These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#721 - 2012-09-10 06:14:04 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
If they want to come down to our level the least we can do is beat the snot out of them with experience.


"This would not be inconsistent." -Courthouse

Remind me to never **** you off.
SavageBastard
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#722 - 2012-09-10 06:19:55 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:


I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.


So the guy we voted for committed a gaffe and was unfit for office for this term. How is that the fault of the system? Do we not have alternates?

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.


Again, one representative, in your opinion, did not do his job well. Not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the voter. Nothing you have said has made me say "gee, he's right! This system is obviously terrible!"
Samahiel Sotken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#723 - 2012-09-10 06:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Samahiel Sotken
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:


I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.

What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.

Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.

If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.


1.] What leads you to believe that it is a statistically insignificant exception and not a trend?

2.] Ignoring the obvious question of what you base this opinion on; How does increased complexity in any case, and the increased complexity of Faux-STV specfically solve this issue?

3.] Just as arguments to traditional authority are fallacious, so are appeals to novelty. Why are you sure that you can do better given previous performance?

I felt I should edit this and add some constructive contribution.

It seems obvious, to me at least, that promoting voter awareness and education would go a lot farther to solving these issues. Do you have plans in this regard, Will you be addressing them in the near future, and why were they not publicly debated well before a system wide overhaul?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#724 - 2012-09-10 06:21:56 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.


A "no D3s" rule could easily be implemented on the white paper without introducing a sham of an election system with the "STV" label slapped on it longwise.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.


While I see the issue with "hoooly **** 10k votes went down the drain" there are plenty of ways to prevent that in the future without telling voters "well you're not just voting for this guy, but these other guys who you may not like as well"

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.


The problem is that you're reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why CCP cannot implement true STV.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ghazu
#725 - 2012-09-10 06:23:05 UTC
Darius III is a hero, instead of waiting for CCP to nerf incursions he did something about it.
Also 420 Raidendot lol never forget those brave brave Bricksquad hero bubbles.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#726 - 2012-09-10 06:33:24 UTC
Samahiel Sotken wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:


I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.

What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.

Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.

If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.


1.] What leads you to believe that it is a statistically insignificant exception and not a trend?

2.] Ignoring the obvious question of what you base this opinion on; How does increased complexity in any case, and the increased complexity of Faux-STV specfically solve this issue?

3.] Just as arguments to traditional authority are fallacious, so are appeals to novelty. Why are you sure that you can do better given previous performance?

1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.

2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.

3. I'm not sure I understand your question (that's not an attack, feel free to ask it a different way)

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#727 - 2012-09-10 06:38:18 UTC
Andski wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.


A "no D3s" rule could easily be implemented on the white paper without introducing a sham of an election system with the "STV" label slapped on it longwise.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.


While I see the issue with "hoooly **** 10k votes went down the drain" there are plenty of ways to prevent that in the future without telling voters "well you're not just voting for this guy, but these other guys who you may not like as well"

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.


The problem is that you're reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why CCP cannot implement true STV.

1. Yeah it probably could, but what is the best way to do it?

2. Also agreed. But again, what's the best way? If there IS some kind of STV, even pure STV, that would impact this discussion. If we stick with 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate then how DO we address this problem?

3. I can't speak for CCP, but if it was technically doable and the community really got behind it, maybe.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#728 - 2012-09-10 06:42:00 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.


This is irrelevant if this council doesn't deliver results. You can bleat about ~CSM Minutes~ this or ~This was talked about~ that, but you haven't *delivered* anything that the playerbase can attribute to this CSM yet.

Quote:
2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.


Your solution doesn't actually fix anyt of the issues you mention though. Darius can still scam a seat. Issler would redirect it's votes to some ****** that no one could comprehend like Xenuria or some ****. Riverini would cast votes towards a political adversary and not a "best candidate."

So again, what are you trying to fix here? If you want diversity then deliver political parties, require candidates register as high/low/null sec and take the top vote recipient registered to each that maybe isn't represented in the top 7 and make them alternate #1/2 and watch me register our CFC rep as lowsec and laugh FW all the way back to irrelevance.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#729 - 2012-09-10 06:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.)

You're assuming to know how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable.

If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#730 - 2012-09-10 06:51:34 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.


There's also too many large questions about why this many people aren't participating. Is it lack of knowledge of the CSM? Apathy? Would they participate if it wasn't for certain factors?

Until you actually attempt to find the answers to these questions, changing the voting system will only affect current voters. The changes proposed in the OP of this thread were very hostile to a certain group of players while showing no actual benefit to any other group of players, let alone the massive majority that doesn't participate. That's why you're getting hostility on two fronts - not only because you tried to **** a group of players over, but also because the idea is just plain bad and doesn't really solve anything.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#731 - 2012-09-10 06:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.)

You're assuming to how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable.

If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.

Where in that quote do i assume how anyone will vote? Where in my answer is the word "participation"?

EDIT bolded for convinience:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#732 - 2012-09-10 07:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: CliveWarren
Also, since I know Aleks has at least suggested he doesn't agree with Trebor's idea, this section needs to be re-read by him (and any other CSM who doesn't agree):

Quote:
The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals.

2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes.

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.


Option #3 is of particular interest, as it's the source of 95% of the rage in this thread. He suggests that voting blocs need to have their power "reduced" by systemic methods while giving zero justification for this. He also starts this entire section off by saying "The CSM" considers these options to be a MINIMUM. Not "I" think, not "Trebor" thinks, "The CSM" thinks that voting blocs need to have their power removed via systemic methods AS A MINIMUM. This language trend also continues on throughout his post - it's full of "we think" and "we've created". Whether it's just his idea or the CSM's idea, he's very clearly trying to represent it as the latter.

It is also the major reason you're not seeing any kind of true discussion about alternative voting systems, since the CSM's minimum baseline (as said to us by CSM member Trebor and not refuted yet by anyone else, including Hans, Seleene, Two Step or Aleks who have all posted in this thread) is completely unreasonable and unworkable. Until that changes, don't expect anything but what you're already getting.

If Trebor has misrepresented the entire CSM here, your problem lies with him (and also with your Chairman Seleene for allowing such an impression to continue on). Every angry poster in this thread has been 100% justified by the above quote alone, and the only CSM response so far has been to mock us for it.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#733 - 2012-09-10 07:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Just so i get this right:

essential you want to make it possible to transfer the votes of people who do not make it to somebody else


Let me just make a really wild guess here:

The current CSM will endorse such "low chance candidates" in order to get on their list in return, feeding them more votes and reducing the chance that they get dropped out by a "newcomer" since "low chance candidates" wont have endorsement by others?



So this is just like any other vote change idea, trying to fortify the position of the already elected person and prevent others to take their place?


please correct me, i'd be glad to be wrong here
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#734 - 2012-09-10 07:24:29 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.

You people haven't redacted the **** goons requirement, you guys haven't apologized for trying to slip the **** goons requirement past us, and I strongly doubt you guys would have accepted any voting suggestion which didn't try to **** goons.

Where's the middleground, when the **** goons requirement is still there?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#735 - 2012-09-10 07:30:43 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded.

So this is all Trebor's fault, yet the CSM are all defending it (well, except Hans, he bravely ran away, away when the going got tough (well ok, before then, even)). Good thing he kept saying "The CSM" and "we", and that you guys seem to be very much on the same page about the **** goons requirement.

But okay, sure, it's all Trebor's fault.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started.

I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up).

And yet you don't seem to be willing or able to even consider removing the **** goons requirement which "The CSM" are all in agreement on.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#736 - 2012-09-10 07:32:31 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.

:mydirectorate: :swoon:

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#737 - 2012-09-10 07:33:21 UTC
So because the voters vote for the wrong people you want to put a system in place to get others elected.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#738 - 2012-09-10 07:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.


In preferential voting systems, people end up voting 1 for their chosen candidate, then numbering the rest in order of least-hated-first. With first-past-the-post voting there are no complications with an outlier surprisingly coming first because they managed to be third-least-hated by a large group of people (e.g: voting for the racist lunatic candidate as 4 because you wat to put the two major party candidates last at 5 and 6)

Transferable voting systems end up causing problems, and they still do not solve the problem of a candidate getting disqualified or dying. This requires some work in the white paper (the constitution of the council), not a rejigged voting system. Transferable votes don't solve the problem of some people's votes “not counting”: we end up with an ordered list from which to choose14 selectees one way or the other.

The main purpose of transferable voting systems is to allow political parties to do deals on preference trading. We do not need to introduce this level of meta gaming into the CSM. Getting more people involved in the elections will have more impact than inventing the perfect most awesome voting mechanism. One account, one vote, one chance. We are not playing for sheep farms.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world, an experiment which has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CSM has yet to show that the system is, indeed, broken.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#739 - 2012-09-10 07:40:49 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CSM has yet to show that the system is, indeed, broken.


Exactly, and given their first suggestion involved attempting to screw over a specific group of players (and failing miserably), it begs the question of whether or not they can even be trusted to attempt to fix this kind of problem, should it ever occur.
Hykke
Free Imperial Vikings
#740 - 2012-09-10 07:44:18 UTC

There are some problems, lets say the number of CSM slots is just 1, making n=1 then you would need 1/1 of the votes to be elected. I think it's better if n=number of CSM slots PLUS 1, so you would need a total of 1/2 of the votes to get the last seat, and not 1/1 of the votes.

But I find the system still a bit weird:
to make an example, consider 4 players competing for the last seat on the CSM

Candidates A sends votes to C if not elected.
B, C and D sends their votes to A if they are not elected

Lets say the votes are:

A: 40 votes
B: 500 votes
C: 560 votes
D: 900 votes

And the winner is?
Well 2000 votes and 2000/2 = 1000, so none of them get the seat immediately
Now A is eliminated, as holding the least number of votes
His votes go to C, that now has 600 votes
At second elimination, B is eliminated, sending 500 votes to A erm but A has already been eliminated

At this point one of two things can happen

1: The votes are sent to C, because that's where A wanted lost votes to go
2: The votes are truly lost

Consider 1: 500 votes go to C, and C now has enough votes to be elected
Consider 2: With 500 votes lost, 1/n of the remaining votes drop to 750 votes, and D is elected

What would have happened of A had instead chosen B as the recipient of lost votes?
Well A and B would still be eliminated in the first two rounds, and their votes have nowhere to go, since none of them has pointed to a "surviving" candidate to receive votes. At this point the votes would have to be removed, and D would be the winner.

Even so I actually like this system ... not for the reasons given by the CSM but because it means candidates of the CSM will have to do a campaign to get as many referrals as possible from other candidates. In fact I think candidates should be FORCED to not decide their referral before the first week of campaigning is done, giving the other candidates time to win them over.
The good thing is that the other candidates will have time to consider which of the other candidates would best represent their views ... we might even get a genuine high sec dweller on the CSM