Yes, it does.
Iām living in Lowsec and my alliance Leader didnāt tell me who to vote.
I used my votes to support reliable, longterm involved players who have shown in practise that they care about a good game for everyone. Some of them were on the CSM before like @Steve_Ronuken and @Suitonia, others werenāt. I didnāt vote for any Nullsec block candidate, mostly because I donāt see them reaching out to the entirety of the EVE community. I also didnāt vote for people who first reached out to the EVE community during their CSM campaign, because I personally think they should have proven their involvement independent from that.
Anyhow, everyone should make up their own mind, look at what the candidates have done for EVE in the past and definitely go and vote. There are a lot of good candidates this year, almost sad you canāt vote them all. Make sure to put in more than one candidate in your list, otherwise your vote could end up having no effect.
If someone tries to bully you into voting/not voting a candidate, ignore it.
Just vote.
1 Like
Itās not. I tried to understand which specific version of STV is used for the CSM elections. Trying to do that helped me understand STV in general much better and now I also know that CSM elections are using the Wright system and Iām still in the process figuring out possible caveats of using this method under the specific circumstances in EVE.
No matter what, I absolutely recommend everyone to vote., even if any system might have its problems.
Feel free to share your opinion on it too.
They works as Nana already explained and with a parody image btw
They look the same, but actually the different types of STV are quite different in their inner workings and in a way their outcome too.
(Compare Wright / CPO / Hare etc.)
LOL, are the tears still flowing?
I see lots of players on the forums trolling others for not accepting that a playstyle is allowed all the time and Iām pretty sure Iāve seen you in that group at some point, yet here you are all butthurt because someone used an allowed tactic.
Iām going to vote for him just for the hell of it 
1 Like
Because I replied to Nana before, I wanted to add that me not voting for him has nothing to do with the Goon/CO2 thing that happened. He simply didnāt make any impression as a CSM to me.
1 Like
Itās a Wright STV
1 Like
Grrrrrrā¦ null-sec.
Arrrrrrā¦ low-sec.
1 Like
He made a bad impression as a player who doesnt stand to expectations from his corpmates, also looked like a tool in the end. As for CSM, I didnt noticed him at all. If treason is why people would have to remember him, he would better be forgotten, better for him.
1 Like
Badly.
3 Likes
7 Likes
no no no no no
This is someone who hatched a plan during an all (?) expenses paid jolly from Australia to Iceland, or wherever else āThe Summitā was held. A Summit that was also held in order for āThe Judgeā to represent you, āthe peopleā. Interesting tactic and an example of āgamingā mechanics not open to many of us in EvE.
This is someone who is also currently campaigning to again be a āpeopleās representativeā on the grounds that CCP asked him to be one. Otherwise he wasnāt going to. Interesting dynamic that one.
This is someone who is now spruiking their previously reluctant candidature on the basis that it is good to have someone ābadā (their word) on the CSM. The irony that being bad at CSM as a representative, including on the above two grounds, may or may not be in his cheek with his tongue.
And that doll, is just exactly what you will likely still do, regardless.
1 Like
I feel that there is a very well laid out how to vote card on the INN:
I recommend everyone vote that way. This will ensure the CSM is best placed to provide focused feedback for CCP over the coming year.
I voted for 1 / 10.
I guess that means I have more in common than I realised with The Imperium ā¦ whoever they are.
My main gripe with Wright STV is that at the end of the day, you donāt elect anyone, rather an algorithm does it for you. Your vote could even have elected some dude youād rather not see anywhere near the position.
Anyway itās obscure, nerdy and ludicrously complicated, so it suits well to EVE, and overall the chances of you as a player benefitting in any way from voting the CSM are both uncountable and neglectable.
Mittens has much more personality than that, but he is very efficient, so calling him an algorithm works I guess.
This has to be the single dumbest criticism of a voting structure I have ever seen.
Guess what, even the simplest voting system possible (probably first past the post) is an algorithm.
As for all the other whinging in this thread about the issues with STV. There are proofs that itās impossible to maximize everything you would want and instead you have to settle for āleast badā which i for one think Wrightās does just fine.
(reading assignment : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem )
Now get out there and damn well vote instead of whining.
Short, but true.
They need to put up a list of all the things CSMs have done for EVE and also what theyāve messed up, and not only make promises on what they want to do next, so we can see who is actually good and gets things done. Until then does it not matter much how the votes are spread.