These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#141 - 2012-09-08 17:05:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?


I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


Because he's an unperson.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#142 - 2012-09-08 17:06:05 UTC
Aryth wrote:
You mean how it seems like half the CSM minutes are related to the election/Mittens in some form? That meeting took place months ago. So clearly this has been being kicked around for months.


It seems that way, but they aren't. A lot of that stems from the fact that the first session was documented using the transcript format we later decided was cumbersome, and tossed out. This left a lot of the players with the misunderstanding that the CSM cares more about its own internal bureaucratic structure than about the actual issues existing in the game.

Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#143 - 2012-09-08 17:06:31 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?


I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


now let's not throw Trebor under a bus because this thread backfired!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#144 - 2012-09-08 17:08:27 UTC
The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.

As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:

2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities.
3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.

How about this for an alternate proposal:

Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2012-09-08 17:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Yeep
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.


Unless you have a vote on electoral reform all you really know is a couple of people want electoral reform really loudly.

Two step wrote:

Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.


Again I'll say, if you don't have the resources to do electoral reform properly, don't do it at all.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#146 - 2012-09-08 17:08:53 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?


I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


Because he's an unperson.


An excellent point. I wish I could confirm Trebor's humanity, but I can't. Twisted

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2012-09-08 17:10:04 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


"Trebor's proposal" is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion:

Quote:
Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.


Could we get some clarity on if Trebor was wrong to imply this was CSM backed or if the rest of the CSM actually supports it? Given the clear wording of his post, your statements that "this is just Trebor's proposal!" means one of you is being deceptive.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-09-08 17:10:28 UTC
Two step wrote:
The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.

As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:

2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities.
3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.

How about this for an alternate proposal:

Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.


i have a solution for increasing voter turnout:

encourage people to vote

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#149 - 2012-09-08 17:10:53 UTC
arghy as a csm chair would be cool because he'd be the only csm member ever detained for running up and down an airplane aisle naked
RDevz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#150 - 2012-09-08 17:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RDevz
Yeep wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.


Unless you have a vote on electoral reform all you really know is a couple of people want electoral reform really loudly.


What kind of vote should we have on electoral reform? First past the post? Single transferrable vote? Alternative vote? Condorcet cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping? :ohdear:

~

digi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#151 - 2012-09-08 17:11:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?


I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


You don't see it as taking flak because you don't really care about your voters.

There's no point in attacking Trebor as a person because one only attacks when they don't have an argument. That isn't the case since none of you can do any of the things that you promised to do.

Read that again. You have not delivered. You are the do-nothing CSM. You've contributed nothing of note and you have failed in representing us. You and your fellow CSM representatives are failures.

This isn't classified as an attack because it's truth. This thread is proof that you are the do-nothing CSM. A waste of our faith and our time.

Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-09-08 17:12:34 UTC
While we're at it lets make MInmatar only get 3/5ths of a vote.

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

Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#153 - 2012-09-08 17:15:22 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
While we're at it lets make MInmatar only get 3/5ths of a vote.


Damn, son.
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2012-09-08 17:24:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Remnant Madeveda
You know, something to consider, Look at this post, look at who has posted, and look at the likes, from those derive who actually cares about the CSM and voting. Wow, looks like we've just accomplished a huge goal for voting reform, we know who votes, who gives a ****, and who doesn't know their Back side from a hole in the ground.

Now that we've covered that, we can move on to more important things. How are those POS changes coming? How about the rebalance of Null/Low/High? Have we made any ground on attending to the concerns of the WH space? Have we improved the new player experience? Is there any chance of not punishing players for past misdeeds because they told you about an issue, then when you ignored it, they gamed the system, and proved you incorrect? Finally as a last question, what is the next serious goal for the CSM?
Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#155 - 2012-09-08 17:27:56 UTC
Remnant Madeveda wrote:
what is the next serious goal for the CSM?



We need to have a serious discussion about the in game font.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2012-09-08 17:31:50 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change?

Quote:
. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

Quote:
. . . 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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#157 - 2012-09-08 17:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Two step wrote:
The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.
…but again, that's pretty much unavoidable.

The thing is, almost all standard voting systems are meant to elect one candidate, and pretty much all the mechanisms in elections these days revolve around turning that single vote into a ranking (usually by counting who got the one vote the most) or some kind of proportional distribution. The reason STV is so handy is because it is in and of itself a ranking system that is also a single vote (for that proportion-counting part), so you get the bit you wanted in the end for free…

…except that ranking is inherently more complicated than voting for one thing. The CSM is a ranked body; the difficulties of ranking are thus inherent and inescapable so the only question is how flawed you want it to be. Anyway, the standard way of simplifying STV is to reduce the number of ranking slots. Once you get down to two or three, it's not particularly difficult at all on either end of the process. Likewise, there are simplifications that can be done in the counting process — whether or not to do a full recount between rounds or not — that reduce the work load on that end.

Picking three slots isn't much more effort than picking one, and the proposed system still requires you to understand both the candidate you're voting for and the candidate s/he is “voting” for with the transfer, so the one thing that really keeps people from voting — reading up on the candidates — is still there. Those who are interested in voting to begin with will not be all that deterred if they have to pick their top three rather than just their top one (and the entire point — that you vote is much less likely to be wasted — is still there and is still a strong argument to pull new voters in).
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2012-09-08 17:39:42 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?
Because nowhere near 100% of the playerbase votes? Instead of rigging the vote to disenfranchise Goon votes, why not figure out how to get more players to participate in the voting process? That will lessen the impact of the Goon bloc.

The Goon bloc is so powerful because such a small percentage of the overall playerbase votes.

Work at getting players to the polls, don't work at rigging the voting rules.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#159 - 2012-09-08 17:39:49 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change?

Quote:
. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

Quote:
. . . 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.


I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#160 - 2012-09-08 17:43:16 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?



Come on son.