These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections – Schedule and Election Process

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#121 - 2013-02-21 22:51:16 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

For Christ's sake, we're talking about a silly election in a silly videogame were 86% the potential voters didn't bothered to vote not even before the election system became some manic mathematician's toy!

How in the name of the Lord, are you expecting anyone to understand what they're voting when the "simple" explanation holds not less than TWO threshold calculation methods and EIGHT methods for allocating surpluses (and remember, we're talking about votes here, not merchandise).

CCP Xhagen is totally putting the cart before the horse, adressing election system rather than voter involvement. He can pretty much save all efforts and just ask the blocs who they want to have in the CSM, as nobody else is going to invest not even one tenth of the effort I invested so far trying to understand WTF are they going to do to my vote.


QFT. This echoes my opinions on this.

Apart from an abstain option, can we also have in the voting page an 'I don't understand this frigging voting thing' option? Should be interesting to see it in the results.

:sand:  over  :awesome:
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#122 - 2013-02-21 22:52:20 UTC
Why are we still operating on the premise that CCP was out to make a CSM that better represents the playerbase? I mean...

Quote:

- Problem two: representation on the CSM. CCP Veritas pointed out the error in my thinking, what I want is not actually fair representation of ALL EVE players, but of THOSE WHO VOTE (it follows from there that the more people that vote, the better representation we get). The current voting system is sufficient, but there are many vastly better systems out there.

Emphasis mine.

Or the premise that CCP is out to quash organized bloc voting.

Quote:
- Problem three: bloc voting. Not a problem in my eyes. If large numbers of people organize themselves, they will get better results than those who do not.


It's a mystery, man.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942633#post1942633

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-02-21 22:58:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
This basically sums up my questions. Should I just vote for me and get 14x the benefit of spreading my vote, or should I vote for 14 people and hope they reciprocate?
You do not understand STV.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#124 - 2013-02-21 22:58:56 UTC
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2013-02-21 23:01:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/csm-election-process-ramblings.html

So, CCP Xhagen (via CCP Dolan; it's nice to see Dolan earning his keep) has posted the CSM election devblog and the improved CSM White Paper.

***

I was wrong. I think. Sort of. They aren't going with a Condorcet voting system, such as Schulze. They're going with an STV (single transferable vote) system (though the exact STV system is not mentioned.) I suppose they could go with a Schulze STV system, a sort of combination of the two.

Xhagen does state: "The exact method used for calculating this vote distribution will be announced and released to the public for review before the start of the election." Which I'm thinking must be a joke or a troll. How long before the election? I'm assuming the system will already be coded, and tested with sample data, before the announcement, so what sort of review will it be? It's not like it is going to be changed if there's an uproar, or that there'll be time to change it.

I'm thinking they want to give people as little time as possible to consider how to game the system by announcing the exact system as late into the process as possible. And then calling it a review process.

***

There was talk on Twitter about there being a minimum of 28 candidates on the ballot. And to get on the ballot you'd need ~200 accounts supporting your campaign. I say ~200, because to get on the ballot for sure requires 200 supporting accounts, but if the minimum 28 candidates is not reached, then they'll start going down the list of candidates in order of those with the most support that is less than 200 accounts.

I started looking for this in the White Paper, but could not find it. Which was confusing the hell out of me, until somebody pointed out to me that all of these "rules" were in the devblog. I'd kinda skipped the devblog and went straight to the White Paper.

Maybe I'm missing the point of a White Paper, but aren't the election rules supposed to be codified into the official CSM document?

***

Yesterday, in my SCHULZE! piece, I wrote a few throwaway paragraphs at the end of the article, detailing how I might vote, were the vote to happen today. I eventually removed it from the post, mainly because the commentary was focusing on the list, and it was ultimately detracting from the more important points in the rest of the post.

So, I had Ripard Teg, James 315 and Roc Wieler at the top of my ranked list. Which apparently confused the hell out of some people, and upset others. All three of those people are very different candidates, who all share very different views of the game. So how in hell could I rank all of those people so highly? People figured I should rank candidates with similar world views together.

The thing is, the CSM is not a political posting. CCP gets the most value out of the CSM by gathering a broad variety of opinions from the representatives. James 315 brings a certain set of values and opinions to the table, and I think it would be remiss not to have someone reminding CCP that a lot of people don't want their game increasingly carebeared. Ripard Teg brings a more balanced viewpoint on that issue, although he too does not want to see more consensual PvP enter the system. Roc Wieler is sort of an open book, and he'll soak up a lot of different viewpoints from the players and bring them to CCP's attention.

The CSM isn't about directing EVE development. Their job is to give feedback on development. The more varied the voices, the more information CCP ultimately has to work with. The more varied the voices, hopefully that results in better design.

My opinion, at any rate. I see it as an imperative to get many viewpoints onto the council. If people want fourteen Mynnna's on the CSM, then we really don't need to have anyone but Mynnna on the council.

If you're only ranking candidates with similar voices and opinions, then you don't really understand the role of the CSM at all. I'd tell you that you should feel terrible about yourselves, but I don't want anybody to feel terrible about themselves. Rather, reconsider how you're going to vote.

***

I am pleased with the new devblog, though. An important criteria that I wanted has been met. Reducing the number of candidates on the ballot. This will go far to improving the election, and making the process more manageable for voters.

***

The most important criteria for this election is still not being met. Any move towards improving the visibility of the election. There's been no mention of codifying the process into the client, which would go a long way to making more people aware of the CSM.

More work has to be done to create increased player awareness of the process, as well as further education of the process. I don't see CCP moving at all in this direction.

***

Interesting preamble in the White Paper. Six and a half pages of preamble. The election process discussion doesn't begin until the seventh page. If the goal was to bore people with the process, mission accomplished. I skimmed and skimmed until I got to the juicy information. I don't need background in Kant, Rousseau and Hobbes to understand the CSM election process.

Though I suppose the lengthy preamble gives the CSM election that air of serious business that every internet spaceships game must have.
None ofthe Above
#126 - 2013-02-21 23:06:42 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Why are we still operating on the premise that CCP was out to make a CSM that better represents the playerbase? I mean...

Quote:

- Problem two: representation on the CSM. CCP Veritas pointed out the error in my thinking, what I want is not actually fair representation of ALL EVE players, but of THOSE WHO VOTE (it follows from there that the more people that vote, the better representation we get). The current voting system is sufficient, but there are many vastly better systems out there.

Emphasis mine.

Or the premise that CCP is out to quash organized bloc voting.

Quote:
- Problem three: bloc voting. Not a problem in my eyes. If large numbers of people organize themselves, they will get better results than those who do not.


It's a mystery, man.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942633#post1942633


Well it is a bit of a mystery in that we've not really seen a comment on why the voting system has been changed. Feel free to provide a reference to something if it's out there and I've missed it. Plenty of discussion of why people suggested STV, but haven't noticed anything definitive on why CCP opted for it.

Personally, I didn't have much of a problem with block voting either. I do have some concerns that this system, if poorly implemented, may improperly magnify the effects. "Hilariously automatically perfectly coordinated bloc voting" to paraphrase Malcanis.

I'd rather see focus on increasing voter awareness and participation. But if they are going to do this I hope they don't mess it up.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#127 - 2013-02-21 23:16:11 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.


That is an interesting observation. I was noting that the bloc-voting "CSM-stuffing" may happen whether planned or not.

You bring up the point that this actually largely eliminates the need for coordination, since it happens as part of the system. That undermines a coordinated group to an extent. Shear numbers mean more than coordination in a perfect overvote transfer variant. (At election time anyway, a better coordinated group would be more likely to field more viable candidates one would think.)

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#128 - 2013-02-21 23:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.


10,000 votes out of 30,000 matter a lot more than 10,000 votes out of 60,000. By turning the election system into a sophisticate and complex mathematical trick, CCP is effectively rewarding everyone who can take it seriously enough and haves the manpower to rig the election, but all in all are failing to engage with the players who won't even understand the voting system.

I may be wrong, but i am under the impression that the role of the CSM is to communicate the consumers with the producers so the producers can keep the consumers satisfied and retain them.

Under that premise, the election system should be as simple and straightforward as possible, and should valor quantity of voters above the quality of voters. Getting a lot of voters should be the priority, rather than reward the chosen ones who as much as understand what's going on with their votes -or are plain instructed what to do with them.
None ofthe Above
#129 - 2013-02-21 23:34:11 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.


10,000 votes out of 30,000 matter a lot more than 10,000 votes out of 60,000. By turning the election system into a sophisticate and complex mathematical trick, CCP is effectively rewarding everyone who can take it seriously enough and haves the manpower to rig the election, but all in all are failing to engage with the players who won't even understand the voting system.

I may be wrong, but i am under the impression that the role of the CSM is to communicate the consumers with the producers so the producers can keep the consumers satisfied and retain them.

Under that premise, the election system should be as simple and straightforward as possible, and should valor quantity of voters above the quality of voters. Getting a lot of voters should be the priority, rather than reward the chosen ones who as much as understand what's going on with their votes -or are plain instructed what to do with them.


I don't think its going to be that hard to present intuitively:

---

28+ Candidates, 14 seats.

Pick up to 14 and indicate your order of preference.

Don't worry that picking more than one candidate takes away from your higher preference, we don't count that against them.

If you'd like to know more of the details click on this link to the math. -> *MATHS*

---

Pretty much done.

99% of the voters will likely need nothing more. A few details on how they implement the web interface for the ranking left, but otherwise I've done their job for them.

It is just us CSM wonks and Drama Llamas that really care about the details. I'm not that concerned that this will scare off your average voter.



The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#130 - 2013-02-21 23:54:02 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.


Yeah, I agree, the goons and people have enough numbers they would always be guaranteed seats. But there are 14 seats which is nice. Also it seems the goons and such, like the simple majority voting type style, while other EVE players like the more subtle know a candidate and weigh them, and this new system offers both ways of voting. Be kind of fun voting in it.

The other layer of protection is the 5+2 system as well. If the goons and HBC do spam, they risk candidates not being sent to iceland over not knowing the game well. But they could be hard working and get a chance to go. So more fun and drama there. Also will help manage the over exploitation of the voting system by holding people accountable. As well as the minutes being published and released could make some candidates and organizations cautious.

Now a funner way to rig this election, is using the 5+2 system with trying to get CCP to change the theme of the game, so your candidate will immediately get a chance for the free trip to Iceland.

And my attempt to do that, is try to get CCP to change the theme from WAR to MADNESS and then WAR after MADNESS. That way Montolio will feel like running, and with a theme like that, he would have an automatic trip to iceland free of charge.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#131 - 2013-02-21 23:54:48 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power.


Of course there's nothing stopping them filling the CSM with their own candidates just to prove the point that this system is terribly easy to game, a pain in the arse to administer, more than double the effort for the voter, and doesn't prevent 24% of votes being wasted.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2013-02-22 00:11:02 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.


Except for one small issue. The previous system encouraged a block to run one candidate with max votes to secure the chair. That is no longer the case for us. Hence, our voting will not be the same as it was before.

We fully understand you do not need more than one REALLY good rep. That isn't at issue here. We have shown that we did not seek to stack the CSM previously. However, the new system means you HAVE to stack the CSM if you want the same outcome.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#133 - 2013-02-22 00:16:23 UTC
Aryth wrote:
We fully understand you do not need more than one REALLY good rep. That isn't at issue here. We have shown that we did not seek to stack the CSM previously. However, the new system means you HAVE to stack the CSM if you want the same outcome.


If you were going to be happy with a controlling vote (i.e.: 2 or 3 seats, meaning you get to dictate who goes to Iceland and who doesn't), would you follow any other policy than "Vote 1 for A, 2 for B, 3 for C"?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#134 - 2013-02-22 00:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as CSM "stuffing" this system doesn't really give the CFC/HBC type blocs more advantage than they previously did. Those groups have well developed exit polling techniques that were near-perfectly managing their voting power. What this does is level the playing field so all blocs, including less homogeneous blocs (such as "WH space" which comprise several coalitions and candidates, without the CFC information infrastructure), can do the same thing.

As CSM6 illustrated with the dec system in Inferno (and the deexploiting of abuses in the pre inferno system), stacking the CSM with tons of one playstyle at the expense of other areas of expertise produces suboptimal results. I think Goonswarm (or at least their political leadership) understands that 2 extremely competent and communications savvy CSM delegates will do just as much if not more than those 2 plus 2 silent partners who dont bring anything else to the table, especially if those 2 placeholders come at the expense of candidates from other constituencies who would be more useful for their agenda.



Apart from the fact that you (as in the current CSM) convinced CCP to select all but two of the CSM members to attend summits rather then simply being the top 7, so unless you can guarantee you get the top 2 seats having people elected who will just parrot the same message is in your favour.

Likewise there is literally no downside to fielding 14 candidates. Even trying to get 2 candidates elected under a FPTP system is risky, but as you said they have decent methods of controlling voters, however splitting a vote 2 ways is a LOT easier then splitting the vote more then that (especially if you want the top 2 positions to guarantee you will be at every summit).

There is literally no incentive for the two major coalitions to field less then 14 candidates due to the system you guys have lobbied for and they will easily elect 3/4 people each if they wish. Let's assume they manage to elect 8 people each, that means that each time CCP gets to pick their five they have a choice of "Bloc coalition player" and then AT MOST 6 different play styles.

This is also assuming that the 6 people are any good, if the idea is only to invite the active players then history shows players are pretty hit and miss, if we are generous and say half the CSM is active and useful at the moment, then you narrow the figures even further, you get down to 4 CFC/HBC players to pick from and 3 non-CFC/HBC players to pick from, well you don't get to pick as there is your 7 right there.

Seriously there are quite a few things CSM 7 have done that are pretty good, however this is a massive mistake, if this system works and doesn't end up with masses of CFC/HBC candidates stuffing the system then it's because they choose not to, not because the system works.

Note: I am a member of both coalitions, so it's not even like I lose out if that happens vOv

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2013-02-22 00:36:46 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Aryth wrote:
We fully understand you do not need more than one REALLY good rep. That isn't at issue here. We have shown that we did not seek to stack the CSM previously. However, the new system means you HAVE to stack the CSM if you want the same outcome.


If you were going to be happy with a controlling vote (i.e.: 2 or 3 seats, meaning you get to dictate who goes to Iceland and who doesn't), would you follow any other policy than "Vote 1 for A, 2 for B, 3 for C"?


Not sure what you mean. With this system you need as many votes for your chosen playstyle to pick a chair that is compatible with your playstyle. That means regardless of qualifications, you just stack it.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Styth spiting
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2013-02-22 00:38:29 UTC
Any plans on how you will be handling players abilities to make throw away 21 day accounts to cast additional posts or players abusing the buddy system? It wouldn't be very difficult for large groups of players who want specific candidates to win to manipulate the voting counts this way.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#137 - 2013-02-22 00:38:54 UTC
Wow CCP. I've been so impressed by Retribution, and then you do...this. It's utterly terrible.

STV is going to enable a handful of voting blocs to completely dominate the elections. No longer will we have 10,000 votes to one person. Now you're giving the most powerful entities in the game the ability to automatically optimize their votes to gain the most favorable results.

I don't think Karl Rove could come up with a more favorable system.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#138 - 2013-02-22 00:40:50 UTC
Styth spiting wrote:
Any plans on how you will be handling players abilities to make throw away 21 day accounts to cast additional posts or players abusing the buddy system? It wouldn't be very difficult for large groups of players who want specific candidates to win to manipulate the voting counts this way.


Y'know, I know that the white paper is filled with fluff, but...read much?

Quote:
Any active EVE Online account that is at least a full thirty (30) days in age is eligible to vote.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#139 - 2013-02-22 00:55:40 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well done CCP for handing control of the CSM to the CFC and the HBC.

Don't say you weren't warned long ago.

Since I will directly benefit this time around I'm not even going to make too much of a fuss about it right now, but the outcome of this change is so obvious that I can't believe it isn't intended. That alone gives me much amusement.


Seriously this. If you think this is going to get you a more varied CSM, I don't know what to say. I do not see this election ending well on that front. Election system monkeying alone is not going to do it for you, so I hope whatever your plans are for reaching out and getting more voter participation are good.

I do have an honest question, though. The blog mentions that the top twenty eight candidates from the pre-election process get up for election, and what happens if there are fewer than twenty eight. But what happens if there are more - straight top vote getters are in, I assume?


When someone calls "CFC and HBC own the CSM now" and the CFC candidate says "Yep" you should expect that this is truth.

All you have to do is count the votes from last year.

Mynnna should get far more than enough votes to get the top spot. After that, Mynnna's overvotes will all roll downhill, ensuring that several other sov null candidates are elected. HBC is even bigger than CFC, if perhaps less disciplined. So the two biggest blocs of coordinated voters will all be voting for the sov null candidates. At an unscientific guess, expect the top 4, if not 6 or more, candidates to be sov null candidates.

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
Tesal
#140 - 2013-02-22 00:56:19 UTC
CCP should be focusing on voter turnout, not the method of voting. Voter turnout is the only real way to send in a diverse group of candidates representing a broad spectrum of the electorate. No matter what system is picked, whoever has the most votes has the advantage. In a low turnout election, you can game the system under these rules and the most partisan candidates win because they have the most effective turnout machines. This process only serves to reinforce the point that voting for the CSM is a waste of time and that they don't represent the player base, they represent highly partisan factions. I'm not going to vote for 14 people. I'm voting for 1. And if my vote "doesn't count" then that's too bad.