Jita Park Speakers Corner

Yeah, I don't think it will be squared either really.

Seems like the upcoming election, will just have the same old problems as it did last year. Be a surprise how it goes.

I did like how the CSM ended up this time, but perhaps next time we won't be so lucky, and doesn't seem like there is anything we can do to increase the luck.

Here you go:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

Enjoy.

^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.

And if you change the process to be determined by CSM internal voting, it means more council members = better (as opposed to now where that's not really true), which means not only will all of those positions still belong to voting blocs, they'd also hold a monopoly on CSM seats in the process and pushed out good but less popular candidates like Hans or Alekseyev in the process.

Besides, saying all of the other positions would be bloc positions is being a bit dishonest - Two Step was far and away the #2 candidate this year (he also had IIRC the 3rd highest vote total of any CSM candidate ever), and would have been the Chairman this year had CCP stuck to the letter of the current white paper in the wake of the Fanfest nonsense (not that I blame them for straying from it - it was an odd situation all around).

Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more

Look at it this way under the current system any block, be it Goonswarm, TEST or The Gay and Lesbian Rifter Owners Association, just need to have one person and make that one the top person voted. Now this while ok means it takes a lot less effort.

To have the CSM vote on the Chairman, secretary ect.. means that to have any of these positions in the bag as it were requires 8 CSM members willing to vote for the same person.

So look at it this way currently to guarantee a chairmanship for instance requires 10,000 votes, for the absolute win. If the CSM vote it requires 8 guaranteed CSM members so 5,000 votes each or a total of 40,000 votes.

As I said CSM members voting positions is good, CSM or CCP deciding who goes to Iceland is bad.

Lets be blunt, I could not care less if Goonswarm won all 14 seats with a massive 300,000 votes.

It is not the result that matters but the 300,000 votes, it will mean that the CSM is talking for the majority of EvE. CCP and the CSM should not be worrying about new voting systems or anything like that, just voter participation and education.

Thanks, I missed that thread.

Though having reached page 10 thus far, it seems to mainly be a lot of aggro from people who don't fundamentally grok the difference between electing an advisory council and a legislature. As I see it, the CSM voting system wants get representatives of as many voters as possible while limiting the number of seats.

As a purely hypothetical example, consider if E-UNI* could muster 6000 votes. We figure that 2.5k is enough to be elected, and have a choice between either all voting for our preferred candidate (Poetic), or splitting off half the votes to their second candidate (Hans). In one case, we get one seat (Poetic), who represents 6000 votes. In the other, we get two seats representing a total of 6000 votes. Which is mostly the same, except that there's another 2000 votes out there who now won't get a seat or a direct voice (such as Rixx Javix's Carebear Coalition).

In order to maximise the number of voters represented, it is to CCP's advantage to aggregate more voters behind each successful candidate, and that means "over-voting" is good.


Now, one could argue that different candidates from a bloc bring more to the table as individuals. That's indeed true. But you're also implicitly arguing that having (say) 3 PL members gives a better, broader representation than having one from PL, one from Rote Kapelle, and one representing a hi-sec industry consortium. That's a much higher bar, and far less obviously true.

Now, it's obviously still possible to game the system given a sufficiently large base, but the threshold is increased somewhat.


* Example only. Names chosen primarily for humour value.


PS: At the philosophical level, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way on per-voter or per-candidate preference distribution. At the personal level, I'd much rather distribute my own preferences.

If a bloc wants to gamble and try to put 8 members on the council so be it. Bloc voting with one rep or a lot is exactly that voting and if enough of EvE actually votes then what these blocs try will be largely imaterial.

I went for 5000 votes as I said that would assure you of your 8 seats as you have to think a few candidates with a higher level of voting will probably get more than 5000, so 5000 is a safe number. As I said you want to assure the win not get through by a hair.

Yes I don't like the Null sec lobby group, its existence is not due to the big bad boogy man but the effect caused by not enough people voting.

Voting will now be easier so it will be easier to convince people to do it, so with luck the Null Sec Lobby will be a thing of the past.

My problem with calling the CSM the players elected council is that it wasn't, it was just a group of minorities getting together, hopefully that can change now.

If they don't introduce some stupid voting system that will make people run away from it.

Why would I care really if the CFC or HBC want to dominate the CSM, if enough people are voting well there will slowly be other power blocks forming, to challenge the CFC/HBC, not to mention just the power of the average joe voter.

The CSMs ability to chose a chairman restricts the appeal to just smash home one candidate and will hopefully make the chair more than just a vanity item.

Before this discussion bogs down about epeens I would like to bring up the following


Now while this method does have its advantages, I can see a bigger disadvantage...Knowledge. While voters in this game are in a minority is it wise to make those that vote having to know multiple candidates rather than just a top pick as it were. I mean in a lot of countries people will just vote blindly for the democrat, republican, labor, liberal, conservative party and think no more. We do not yet have parties in EvE so the average voter already has to think more.

I believe that having to have people chose more than one person or for that matter just giving them that additional choice will scare off voters.


On to this part

This would be unbelievable awesome, especially if it was linked to show character info within the game. If you could go around drumming up votes by having the candidates name linked in local or alliance chat and on clicking it, you are given an extra 2 buttons for CSM candidates besides "Add Contact", that would be great a "Candidate Profile" showing what the member is campaigning on and a "Vote Now" button to allow you to vote, this would send the number of votes screaming through the roof.

More votes means a more representative council. As I have said before, give us the tools and we will use them.

You should probably read into the 30's.

Well, I mean the Chairman is suppose to be the one who obtains the most votes. So he is I suppose in a theory be special or have more then the others had.

Of course most or all of those votes could just come from one group of people, and instead of looking cool for having lots of different votes. (Mittens wanted to get more votes then just the goons. He wanted the most votes, as well as diverse votes for him)

Of course if his most votes are cheap and nothing special, then I think he would be the way you see him, just a normal person who has good people speaking skills.

I suppose I am still new to the game, but the chairman always seemed impressive. And a corrupt Chairman would probably be hard to deal with. I.E. both chairmen I knew, owned titans, which would be very very hard for my retriever to take down.