open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked 21516 votes WASTED in current CSM election!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:43:00 - [1]
 


21516 votes equals zero influence in the csm!


We can do better!


Please support this proposal for a better voting system in future csm elections.


This is not about grief or tears regarding the current election - I wish the newly elected CSM all the best.

But it is a fact, that the current voting system is flawed:

1) The current system is not proportional.

2) Many votes are wasted on candidates who are either sure winners or sure loosers.

3) The current system generates uncertainty and encourages tactical voting while discouraging honest voting.


Do you want to know more?

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:49:00 - [2]
 

I'm not sure if its against the rules to create a 3rd party exit poll. You can do that if you REALLY wanted to track how the count is going? But you'd need to work hard to get it out there and get it used. :)

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:56:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Suveitar on 27/03/2011 22:06:13
Sorry?

Id obviously have to run faster than Santa if I were making an exit poll ;)


Im basing my numbers on this dev blog.

49096 votes were cast.

The nine elected CSM members represents a total of 27580 votes (56,2%) and these get 100% of the influence.

The remaining 21516 votes (43,8%) translates into zero influence...

This is the democratic problem. In a presidential election it is obvious that there will be a lot of wasted votes, but in a election to a multiple member council like the CSM, this number is much higher than it need to be.

Please read my thread in the assembly hall - and support it :)


---

Oh - and congratulations on your election White Tree :)

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: White Tree on 27/03/2011 22:35:37

Exit polls are used to measure the votes for candidates by asking the person after they've voted who they voted for. This can happen during the voting process.

e: Thankyou.

ee: :eng101: Effectively what you're referring too is a system of primaries. But you'd prefer the player-base had more influence the CSM primaries? I think that would basically be forcing subgroups to poke around in each-others subgroups. However you can already do this non-intrusively by discussing the viewpoints of the CSM candidates in this very forum and lobbying either for or against them.

If you want to imitate real democracy, you effectively allow everyone to pick their desired representatives and hash it out in whatever way you can. And traditionally (for thousands of years in human history believe it or not) we've used a forum system. This is how democracies work, groups of people come together to form parties whose concerns are similar and they've used their collective might to ensure their chosen candidates are elected.

Can you truly state that the voters of last years CSM elections weren't entirely capable rationalizing their votes by voting for their own interests? And why would they have to think about trying to rationalize it, no one has questioned it until now? And no one has really questioned it for a long time because its a functional part of a democratic process and, for the most part, it works.


Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:51:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Suveitar on 27/03/2011 22:56:46
Originally by: White Tree
Effectively what you're referring too is a system of primaries.


No. My proposal has nothing to do with primaries.


Originally by: White Tree
This is how democracies work, groups of people come together to form parties whose concerns are similar and they've used their collective might to ensure their chosen candidates are elected.


And this is exactly what IsnŽt supported in the current voting system which has absolutely no incentives to forming a party, since votes cannot be transferred between two different candidates.

Basically you can solve the problem of vote wasting and proportionality in two ways:

a) by allowing parties to transfer votes between party candidates (this is what you find in multiparty systems)

b) or by allowing voters to transfer their single vote between different candidates they prefer (and this is what I propose in my post in the assembly hall).

Both options would be a huge improvement to the current voting system.

If EVE were a "real democracy" with "real issues" at stake, I would allways argue for option A, since such a system encurages the formation of political parties and some meassure of political stability.

Option B on the other hand, is ideal to the "player democracy" of EVE, since it leaves room for individual candidates with a fresh idea, and since "political stability" is really not an issue of much concern in this setting :).



Originally by: White Tree
Can you truly state that the voters of last years CSM elections weren't entirely capable rationalizing their votes by voting for their own interests?


Im stating no such thing. But Id like people to be able to vote for the candidate they genuinely prefer - without having to take tactical considerations into account.


White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:55:00 - [6]
 

Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.27 23:04:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: White Tree
Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.



And Im not frowning upon tactical voting either. As you say it is an inherent part of the system. Im merely proposing a voting system that will reduce (but not eliminate) the impact of tactical voting, and allow more voters to have a real impact on the composition of the CSM.


If there is no support for the idea I can live it just as well Very Happy
- But as a real life student of electoral systems and their de facto political consequences I just thought Id let you know that there are in fact better alternatives than the current voting system for the CSM.


And now Ill go and blow up some ships! Yaarrg! YARRRR!!

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.28 00:55:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Suveitar
The remaining 21516 votes (43,8%) translates into zero influence...


Maybe you and they should have voted for someone who had chance.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:16:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: White Tree
Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.


STV doesn't really suffer from tactical voting issues, I think.

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:43:00 - [10]
 

Those votes were not wasted. Those people still picked who they thought would be a good choice (or they may not have, you never know).

William Loire
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.03.28 02:21:00 - [11]
 

Are you asking for proportional representation? Because that won't work with a system where each representative has to be flown to Iceland twice a year.

Ari Chu
Posted - 2011.03.28 02:31:00 - [12]
 

The only "Wasted" votes are those in excess of what was needed to win, with the exception of any candidate who blows away the field - then having excessive votes provides an argument of having a mandate. Just because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean that you wasted your vote. Sometimes voting for a candidate you suspect will lose can provide leverage for the policies they supported.

Dani Nardieu
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.28 04:58:00 - [13]
 

Alternates have often played a role in the CSM process and post on the internal forums and stuff so you should include those votes.

And anyway, the issue with your system is that people barely know one person they want to vote for. If you force them to vote for 3 or even 5 (half of CSM, really ?), than a lot of those choices will be random and people would get undeserved votes when they got no real support.

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:01:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Pirokobo
Maybe you and they should have voted for someone who had chance.


This is exactly my point.

The csm election is more about
tactical voting - selecting a candidate who is likely to get elected (but not too likely, cause then youŽll be wasting your vote on a sure winner)
- than it is about
honest voting - selecting the candidate you actually prefer to have on the council.


You might want to take a look at this post.

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:04:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
Those votes were not wasted. Those people still picked who they thought would be a good choice (or they may not have, you never know).


In multiparty elections the percentage of wasted votes is very rarely above 10% (due to the transfer of votes among party candidates).

With Single Transferable Vote the percentage of wasted votes would also be considerably less than the current 43% in the recent election.


My main issue with the current system is thus that it performs very poorly (it wastes many votes) with regards to tranfer voter preferences into actual seats on the council.

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:07:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: William Loire
Are you asking for proportional representation? Because that won't work with a system where each representative has to be flown to Iceland twice a year.


I am not asking for an expansion of the number of seats on the CSM, if that is what you are asking?

I am lobbying for proportional representation in the sense, that each seat on the council will be worth the same amount of votes.


Please read my post in the assembly hall for the finer details Very Happy.


And thanks for the feedback everybody! My proposal isnt the only way to solve the issues with our current voting system, but I think that it is a relevant issue for the CSM to consider prior to the election next year.

Mnengli Noiliffe
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:22:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Dani Nardieu

And anyway, the issue with your system is that people barely know one person they want to vote for. If you force them to vote for 3 or even 5 (half of CSM, really ?), than a lot of those choices will be random and people would get undeserved votes when they got no real support.


EXACTLY, that's why we need 2 rounds of voting. First to check which candidates have any support at all (elect 2x-3x the amount of CSM delegates), then choose among them the actual delegates based on the principle of lesser evil.

Currently there is no way for non-alliance player to know which candidate has any chances of winning since most are voted by closed groups so the information about certain candidate's electability is essentially closed to the general public.

Killer2
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:39:00 - [18]
 

I have to admit, your proposed voting system seems a little complicated.

I don't believe any vote is wasted as in every election there are always going to be clear winners and clear losers. The fact that official results aren't published until after voting is closed means that a single vote has the potential to be a swing vote between a CSM seat and an alternate seat, or an alternate seat and no seat at all.

spookydonut
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:43:00 - [19]
 

What you actually need is preferential voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

When you vote on the CSM, you number all the candidates from 1 to n.
Or, you could just simply vote for a single candidate and leave it up to that candidate's preferences to decide where the vote flows, as if they had filled in the rest of the numbers for you.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:50:00 - [20]
 

The votes weren't wasted.
They were blood for the Blood God.
Khorne is pleased.

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:14:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Suveitar on 28/03/2011 14:18:41
Originally by: Killer2
I have to admit, your proposed voting system seems a little complicated.


Youre right that the inner workings of the Single Transferable Voting system are very complex indeed. But for the individual voter it isnt difficult to rank a few candidates in order of preference. Then the system works behind the scenes to ensure that every voters gets maximum influence for their vote.

In contrast our current system for csm election is very easy to understand, but it gives the voters a lot to worry about, and turns the election into a pokergame.


So do you want a complicated system that is good at transferring preferences for all voters into seats, or do you want a simple system that ignores the input of nearly half the voters?

Suveitar
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:18:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: spookydonut
What you actually need is preferential voting.


And this is actually what I propose! The single transferable vote is a form of preferential voting.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:21:00 - [23]
 

Well, you really need to take into account the votes given to alternates. You can bet ur sweet arse they are going to be needed again.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only