open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Voting in Future CSM Elections / Methodology
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:29:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 19:01:43
In the recent CSM elections each *account* was limited to a single vote amongst the candidates, despite there being nine seats to be filled.

In a "real life" election where there are multiple seats to be filled it is normal for the elector to be given the ability to vote for up to the number of candidates to be elected, ie for the CSM you would expect to have nine votes to distribute to your favoured candidates, subject of course to a maximum of one each.

Similarly, in many elections world-wide 'transferable' votes are the norm, where if your first choice is rejected then your vote is transferred to your next-favoured candidate, thus ensuring that (within limits) the person elected has a wide base of support rather than just having the highest individual vote (which might be by just one vote). STV voting though does not work well where there are multiple candidates to be elected.

It was clear before and during the ballot being open that there were many people unhappy with the method of balloting which was chosen, though it was clearly the simplest to code for this time around and had the benefit of clarity and security.

I would raise the question therefore what do those who were unhappy (especially, but not only) think should be done in future? If one has nine votes per account then it could be presumed that large corps/alliances seeking to get multiple pilots elected would do so (though this is arguably no different to political parties in the 'real world' getting their members out to vote) but just the single vote each meant that the support for a candidate was minimised and, clearly, some unsuccessful candidates may have been elected if it were not that the first choice of the voter went to a successful candidate, etc.

So questions:
1. One vote or multiple, and if the latter, how many?
2. 'X' or ordered?
3. Would a change encourage more candidates / more voting?

IZ

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:56:00 - [2]
 

You raise several good points, but I'd like to raise one more. Don't make it too complex - most people aren't terribly interested in the CSM as-is, and if they need a mathematics degree and three spreadsheets to vote, they're just going to go back to their missioning.

As for which method should be used, I like the fact that the current CSM has a broad cross-section of player types, and want that feature to stay. A straight-up "You get 9 votes" system will mean way too high a chance of getting an all-Goon council, or maybe an all-bear council if they manage to counter-stack it, or something else in the same vein.

Off the top of my head, the best system I can think of is each player getting 9 ranked votes - 9 points to #1, 8 to #2, and so on, until 1 point to #9. It's a bit on the complex side, since you need to know the candidates better, but it's relatively intuitive, and allows for most of the features you want.

Athre
Minmatar
The Higher Standard
Posted - 2008.05.28 23:56:00 - [3]
 

1) top 3
2) in order may be too complex, I would think no more than the number of seats in order.
3) good question, I'll leave that up to the marketing types.

Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE

Posted - 2008.05.29 00:05:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Inanna Zuni
[...]
1. One vote or multiple, and if the latter, how many?


I'd think two votes will do. More could make it easier for big "power blocks" to sway one whole elction, going by current participation.

Quote:

2. 'X' or ordered?


The ordering will add too much complexity IMHO which is not really necessary.

Quote:

3. Would a change encourage more candidates / more voting?


I'd think so. Plus, considering different candidates having different agendas more than one vote will make it easier to address not only one concern as you can try to get two people elected you want to see on the CSM. Of course multiple votes opens up the Pandora's Box of the question if you could "stack" your multiple votes on one candidate... ugh

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:31:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Talkuth Rel on 30/05/2008 23:31:42
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
You raise several good points, but I'd like to raise one more. Don't make it too complex - most people aren't terribly interested in the CSM as-is, and if they need a mathematics degree and three spreadsheets to vote, they're just going to go back to their missioning.

As for which method should be used, I like the fact that the current CSM has a broad cross-section of player types, and want that feature to stay. A straight-up "You get 9 votes" system will mean way too high a chance of getting an all-Goon council, or maybe an all-bear council if they manage to counter-stack it, or something else in the same vein.

Off the top of my head, the best system I can think of is each player getting 9 ranked votes - 9 points to #1, 8 to #2, and so on, until 1 point to #9. It's a bit on the complex side, since you need to know the candidates better, but it's relatively intuitive, and allows for most of the features you want.


And if they organize it, such a system has just as much a chance of making a council of all one stripe as a simple 9 equal votes system, it only makes it more likely that such a "stripe" would be that of an organized group (i.e., large alliance). Bad idea.

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:37:00 - [6]
 

IMO It's very important to keep it simple. From the people I spoke to with multiple accounts, many did spread the votes of their multiple accounts across different candidates.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:59:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
And if they organize it, such a system has just as much a chance of making a council of all one stripe as a simple 9 equal votes system, it only makes it more likely that such a "stripe" would be that of an organized group (i.e., large alliance). Bad idea.


Thing about that is, they've got to split focus in order to do that. Let's pick on Goon, because it's fun and easy. If Goon wanted to win the whole Council, with an "everybody gets 9 equal votes" system, then they'd have 9 guys with about 3000 votes each, which would probably take circa 7 council spots - they'd all be above Jade's first-place votes, but I'm assuming there's a couple who could get above the Goon tide.

If they had to do the same under my system, on the other hand, they'd have the same 9 guys getting around 15,000 points each, which is the equivalent of 1667 first-place votes. Jade and Hardin beat that without even considering second-and-worse votes, and Ankh comes pretty close. I don't want to speculate too much on how people's #2-9 choices would break down, but remember that 3000 Goons split 9 ways means only about 333 people at each level of support, and 20 people managed to get 333 first-place votes. I think the 9-of-a-kind council is much harder to achieve this way, to the point of being essentially impossible unless it's coordinated among several major alliances(and even then, it's not easy).


 

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