EVE Information Portal

Random votes would make it easier to spot the peaks caused by choice, which in turn would be higher than without compulsory vote.

If, as a result of implementing the STV system, organized blocs will be rendered less effective at influencing an election's outcome, a more-diverse, more-representative CSM may be elected. OK. I'm assuming CCP has "run the numbers" and this is going down in whichever way produces whatever is the desired outcome. (All the details of which we have no idea.)

I guess I don't understand why null players aren't more vocal over this. I'm still missing something. Instead of having a null delegation composed of individuals from many large groups, lots of voices and perspectives, won't the STV system favor an outcome whereby the null delegation is composed of multiple winners from only the largest groups?

It just seems as if a less diverse null delegation is the price being paid to ensure a more diverse CSM overall.

YK



This sentiment I endorse. It's difficult for me at times to use the words, highseccer, nullseccer, carebear, pvp'er, etc. to define players in a static sense. Most of our games are more dynamic than these words imply. In fact, all of these words apply to a great many players both across their inventory of characters and across the EVE lifetimes of each.

When I look at my own game as a whole, yes I do tend to do some activities more than others, for now, but that's as much about where I am in my character's timeline than anything else. And my goals change all the time. Nullsec players have high sec alts. High sec players have null sec goals. Everyone starts out as a high sec player. A lot of pvp'ers have industry alts or trade alts. Some indy guys have pvp toons for that weekend change of pace. On and on...

We use a character's current status and recent history to label them for our purposes (like the election) but what metric could you possibly use to label the players themelves?

I've really got to invest more time in visiting the other areas of the forums. I spend most of my limited forum time reading through GD (for its activity) and CCPs Information Portal (for the gospel.) I just recently added Features and Ideas to the list when the BC changes were brought to my attention (on EVE Radio.) Now I need to read Jita Park too? Geezus. Most of these areas used to be dead. lol Thanks for the heads up Snow. I'll make my way there to see what I've been missing.

YK

EDIT: O.M.G.

Honestly, you didn't miss much in those threads. The first thread was largely rebelling against an awful system proposed by CSM 7 member Trebor, and the second one was started by CCP Xhagen to presumably elicit feedback. The latter was the only one with value, and even though it seemed early on like Xhagen was actually open and receptive to considering other ideas (the primary one being that low voter turnout is the issue, not the FPTP voting system), he abruptly stopped responding to the thread. The next we heard out of CCP officially was this thread (though the Winter Summit minutes had Xhagen basically saying the system was going to be changed regardless).

That's sort of Jita Park in a nutshell.

Who are the high sec miners going to vote for? Not a null sec person. They will vote for some high sec candidate. Due to lack of organization, none of these candidates will get a quota of votes. (The quota = 1 + Votes / (seats +1 ). so if we get 30,000 votes, the quota for 14 seats is 2001. In other words: you get 2001 votes, you are in). What happens next?

With STP the high sec candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his votes are transferred. To who? Well as they are high sec voters, the other high sec candidates that the voters chose as their alternate choices. This continues until one or more high sec candidate gets 2001 votes. The only way no high sec candidate gets in is if there are fewer than 2001 high sec voters out of that total of 30,000.

Anyway, that's how its supposed to work to keep groups from becoming unrepresented, and large single blocks from dominating.

Which of course neglects the fact that those same large blocs will have their vote split just as efficiently (and honestly better as they'll have preference lists figured out before the election), whereas under the old system vote splitting was theoretically possible but essentially a gamble.

It also neglects that the "CSM itself votes for chair" and "2+5 go to Iceland" changes encourages having as many friendly voices on the council as possible, whereas the old system didn't really have any benefits for more than one member of a bloc (and if they were going for chair, it was actually better to put all of your votes into one candidate instead of several).

Except compulsory sufferage unless they don't log in during the week of the vote.

Too bad ( I'm surprised a requirement to agree to the EULA is possible yet this isn't ) It'd make elections much more interesting( AND VERY MUCH INFORMATIVE FOR CCP'S MARKETING DEPT ). Expect the entrenched voting blocs to howel bloody murder if it is imposed on CSM9 then with the most ridiculas arguements that only Rush Limbaugh or Jim Crow could agree with.

Compulsory suffrage shouldn't mean that I have to vote for some one. Voters should be allowed to vote for no one. Then if CCP wanted, for further analysis, they could break up the non-votes into sub categories.

- I vote for no one because I don't care.

- I vote for no one because I am uninformed about the candidates.

- I vote for no one because I don't approve of any of the candidates.

etc.

Happens all the time in Australian politics. You vote for the guy you would like to get hit by a car or the guy to would like to see thrown out of a plane.

But in saying that a lot of people still vote along party lines just like in the USA where it is not compulsory.