These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The voting reform discussion

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-09-11 16:21:52 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

The real trouble with preference ranking (which you need for STV) is the increased complexity of the ballot may discourage turnout. That's hard to measure in a side run test. The advantage to preference ranking systems is lowered tactical voting which leads to a better reflection of the voter's preferences, but the downside is the increased complexity of the ballot compared to "pick one".


I think it's also worth pointing out that if you have the candidates designate the recipients of their transferred votes should they fail, tactical voting turns into 11 dimensional chess. If I vote for A, but A loses, he'll give my vote to B, but I freaking hate B. C, on the other hand, is not too bad, and will give my vote to D, who is tolerable, but if D loses then my vote goes back to B and I just couldn't live with myself if my vote went to B...
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2012-09-11 16:24:07 UTC
The Groundskeeper wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:

So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM?


Hint: a system which views engaged and motivated groups of voters as a problem is not fair nor is it democratic.

If you view the situation where those who care and bother to engage with the process - the nullsec blocs, in general - as a problem then you are doomed to create drama as the people whose votes you attempt to discount are the ones who, by definition, care mst and are most liable to make their opinions known across the gaming space.

I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.

So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.

Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#63 - 2012-09-11 16:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Sal Volatile wrote:
A nice thing about regular polling of some kind leading up to the election is that, in addition to contributing to the drama/excitement and telling the public who's viable and who's not so viable, it is also valuable feedback to the candidates themselves and can facilitate a kind of vote transfer similar to the one that has been discussed, only before the election, through drop-outs and endorsements.

Suppose I'm from lowsec and one of my primary issues has to do with Crimewatch changes to gate guns. I've been campaigning hard and I have built up some very committed supporters. However, the polls keep telling me that my numbers just aren't enough to put me on the CSM. I can choose to admit defeat and lend my support to another candidate who has stated similar views on gate guns. The nice thing about this is that, unlike candidate designated vote transfer, my supporters can choose whether or not to follow my recommendation.

While there were certainly a number of vanity campaigns for CSM7, it may be that if more of the candidates had some actual information about their chances, they might have worked together to get at least one person representing their views through. Then again, I may just be hopelessly optimistic in that regard!

The very organized groups are able to do polls like this. For a small time candidate like me, i wouldn't know where to start or how to reach people beyond those already paying attention to my campaign so I could get a real lay of the land. Instead of CCP-end polling, how about looking into tools that would make poll generation and distribution more accessible to candidates or third parties in general?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#64 - 2012-09-11 16:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

#1 - Platforms.

This basically assumes the CSM is a parliament instead of a sounding board. How able candidates will be to understand what a proposal does in practice matters much more than what their "stance" on things is.


This doesn't assume anything of the sort.

The current system has no expectation of a candidate understanding what a proposal does anymore than the idea presented above. You also presume that people that are on the CSM currently as sounding boards are all useful. I believe Darius III is on there purely to troll the CSM.

The system does the following ::

#1 - It lets CCP pick what they want to hear about (this can be dangerous, but I'm sure CCP would like the opportunity to do this already)

#2 - It lets candidates take a clear stance on what matters to them and not dilute their message or feel they have to compete with people that aren't on their platform.

#3 - It lets Voters pick an opinion that is similar to theirs on the topics that matter to them. Which means that they get to pick which sounding board they want CCP to hear from.

#4 - It lets candidates know why they were voted into an office

#5 - It lets voters know what they should expect from the candidates

#6 - It lets CCP know what they should be listening to from specific people

#7 - It lets CSM know the best way to communicate to people on topics that they have represented

#8 - It reduces voter dilution by limiting votes to topics of relevance

#9 - I can keep going...

The Platform system as laid out needs the guts fleshed out into specifics and any loopholes and obvious game-able elements tweaked out of it, but the foundation is there for CCP and the CSM to manipulate.

Where I am.
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2012-09-11 16:26:14 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
You're a good man CCP Xhagen.

I'm doing my best!! *hugz*!!

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#66 - 2012-09-11 16:27:55 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
A nice thing about regular polling of some kind leading up to the election is that, in addition to contributing to the drama/excitement and telling the public who's viable and who's not so viable, it is also valuable feedback to the candidates themselves and can facilitate a kind of vote transfer similar to the one that has been discussed, only before the election, through drop-outs and endorsements.

Suppose I'm from lowsec and one of my primary issues has to do with Crimewatch changes to gate guns. I've been campaigning hard and I have built up some very committed supporters. However, the polls keep telling me that my numbers just aren't enough to put me on the CSM. I can choose to admit defeat and lend my support to another candidate who has stated similar views on gate guns. The nice thing about this is that, unlike candidate designated vote transfer, my supporters can choose whether or not to follow my recommendation.

While there were certainly a number of vanity campaigns for CSM7, it may be that if more of the candidates had some actual information about their chances, they might have worked together to get at least one person representing their views through. Then again, I may just be hopelessly optimistic in that regard!

Regular polling - I'll note that down and think about it.

It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
The Groundskeeper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-09-11 16:28:47 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
[quote=Frying Doom]

  1. Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.


6. Me and the CSM are working on this.


It is extremely important, if this is done, that CCP keep tight control on it so that it doesn't become a way of entrenching the existing CSM. It could not possibly be done, for instance, during the last two or three months before an election without being viewed as extremely open to abuse.
Frying Doom
#68 - 2012-09-11 16:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Xolve wrote:
I still maintain that the problem isn't with the voting system, but with the visibility that the CSM has among the player base. Increase player awareness and even give out little gimmicky not game breaking rewards for pushing a button.

The idea for pay for splash ads is pretty neat, and should more than likely be a thing- this game already has one of the most creative groups of players in any MMO, why not tap into it- toss up that 'any submitted artwork is property of CCP' clause and get free advertising material.

Absolutely - despite the dramas and the things EVE players create you guys are amazing (no homo).

if you do this please please please please please allow attack ads

Also if I might suggest not just candidates but let any interest group buy splash time.

Then we can get some good scare campaigns going too, Like "Test want to turn your Mackinaws back to tinfoil, So they can watch you Die and collect your tears...Vote Candidate X to stop the tinfoil."

Things like that or even (Vote for a safe Hi-sec Candidate or concerns I have no idea about) ect...

Edit: Oh maybe a month long voting time not really sure as that is a bit of a balance between more votes and boredom.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2012-09-11 16:31:10 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
CCP Xhagen wrote:

It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?

I think current CSM candidates already have too much of a leg up on appealing to underrepresented votes. If you're a highseccer you can consider voting for the guy who sounds bright but has an unproven record of getting in, or the Issler candidate who you don't really have any reason to believe is nearly as good, but might be able to get in. Entrenching that advantage doesn't help in getting the best people from those groups.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#70 - 2012-09-11 16:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
CCP Xhagen wrote:


So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.

Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?


Low voter turnout is the discussion of every democracy on the planet.

Do what Australia does - if you don't vote for the CSM you get charged 50M ISK.

Pirate


I think the major focus of this discussion is how to IMPROVE representation for the people that want to be represented. The current system is too flat for the dynamic landscape of EVE gameplay. The candidates often tout they are representing something, but I don't care to follow exactly what they are caring about. The platforms I described focuses on the candidates communicating to people what they should care about and how they should care about it in an encapsulated manner. This will improve the ability for the average person to relate to what matters to them, and focus less on candidates which are going to constantly either be vilified or politicized because they are standing out from the crowd. Focusing on the topics will let players say the next time they come around to voting, "Well, this dude didn't really do what I wanted, let's try this other guy" because they can see how their votes for their topic have mattered, and lets CSM communicate "Hey, I talked to CCP about my platform, and I made them understand why this matters to the people I'm representing". Etc.

Where I am.
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-09-11 16:33:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Sal Volatile
CCP Xhagen wrote:

Regular polling - I'll note that down and think about it.

It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?


I was thinking it would be during the period between the time that the candidates have cleared whatever hurdles have been set up to limit the field, and the actual votes are cast. I may be misremembering but I thought it was at least a few weeks or a month. It may not be realistic to run more than a couple of informal polls but I think it could be very beneficial.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-09-11 16:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Scatim Helicon wrote:
I believe the voting system itself needs little in the way of major changes, but the election process needs to apply a more rigourous minumum threshold for candidates to weed out the no-hopers and stop the disorganised votes being spread too thinly (ie, not last year's hilariously low '100 likes' system) combined with publicity around election time so nobody has the excuse of not knowing it was election season. The CSM should be focused on demonstrating why they matter to the general populace who want Eve to be the best game it can be, not engaging in irrelevant navel-gazing on their own voting mechanisms, especially when that exercise appears to be ham-fistedly naked politicking of the sort that turns off voters even in real-world democratic processes.

The point has often been made that the CSM is not an Amateur Games Designer body, but by the same token, neither are they an Amateur Political Scientist body. Trebor has demonstrated that all too well. If you want a robust and representative system designed, maybe you should be looking for guidance from people with an actual academic background in political science? Hit one of the universities in Iceland up, I'm sure they'd have plenty to say.


I agree. The problem isn't quite the weight that bloc candidates carry, it's the crapflood of non-bloc candidates who end up absorbing enough votes to keep some good people off the CSM (see Korvin) - forum likes are up to 3 per account and that is ~dumb~

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2012-09-11 16:34:50 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

This doesn't assume anything of the sort.
...
The system does the following ::

Literally everything on that list reinforced my point. If you're electing someone for the CSM you want someone who understands an issue and can understand what a proposed change will do to that issue. How they stand on that issue is completely irrelevant.
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#74 - 2012-09-11 16:35:34 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Xhagen, why are you so afraid of players having to take responsibility for their votes? There's no greater reason to keep the system as it is than with the last election. If people choose to vote for a candidate that gets banned, runs as a troll candidate, is issler, is trebor, is two step, is seleene, etc. then they deserve to have their votes reflect the cognitive retardation of their choice.

On the one hand the players ***** about our representatives being useless shitheels, but guess what, they got voted for. Informed voters produce good representatives. Maybe having some sort of post-CSM summit minutes impeachment process would inspire them to get off their self-congratulatory podiums and do some actual work.

Interesting question you post here.

In fact I think you hit a certain spot there. In the real world I make the same comment to people when they complain about the government, i.e. "you have to take responsibility for what you do, including whom you voted for".
So why do I not ask EVE players the same question? I think it has to do with the fact that you can simply leave EVE if things don't go your way. I'm not saying that I want to desperately hold on to every single customer via very means necessary - but perhaps I don't want to be responsible for the tipping point that makes them leave. This might all sound a bit far-fetched... maybe I just have to HTFU?

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#75 - 2012-09-11 16:36:01 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Ahoy.

The topic of the election system used to choose the CSM has been with it from the beginning. Just to make it clear, the recent discussion was done with my knowledge and approval – for the purpose of discussion. I admit that having the CSM posting the idea was not the best move on my behalf, as it sends the wrong signal about the whole process. I will be the person determining whether a change will go through regarding the CSM or not.

I’ve always been the speaker for talks and discussion that is then followed by a decision. I’ve done my very best to run the CSM with that in mind, you could easily dig up many things from the time when the concept of the CSM was being brought back into use in 2007 and surrounding most of the changes after the first election in 2008.

This is no different. During CSM6 and CSM7 I’ve brought up the topic of the election system with the CSM and now they felt comfortable enough to take it on and discuss possible changes to it. What I do not want is to change the election system just to change it – I want to achieve a fairer representation on the CSM and the STV has often come up as a possible way. However, the answer has usually been ‘large voting blocks can easily game any advanced voting systems’, thus the idea of moving the votes from those who do not get enough, instead of moving the votes that exceed the necessary number to get on. The discussion on the election reform thread clearly paints that as unfair and I fully understand that criticism. Either you move all votes or none is the mandate (if I’m reading the thread correctly) – when put like that is seems obvious…

So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM? A system that does not scare people away because of its complexity or added work for the voter (as voter apathy is a problem), but is still fair and good? Is the current system sufficient? Or should we focus more on matters to reduce the number of candidates on the ballot and not change the election system itself?

I would appreciate your input on this matter.





I think there is one essential problem with the election system and that's voter apathy benefits large organized alliance voting blocs. Looking at transferable votes and complicated AV systems is moving the deckchairs around on the titanic to an extent and the real issue is getting people to vote. You have two options really -

1. Mandatory voting. During the election period the launcher prompts you to a "vote now" screen before you can continue to login. From this link you can view the candidates profiles and links and select one, select (abstain) or (defer choice) as long as you hit defer you'll come back to the screen each time you login until you make a choice (which can obviously include abstain).

or

2. Encourage voting by giving people a prize for voting (like a custom skinned shuttle or mining barge something). It doesn't need to be much but it'll probably increase the number of votes cast by a large multiplier.

Once you have many more people voting in the election and the minimum bar to get elected is 10,000 votes not 1,000 then you'll get a more representative council that isn't so easily dominated by the same tired old big alliance interests.

In my view increasing the number of votes cast from around 10-15% of the electorate is vital to making the system more democratic and representative. You want people elected on common trust in their abilities - not just because they have a couple of thousand alliance mates behind them.


The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2012-09-11 16:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Andski wrote:

I agree. The problem isn't quite the weight that bloc candidates carry, it's the crapflood of non-bloc candidates who end up absorbing enough votes to keep some good people off the CSM (see Korvin) - forum likes are up to 3 per account and that is ~dumb~

forum likes also aren't limited to a specific number of candidates, which is the real problem. Being able to 'like' several candidates is one thing, all of them not so much, so you can push everyone over a specific threshold.

However what you could do is only the top "x" liked threads get in. That's pretty gamable though (everyone: go like our guys, and the most unelectable nobodies or useless bodies that will say nothing if elected but leave off the actual challengers).
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#77 - 2012-09-11 16:37:15 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:

It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?

I think current CSM candidates already have too much of a leg up on appealing to underrepresented votes. If you're a highseccer you can consider voting for the guy who sounds bright but has an unproven record of getting in, or the Issler candidate who you don't really have any reason to believe is nearly as good, but might be able to get in. Entrenching that advantage doesn't help in getting the best people from those groups.


This is true, and it is also why some sort of transferrable vote system is far more important to the disorganized folks than to a group like Goons or TEST. Large groups do things like run internal primaries to narrow down their voting, and this is a huge advantage for you.

People should be able to vote for the best candidates without having to worry about tactical voting choices.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#78 - 2012-09-11 16:37:35 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:

I've also been thinking about the following scenario:
Hold regular elections for CSM8, using current voting mechanics.
Make that dictate the results.
On the side run an experiment on a new voting system and see the results from that using the voting data from CSM8 election.
Investigate and spit-shine and use new voting system for CSM9 if viable.

Just a thought in terms of a possible implementation strategy.

The real trouble with preference ranking (which you need for STV) is the increased complexity of the ballot may discourage turnout. That's hard to measure in a side run test. The advantage to preference ranking systems is lowered tactical voting which leads to a better reflection of the voter's preferences, but the downside is the increased complexity of the ballot compared to "pick one".

My suggestion if you implement preference ranking would be to have a person vote on their first choice. That's registered, and put into the system. They're then given the option to vote for their second, and that's then put into the system. Repeat until you get to the maximum number of candidates you'd like people to be able to rank. The advantage here is if I get bored and wander off after my first place ballot, it's not lost.

After a brief search of multiple-winner voting methods, it seems the only real option is STV. All others would be too complex in practice (i.e. you have to rank too many people on your ballot), feature high levels of tactical voting, or rely on political parties.

Good points. I will definitely keep this in mind.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-09-11 16:38:29 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:

I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.

So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.

Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?


No, because your premise is flawed. How do you quantify what a "fair representation of EVE" is? You might, say, look at populations for representation by scale meaning that highsec gets a lion's share of the population even though they are generally the least engaged group. If you get a situtation like CSM6 where nearly all the reps are from nullsec you have the most highly engaged individuals, but also the least trusted. Does lowsec deserve a candidate even though a fraction of a percentage of the population actually lives there? Does FW constitute lowsec issues or highsec since they don't take sec hits for FW related activites. Are WH candidates even viable?

This last CSM spent an outrageous amount of time talking about how important they think they should be and wasted the collective EVE player's time, motivation and hopes for the future of the institution on what you've described almost flippantly as "naval gazing."

This is a political process and should be reflective of that reality. If highsec wants a candidate, make them get behind one. nullsec already has an advantage because it's forced to organize and until CCP decide to get off their asses and fix seleene's legacy we're stuck with nullsec coalitions and n+1 organizational institutions. Even more reason why the system should be left as is because someone has to light a fire under CCP's ass every year or so lest we head back towards space barbie bullshit again.
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#80 - 2012-09-11 16:38:49 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Xolve wrote:
I still maintain that the problem isn't with the voting system, but with the visibility that the CSM has among the player base. Increase player awareness and even give out little gimmicky not game breaking rewards for pushing a button.

The idea for pay for splash ads is pretty neat, and should more than likely be a thing- this game already has one of the most creative groups of players in any MMO, why not tap into it- toss up that 'any submitted artwork is property of CCP' clause and get free advertising material.

Absolutely - despite the dramas and the things EVE players create you guys are amazing (no homo).

if you do this please please please please please allow attack ads

I would absolutely want to keep things tasteful. Tasteful attacks are obviously possible.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation