's no way for you to tell who they were from, i.e. whether they were free 51-day Buddy accounts with a character still sitting in its starter corp in high sec. Any system in which a neverending flow of votes from alts wins the election regardless of how many actual humans are voting is a deeply flawed and utterly pointless system. Thus my support of the idea that game fixes be divorced from the foolishness of space politics. Let the CSM do whatever they want, elect them in whatever shoddy manner you wish, just don't make the rest of us have to rely on ANY of them for an improved game.

How to get more game population voting for the CSM, a possible solution would be Compulsory Voting. Following log-on and before character slot selection, during election players are presented with the ballot. There should be the option to void vote. (but they must select something before access to the game). Candidates ranked by the popularity from forum likes. With each of them getting a brief description of why they are standing for the council. (it can include a link to a more elaborate explanation of their choice).

Definitely not exploitable in any way.

I totally agree, I was responding to his comment of "just don't make the rest of us have to rely on ANY of them for an improved game."

I trust CCP to, in general most of the time make it a bit better over the course of a while. I do think the CSM turns those improves from "most of the time" to "nearly all of the time" though. You'll never make everyone happy with any changes mind you.