These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections – Schedule and Election Process

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Konrad Kane
#81 - 2013-02-21 17:40:39 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Sgurd Battersea wrote:
going up to 5 would be better.

People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support.


Thanks for this it wasn't clear in the blog, for a horrible moment I thought I'd need to stack rank all 14. This way I can pick the ones I like or have paid me(PM me for details, or visit the ingame channel :buymyvote)

Looks like good stuff, nice to see a quality gate in there as well. Although the CSM get a lot of guff said about them the ones that work put a lot of personal time and getting more people who have that commitment in the CSM can only be a good thing.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-02-21 17:41:14 UTC
I am literally typing up 'GoonSwarm: Crushing Pubbies Via Voting and You' right now

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#83 - 2013-02-21 17:42:10 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
I am literally typing up 'GoonSwarm: Crushing Pubbies Via Voting and You' right now


Okay I'm really not because I'm not some midlevel bureaucrat but someone is!

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2013-02-21 17:44:41 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
I am literally typing up 'GoonSwarm: Crushing Pubbies Via Voting and You' right now


Okay I'm really not because I'm not some midlevel bureaucrat but someone is!

how did it get in your post if you did not type it :ohdear:

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#85 - 2013-02-21 17:45:07 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
I am literally typing up 'GoonSwarm: Crushing Pubbies Via Voting and You' right now


Okay I'm really not because I'm not some midlevel bureaucrat but someone is!



*waves frantically hoping for a mention!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#86 - 2013-02-21 17:45:59 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
I am literally typing up 'GoonSwarm: Crushing Pubbies Via Voting and You' right now


Okay I'm really not because I'm not some midlevel bureaucrat but someone is!

how did it get in your post if you did not type it :ohdear:


Schrodinger's post

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-02-21 18:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alice Katsuko
Ripard Teg wrote:
Errr... OK. Granted I've only read this once and it's pretty early in the morning, but let me make sure I understand this.

I have to ask a broad swath of EVE players to vote for me...
...and then ten or so days later, I have to ask them to do it a second time using a different system?
...and this is your plan to make the CSM more open to non-bloc candidates?

My inner Garth is screaming that this is truly an election system designed by CCP...

EDIT: And let me be clear: I have no objection to the STV. But isn't the whole point to the STV to eliminate the need for primary elections?


You have to ask 200 people to vote for you in the pre-election process, which is neither a difficult task, not an unreasonable one. In the CSM 7 election, the top-ranking candidate received over 10,000 votes; getting 2% of that should not be difficult at all for any candidate who has any hope at all of winning in a general election, and probably less difficult than getting 200 likes for a hidden post on a section of the forums most neither know exists nor care about. If anything, the CCP-backed candidate pool selection round will make it easier for serious candidates to get on the ballot, since it will presumably be more widely advertised in-game than the old 'likes' system.

The point of the STV is to avoid 'wasting' votes and to generate an elected assembly that is more representative of the preferences of the electorate. It does not do away with the need to generate a viable, finite pool of candidates. Every working large-scale electoral system in the world has a filtering mechanism to prevent hopeless or non-serious candidates from clogging up the ballot. The alternative is to allow anyone with access to a computer and $15 in cash to be on the ballot, which would risk having serious candidates like yourself being lost in a mass of unknown names.

I will point out that the STV can be gamed via exit polling just as easily as a plurality system, especially in future rounds when the formula for generating votes from the ballot rank order becomes known.

Disregard that. Was confusing STV with condorcet.
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2013-02-21 18:34:48 UTC
If CCP cannot be talked out of changing the election system (which haven't been implemented yet, if I understood it), then I think this effort is better used developing a system where the votes are carried from the first ballot to the second and allow the voters to invalidate and recast their votes once, when that happens.

It still provides an "integrated primary" for people like the WH community while allowing the voters to cast a simple, one-time, vote. That's an improvement over both what is being proposed (single candidate vote, followed by a multi-candidate one) and what was used last time (hit a like button, or many, then cast a vote).

I still think the whole effort won't result in as much bang for the buck as increasing the visibility and political education of the playerbase at large. And for the record, use a slightly different link on the login page ad, so that you can count how many people reach the voting page through that. My gut feeling says it's close to zero.

:sand:  over  :awesome:
Logix42
Taxation Damnation
#89 - 2013-02-21 19:20:58 UTC
I applaud the change to the system of who gets to go to the CSM summit, hard work should be rewarded.

Go beyond the edge of space... Explore
Endeavour Starfleet
#90 - 2013-02-21 19:23:01 UTC
I am glad to see this system. Wasted votes likely cost good candidates a seat at the CSM. And hopefully this will mean a CSM that is FAR more tough on CCP for backpedaling on some of the badly needed features (Modular POS and Ring Mining)

Also hopefully this will result in an in Incursion community representative.

We need a CSM that tells CCP. NO! these badly needed changes need to be fixed NOW not slowly put together over years because every feature and it's dog have to be in the next expansion.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-02-21 19:34:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well those groups which are directed by people who can co-ordinate large numbers to vote for the same list are going to get, effectively, 14 votes per voter. Those unco-ordinated demographics who are interested in maybe one or at most 2-3 candidates and will either not vote for anyone else or who will scatter their votes pretty much at random are going to get effectively 1-3 votes per voter.

I believe you are confusing STV with condorcet methods, which do suffer from the weakness you are concerned about when used in a multiple-seat context. STV does not.

All ballots have the same amount of voting power in a STV system. A ballot can lose some fraction of its voting power when it becomes exhausted -- there are no more candidates on it to whom it can transfer voting power. So at the margins, a ballot with 14 candidates on it will have slightly more voting power than one with 5, but it is not a huge difference, and it is much less than the difference in voting power in FPTP elections when comparing highly organized, high-information groups with an unorganized electorate.

Malcanis wrote:
CCP Veritas wrote:
Sgurd Battersea wrote:
going up to 5 would be better.

People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support.

Ring-a-ding-ding!

In the last election, over 24% of the electorate disenfrancised themselves by voting for a losing candidate. Under STV, this percentage is mathematically certain to be lower.

I would encourage those who are interested in investigating the robustness of good STV methods (my preference is Meek-STV) to go out and get some election software and start running simulations (OpenSTV costs $5). You may be surprised at the results.

For example, re-running the previous election under Meek-STV, in a situation where 6 "nullsec candidates" supported each other in strict order, and everyone else went it alone (all of their ballots were votes for them alone, so if they didn't get elected, their ballots were discarded), resulted in a single change to the final results -- 14th position changed.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-02-21 19:46:39 UTC
"Every subscriber to EVE Online will then have a single vote per account to cast in support of a candidate. These votes will then be tallied and candidates that receives 200 or more votes will qualify to be added to the final election ballot. If less than 28 candidates meet this threshold, the next highest ranking candidates will be added until 28 candidates make the final ballot. We will also be releasing the results of this election for those looking to use it in their decision making for the final election."

Shouldn't that all be in the WHITE PAPER? Those are where the RULES are supposed to reside, yes?

People were talking about 28 candidates minimum, less than 200 supporters being eaccepted to get 28 minimum (if required) ... and I was not finding any of that in the white paper.

Someone finally told me it's in the devblog ... which seems like the WRONG place for it to be.
Luc Chastot
#93 - 2013-02-21 20:04:52 UTC
Relevant to the elections, CGPGrey videos about voting systems:

FPTP explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

AV (STV) explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Beware of gerrymandering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

MMP explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-02-21 20:18:48 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well those groups which are directed by people who can co-ordinate large numbers to vote for the same list are going to get, effectively, 14 votes per voter. Those unco-ordinated demographics who are interested in maybe one or at most 2-3 candidates and will either not vote for anyone else or who will scatter their votes pretty much at random are going to get effectively 1-3 votes per voter.

I believe you are confusing STV with condorcet methods, which do suffer from the weakness you are concerned about when used in a multiple-seat context. STV does not.

All ballots have the same amount of voting power in a STV system. A ballot can lose some fraction of its voting power when it becomes exhausted -- there are no more candidates on it to whom it can transfer voting power. So at the margins, a ballot with 14 candidates on it will have slightly more voting power than one with 5, but it is not a huge difference, and it is much less than the difference in voting power in FPTP elections when comparing highly organized, high-information groups with an unorganized electorate.

Malcanis wrote:
CCP Veritas wrote:
Sgurd Battersea wrote:
going up to 5 would be better.

People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support.

Ring-a-ding-ding!

In the last election, over 24% of the electorate disenfrancised themselves by voting for a losing candidate. Under STV, this percentage is mathematically certain to be lower.

I would encourage those who are interested in investigating the robustness of good STV methods (my preference is Meek-STV) to go out and get some election software and start running simulations (OpenSTV costs $5). You may be surprised at the results.

For example, re-running the previous election under Meek-STV, in a situation where 6 "nullsec candidates" supported each other in strict order, and everyone else went it alone (all of their ballots were votes for them alone, so if they didn't get elected, their ballots were discarded), resulted in a single change to the final results -- 14th position changed.


I completely agree that if you used past results to test this system it will look fine. Great even.

The problem is this, those results mean nothing as those elections did not have mass coordinated gaming of it. (We specifically only ran 1) While this system flat out demands it.

CCP has now instituted a system (that we are quite pleased with BTW) that lets them try to enforce even more unpaid consulting to play survivor in space. The enemy here is clearly CCP and their intentions with regards to the CSM. So the only obvious response is to make that decision very painful.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-02-21 20:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Another thing that someone mentioned on twitter that I'm going to pass on:

It's not clearly stated how the actual voting works - the dev blog says you rank candidates 1 through 14 but doesn't mention at any point that you don't HAVE to choose 14, just that 14 is the max amount of candidates you can rank. Only the White Paper clearly spells that out (and thanks to the 6+ pages of filler that the White Paper starts with, you can be sure almost nobody is going to really read it). If one simply read the dev blog, they'd leave with the assumption that you must choose 14 candidates.

Things like this and Poetic's mention of the "28 candidates minimum" thing being absent from the White Paper may seem like minor nitpicks, but when you're already having a big problem trying to attract voters, the last thing you want to do is make things even more confusing. Not a great start on that front, I guess.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
#96 - 2013-02-21 20:53:50 UTC
Can Janet Reno explain this voting proces to me again please Bear

Information is Ammunition,

War does not tolerate Ambiguities.

May you live in an interesting Empyrean age !

http://eve-radio.com/
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-02-21 21:02:00 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
It's not clearly stated how the actual voting works - the dev blog says you rank candidates 1 through 14 but doesn't mention at any point that you don't HAVE to choose 14, just that 14 is the max amount of candidates you can rank. Only the White Paper clearly spells that out (and thanks to the 6+ pages of filler that the White Paper starts with, you can be sure almost nobody is going to really read it). If one simply read the dev blog, they'd leave with the assumption that you must choose 14 candidates.
The devblog states they haven't even chosen the form of STV they'll use. And that they'll tell us all later, so that we can review.

That must be a joke ... they'll have already coded the system. And there'll be little time to change it even if there were an uproar.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#98 - 2013-02-21 21:17:21 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
It's not clearly stated how the actual voting works - the dev blog says you rank candidates 1 through 14 but doesn't mention at any point that you don't HAVE to choose 14, just that 14 is the max amount of candidates you can rank. Only the White Paper clearly spells that out (and thanks to the 6+ pages of filler that the White Paper starts with, you can be sure almost nobody is going to really read it). If one simply read the dev blog, they'd leave with the assumption that you must choose 14 candidates.
The devblog states they haven't even chosen the form of STV they'll use. And that they'll tell us all later, so that we can review.

That must be a joke ... they'll have already coded the system. And there'll be little time to change it even if there were an uproar.


Trebor seems to be clear on the specifics. Perhaps he'd like to explain in more detail exactly how it will avoid the weakness I mentioned. I'm prepared to take his word for it that more choices won't outweight less, but I'd like more detail.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#99 - 2013-02-21 21:20:41 UTC
After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why. Straight

Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?) Question
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#100 - 2013-02-21 21:26:04 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why. Straight

Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?) Question


This basically sums up my questions. Should I just vote for me and get 14x the benefit of spreading my vote, or should I vote for 14 people and hope they reciprocate?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016