Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
#841 - 2012-09-11 08:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour.

It's almost as if you've no idea how much the proposed system could be gamed by us to **** them right back.

Much like CCP's latest incarnation of game mechanics, so too are CSM's idea of voting mechanics hilariously gameable. But don't let that stop you from believing that we're bitching about the voting mechanic because of what it does, instead of what it intended to do.

So you admit fully that the problem with the proposed mechanic is Goonswarm. A few pages ago I suggested a different system might you tell me how you would game that?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1902106#post1902106

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

#842 - 2012-09-11 08:19:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised.


Isn't this what voting is about: winners and losers?

It's an election, it's a confrontation between candidates - some will win and some will lose. Any system you create where everyone is a winner is going to be absurd.

If the CSM want every vote to carry weight maybe they should run referenda?


#843 - 2012-09-11 08:32:07 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised.


Isn't this what voting is about: winners and losers?

It's an election, it's a confrontation between candidates - some will win and some will lose. Any system you create where everyone is a winner is going to be absurd.

If the CSM want every vote to carry weight maybe they should run referenda?



Maybe you should have read the top of the post as well I was responding to someone

Frying Doom wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities.


The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling.

Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

#844 - 2012-09-11 08:34:22 UTC
Actually All the CSM need to do if look at current voting systems and pick the best one, maybe that it is what we currently have maybe it is lower candidates passing their votes to one person.

But the main aim needs to be More people voting and a in window system like Poetic suggested.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Minmatar Republic
#845 - 2012-09-11 09:22:06 UTC
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The large alliances dominate CSM spots because they are the main drivers of voter turnout.

Tell them that motivating their members to vote is not worth the trouble and your turnout will drop like a stone - and this will not only make for extremely bad PR, it will also affect the mandate of the CSM as a whole.

.

Caldari State
#846 - 2012-09-11 10:41:37 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Well this thread is just another super whine maybe it needs moving to GD to go with the rest.

But any way here is what I propose for future elections


  1. 1 Vote per account
  2. Candidates may select 1 candidate to receive their votes if they are knocked out using the lowest number of votes as a starting point and working up
  3. Only the votes received by a candidate may be passed on if elimination occurs.
  4. A fee of 2 Billion is is required for registration as a candidate
  5. Voting buttons as Per Poetic Stanziel suggested "One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform."
  6. Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
  7. Update the "What is the CSM" page.
  8. In the case of disqualification, those people who voted for the candidate are subject to there votes disappearing down a black hole.
  9. Dev blogs like the winter expansion should have by lines acknowledging the work of the CSM.
  10. The CSM should continue it's wonderful transparency and communication with the playerbase.


These changes will effective make the number of votes required for lowest seats higher.
They will also lessen the chance of joke candidates, as these people are supposed to be knowledgeable in the game and if they can not come up with a measly 2 Billion isk then they probably do not know how to play the game well enough.
It will increase voter participation lessening the effect of minorities
It will increase the CSMs profile within the player community.

These are my suggestions but at the end of the day it is the CSMs job to decide for them selves what system they want to put into place. This is one of the tings they were voted in to do.

Good luck and thank you for your hard work.


you game this by sending in so many reps that they all will be knocked up but instead of splitting the votes over 3 guys the others could orginize this so that 5 or more got through. also a fee to run is absalutely a bad idea as hi sec candidates may not have this thus again it all being dominated by people such as goons
C C P Alliance
#847 - 2012-09-11 11:03:08 UTC
I've put up a new thread here regarding this.

Thank you all for this lively discussion and I appreciate the effort you've put into this.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation

#848 - 2012-09-11 11:28:52 UTC
No matter which voting system is used, interested enough to vote, organized voting will always beat not interested non voters, and quite rightly so.

This is not a signature.

#849 - 2012-09-11 12:38:34 UTC
serras bang wrote:


you game this by sending in so many reps that they all will be knocked up but instead of splitting the votes over 3 guys the others could orginize this so that 5 or more got through. also a fee to run is absalutely a bad idea as hi sec candidates may not have this thus again it all being dominated by people such as goons

As this thread has moved on I will make this quick.

There is no voter creation so yes the blocs might catch a few more votes via this system but not many while a lot of the 24% whos votes were lost would count, so as I said the ability for a candidate to pass his votes to 1 other candidate would just increase the minimum number needed.

As to the 2 Billion, I would be worried if someone who wants on the CSM cannot easily come up with that small amount.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Caldari State
#850 - 2012-09-11 16:49:37 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities.


The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling.

Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase.

So
Wikipedia wrote:

Disfranchisement

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements.

First-past-the-post voting systems

Under the first past the post (FPTP) single member voting system the highest polling candidate is elected as opposed to a candidate that has an absolute majority of votes. A candidate can be elected with less than 50% support with the majority of voters remaining unrepresented. As an example, if three candidates receive 40%, 32% and 28% of the vote respectively, the candidate with 40% of the vote is elected whilst 60% of the electorate go unrepresented. FPTP is used in most jurisdictions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.


So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised.

Yeah so the voting system you so want to keep because it is good for your minority while 24% of the voters where disfranchised in the last election.

But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour.

#851 - 2012-09-12 10:44:34 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
This discussion has been posted on a forum which is usually dead and unread except for the month or so of election season every year, hence the usual FuckGoons sockpuppets aren't really present.

The more cynically minded may infer that this discussion was deliberately presented on a dead forum to slip it under the radar with minimal discussion before CCP rubber-stamping.

The reality mindedd will observe that it's a failure on both accounts. All the goons are here (and not enough of the ***goons), and now all of us are aware of this.

CSM7 may be many things, but skilled in political scheming they are not.


No disrespect intended, but, mittens, good at politics?

Any half decent 'politican' would not have thrown away some 10,000 votes.

Damn good CSM chappie though.

This is not a signature.

Gallente Federation
#852 - 2012-09-12 11:11:53 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
No disrespect intended, but, mittens, good at politics?

Any half decent 'politican' would not have thrown away some 10,000 votes.

I think erasing someone's deeds because of one mistake is a mistake.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

#853 - 2012-09-12 15:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Theosis Kraton
The system proposed by CCP is actually known as modified d'Hondt. It combines the worst features of the d'Hondt system with STV and returns incomprehensible results.

It was used for 2 elections for the legislative assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. It was a plain unmitigated disaster. It was gamed extensively, took literally months to count and produced a hopelessly unrepresentative assembly. The one area that CCP departs from modified d'Hondt is that candidates instead of voters determine the preferences, a feature which projects CD-STV into the wilder reaches of electoral reform.

There are a number of off the shelf STV programs available and a number of organisations which will happily conduct genuine STV elections, the Australian Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society in the UK are 2 examples. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, with the cool new feature of being square instead of round, can I suggest that the solution is to buy an off the shelf program or use an organisation.

I have counted some quite large STV elections using paper ballots and I have drafted regulations for use with SRV elections. Obviously that is not an option here, but there are reasons that STV takes the form it does and departing from that form does not give happy results.
#854 - 2012-09-12 21:31:17 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP.

Name em?



Well Alex right off the bat we have the overview which has some serious problems. The #1 thing that gets me all the time is the standings that get screwed up. Blues should not be showing up as neutrals, and when you are in a fleet engagement this is a real pain in the ass. But sometimes its just a minor engagement, and unless the person's name jumps out at you, its shoot first and ask questions later.

Then sometimes the modules freeze, and you have to move them to another location to get them working again, although this is not always a surefire way to fix the problem, and a session change is needed. A common problem for myself is clicking off the siege cycle on my dread and sometimes the button will stay green, but the timer stops, and there is always someone in fleet going on about modules not working.

There are a bunch of other minor issues with overview/ui but those 2 above are the ones I run into the most when playing, and I would think more fuss would be raised about this.

Personally, I would like to be able to vote for more than one candidate at a time, and think being able to vote on 1/3rd or 1/2 of the total CSM panel would be great, but it sure the hell isn't as pressing an issue as game play is.

Explicit Associates
#855 - 2012-09-12 23:31:30 UTC
Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV

what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.

STV sucks

in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.

Minmatar Republic
#856 - 2012-09-13 02:10:00 UTC
Sinead Arzi wrote:
Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV

what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.

STV sucks

in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.



As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...

.

The Initiative.
#857 - 2012-09-13 10:25:04 UTC
Revolution Rising wrote:
Sinead Arzi wrote:
Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV

what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.

STV sucks

in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.



As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...


The trouble with freedom and democracy is that people don't always do what you think they ought to or vote for who you think would be best.

I suggest that the classical solution, which is to ~Deal with it~, is still the best.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#858 - 2012-09-13 13:53:16 UTC
Theosis Kraton wrote:

There are a number of off the shelf STV programs available and a number of organisations which will happily conduct genuine STV elections, the Australian Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society in the UK are 2 examples. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, with the cool new feature of being square instead of round, can I suggest that the solution is to buy an off the shelf program or use an organisation.


This is not a new problem. I'm not sure why CCP and subscribers feel they have to solve it themselves.
The question we should be asking is what existing organisation do we trust to count our votes and how much do they charge for the service.
#859 - 2012-09-14 12:46:14 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Over the past few CSM elections, it has become increasingly clear that the simple "vote for one candidate" election system should be revisited in the hopes of finding a system that produces a CSM that better represents the electorate (ie: those members of the community who care enough to vote).

In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

Since it is in everyone's long-term interest for the CSM to broadly represent the electorate, a strong case can be made that the election system should be reformed. CSM elections should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair.

This posting is the first step in that process, and it is our hope that it will spark a serious discussion of the topic and provide the CSM with community guidance as we solidify our recommendations to CCP.

Goals of a Reformed System

It has been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting system. However, "The perfect is the enemy of the good", and there are many election systems that are clearly better than the current one.

The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals.

2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes.

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, 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.

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.

Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote

The most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on.

However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.

Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote.

In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election.

CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.

The Nitty-Gritty:

Currently, once the final list of approved candidates is published by CSM, there is a 2 week campaign period before voting starts. In the new system, candidates will have to disclose to CCP and publish in the first post of their campaign thread and on any campaign websites who their preferred alternate candidates are before the end of the first week. After that, they are locked in and cannot be changed -- thus there will be a week for voters to comment on these choices and decide how best to allocate their votes (troll and feeder candidates will be fairly obvious).

Candidates should specify somewhere between 3 and 6 alternates in order of their preference (their "preferences"), so that if one or more of their preferred candidates has already been elected or knocked out, their votes will not be wasted.

On the actual voting page, there would be a list of the alternate candidates so that when actually voting, people will know where their vote will go.

The determination of the results is straightforward:

In each round:

* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)

* If this does not happen, then the bottom candidate is eliminated, and her votes are reallocated to the topmost candidate in her preference list that is still in the race.

This process continues until everyone has either been elected or eliminated, at which point we have our rankings.


if I could anti-like posts this would get it. No, no no. Making the voting system more convoluted and dumb (and lets face it, massively biased in favour of certain individuals) is a terrible idea. One vote used for a single candidate is simple and effective. Deal with it.
#860 - 2012-09-17 02:51:43 UTC
Revolution Rising wrote:
Sinead Arzi wrote:
Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV

what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.

STV sucks

in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.

As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...

Imagine if they were all like ... a miners' friend and a WiS person with a weird way to thinking about how humans interact.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Forum Jump