EVE Information Portal

That is mostly a myth you are talking about Yonis. But I suppose the two hi sec CSMs, weren't able to go to iceland, why people believe that myth.

Most of your statement, makes it look that you are actually into conspiracy theories more then anything else.

There are 14 seats to fill, it would be impossible to exclude all of null sec from the CSM. But there are other representatives then those.

There are two hi sec representatives, as well as faction warfare, low sec and of course a WH representative. As well as the russian null sec people.

It mostly seems your point, is that there should be no null sec on the CSM at all, and its only fair for them to have no one on the CSM.

Heck even the most prominent null sec person left the CSM, and ya still complain. There is almost no hope at all.

Your first bullet IMHO is a complete distortion of the definition of of disenfranchised.
An over vote in no way fits this definition(nor any stretch):

I believe your second bullet ignores a common sense belief that more effective NULL bloc vote is going to ensue from its implementation.
Your third bullet IMHO is going to further 'a sort of ' disenfranchisement of the masses due to undue complexity further reducing participation in the elections. I expect voter turnout to plumet but hope I am wrong.
Your fourth bullet is the crux of my issue with this new system : a skewed voter preference is going to give CCP a false view of accurate representation of the majority of Eve
I wish you all the luck in your last bullet ( really I do )

---

I don't envy your position no matter what change you make is going to be is very political and from those being adverslery affected will rightfully accuse you of gerrymandering

That's not fair. CSM 7 has done a good job in general terms and has been very involved and worked very hard, and they certainly have seen improvement for their special interests (as long as those interests were coincident with CCP's, something the new 5+2 system is going to reinforce further).

But all in all, as i pointed above, likely CCP doesn't knows their playerbase enough to tell wether the CSM is representative of it or don't. CSM should not be the only or ultimate player engaging tool, and CSM 8 will be a practical lesson on why. With the new election system disengaging and scaring voters away, the abbility to push bloc numbers for a more intensive manipulation of the CSM will render the CSM less usable as a player engagement tool.

Whatever CCP manages to achieve with CSM 8, it will be less related to the playerbase than CSM 7.

So I seriously hope CCP Seagull manages to find ways to identify and engage the real playerbase.

And make the second vote way more involving than before! This says nothing about being able to comprehend the results either, which varies from somewhat straightforward to "I don't know what the **** this means, I quit" depending on which method they go with the count the votes. Can't even guess that because they haven't even told us how they're counting the votes yet. Pre-election is 3 weeks and change away and we still don't even know how the ******* votes will be counted yet. This whole thing has Gong Show written all over it.

I think the numbers I can't wait to see will be the primary candidacy votes vs the final election tally. Especially if the final tally has averages of how many candidates each voter ranked.

I'll attempt to address some of your concerns. I have added numbers to your points to make it more clear as to what I am responding too.

1. Your definition of disenfranchisement is not how the term is used in modern voting theory. I suggest you look here for more information on its modern use. Particularly the sentence, "Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective."

2. In our new system every vote has increased power. And the votes of those who are not organized receive a greater increase in power per vote in the new system. The concept of "Bloc Voting" is not in itself a problem, in the same way that political parties or religious groups who encourage their supporters to vote a certain way are not a problem. The concept of "organized bloc voting" however was a problem, in that members of certain blocs had more information from things like exit polling and therefore could more effectively place their votes. With Single Transferable Vote everyone can express their vote on an even playing field, and the people who have the most voter support will make it onto the CSM.

3. First-Past-the-Post statistically has the lowest percentage of voter turnout of all major voting systems worldwide. While it might be simpler to vote for a single candidate than to list your preference, the fact that in our system a vote had less than a 50% chance of having any impact on the result was certainly discouraging to voters and to us. Also, those who are truly bewildered by the new voting system may still vote for only 1 candidate, but they do so at the potential cost of their own voice.

4. If you would like to propose a different system that would allow us to properly represent our playerbase without them voting I would like to hear it. We have looked at it extensively, and come to the conclusion that any attempt by us to organize or place some sort of label on our players would at best be inaccurate beyond reason or practicality and at worst consist of rampant gerrymandering and ballot stuffing.

5. Thank you for you best wishes. We are looking to make some changes to address voter turnout this year. In the future, with a larger team behind the CSM and greater development time, we hope to make some even better changes for CSM9 now that we have a more representative voting system.

...just we don't get to choose who we elect with our vote, rather it's going to be an algorythm who does the job. In some STV system not even voting a single guy and having him elected assures that you actually elected him, as maybe your vote was an "excess" one and was spent electing somebody else you didn't even voted...



So it is our fault that you chose a STV system so we can either elect some random guy who was in our list or vote one guy and hope for the best, as STV means than single-candidate votes have even less chances to be elected than before...

What if I only like one candidate?

Case A: I don't understand that i am wasting my vote by not stuffing the preference list, so I vote him and have luck or don't.
Case B: I don't understand how the system works and decline to vote
Case C: I understand that voting a single candidate is the worst possible strategy in STV systems and refuse to vote under a imposed election system that harms my best interest.

"then I'll have to conclude that you cannot read.

This is why I avoid posting on the forums"

Its a good thing your thorough.

Quite the opposite than "without them voting ": Compulsory suffrage.

And that is pretty much it in a nut shell. We don't need a new voting system that is more complicated and that means voters have no idea where their votes went. We need a lot more exposure to the CSM to increase the dismal 18% turnout, so that we can actually have a representative CSM, so when the CSM speaks, it speaks with the backing of the majority of EvE. Yes they want to increase exposure, which is great but they will scare more people away than they gain with some weird voting system.

But what do we know, we are just the customers and CCP has years of proving its arrogance is always right