Today the CSM posted a voting reform thread. Basically it's just a single idea they all pulled from their collective asses. They didn't present an existing voting system, one already being successfully implemented somewhere in the world, a system that's known to work. They didn't present a theoretical voting system that's been debated on by scholars for years, that has a lot of statistical analysis and theory behind it. No, the CSM decided, in their great wisdom, that they could create a new, never-before-seen voting system. You know, because these guys all have doctoral degrees in Sociology, Statistics and Political Science.
That's their first win of the day.
Two reasons that the CSM give for this reform are enlightening:
- 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.
- . . . that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
In each of CSM6 and CSM7, the CFC bloc voted two candidates to positions on the CSM. I fail to see how this is a problem. Are they to be punished because a) they're motivated voters, and b) they are highly organized? Pandemic Legion (who generally pride themselves on being independent) voted two candidates into CSM seats for CSM7. Are their votes any worse (or better) than the CFC's votes?
(Should I point out the while there were ten nullsec representatives on CSM6, there are only six nullsec representatives on CSM7? CSM7 embodies a much larger demographic than CSM6 did. Representation of the varied playstyles of EVE Online has actually improved.)
Heaven forbid that individuals who have strong aptitudes for organizing and motivating large groups of people get voted onto the CSM. What the CSM doesn't need more of are the Meissa Anunthiels, Issler Dainzes, Darius IIIs and Kelduum Revaans, invisible people who are more interested in the vanity of a CSM position than actually doing anything useful for the playerbase.
That's the CSM's second win of the day.
If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.
It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough shit. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.
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. Simple as that. I bet that sort of in-client interface would increase voter turnout at least three-fold. (I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is the sort of thing that should be the focus of the CSM with regards voting, making it easier and more convenient for people to vote.)
Quick comment The Mittani actually resigned from CSM6 and was ineligible due to the ban to be in CSM7.
ReplyDeleteTrue. But it would be confusing if I added the "resigned" next to his CSM6 entry. For all intents and purposes, he resigned from CSM7. (There's no reason to rehash all the events that lead up to the resignation. He got his votes, and that's all I was conveying.)
DeleteVoting for the australian senate uses this system.
ReplyDeleteVote for a party, and it acts as executor for preferential voting.
Sort of, but not quite.
DeleteIf you vote above the line, it is exactly what csm has proposed.
DeleteThere is only one thing that makes people turn out, and that is fear. Give the CSM some real power, and people will stampede in order to vote their interests. Give the CSM the power to screw over empire, and you'll get your votes.
ReplyDeleteElectoral schemas might be relevant if we had well defined factions/parties, but those are thin on the ground. They would be thinner still if turnout was increased.
I think Trebor actually makes a good point in talking about how the CSM elections should be seen to be fair, as opposed to the sort of machine-style situation that seems to be in operation now with the voting blocs.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why he's so quick to look past STV, though. I'm not convinced that it would be so terribly difficult for CCP to implement, as it seems like a fairly straightforward programming problem. Building it into the client (something I think definitely needs to happen) may not be so easy, but that's a problem they need to take care of regardless of the final voting method anyway. Why the intense focus on reducing CCP's effort in the first place? Once they implement this, it will be reusable presumably for a very long time. I'm not nearly as concerned about that aspect of the issue as Trebor appears to be.
A major problem with CD-STV is that it puts candidates in a position where they're essentially going to end up digging through a pool of substandard people to list as alternates, because who's going to want to list a candidate who actually has a chance of winning a spot straight-up? They'd be campaigning for the other side if they did that. Look! Even Candidate X admits that he wants me, his opponent Candidate Y, to be on the CSM! Moreover, it ultimately strips choice from voters (which is what STV is all about to begin with) and transfers it to the candidates and their special chosen friends/allies. A feature which is supposed to reduce the power of large voting blocs just ends up roping those who vote for one candidate into potentially voting for one among 6 of his beloved alliance-mates. What a revolution!
There was also once talk of having the FW militias able to elect a militia leader- this kind of code base could be useful for moving that idea forward.
DeleteAlso, what's to stop, say, 7 of the major candidates (or those who imagine they're major candidates) from getting together and deciding to list each other as the next 6 alternates? The more I think about it, the more the candidate-selected variant of STV seems like an utter joke that will only turn CSM elections into more of a machine-style situation.
ReplyDeleteSomeone in the thread mentioned that we should simply get to vote once for each seat being filled (presumably only one vote per candidate, of course). I think that's not such a bad idea. We shouldn't necessarily have to be limited to one political focus. It shouldn't have to be a matter of "I'm voting for him because I'm interested in null issues." Maybe you're interested in several aspects of EVE at the same time. Creating a system that lets us vote for multiple candidates might also do some work in terms of easing the whole null vs. empire routine, or whatever. The current system generally makes people choose one aspect over others, which further cements these conflicts, perhaps unnecessarily.
That wouldn't work Arvo, or suddenly we would CFC candidates representing each of the seats, and now, if your bloc has enough votes to win one seat, it has enough votes to win all of the seats, because they can vote against each seat...
DeleteYou're right, I didn't think that one through very carefully. I shouldn't write things like that before I go to bed at night.
DeleteBut I still think the CD-STV method is pretty bad, and kind of obviously doesn't fulfill the CSM's requirement that voting reform reduce the influence of machine-style voting blocs. We clearly need to find a voting method which isn't that.
Mostly agree with the OP and the comments, from what I understand the real issue on CSM for now are Darius III, and that's all, no need to nerf the CFC or the HBC voting pool with a system that may be worse than the previous one...
ReplyDeleteThe CSM is a CCP customer feedback mechanism. As such, maybe they should reward people for voting (illegal in RL life--just fine in EVE) in the same way some companies reward people for taking surveys or using a loyalty card. Maybe give every voter some nice consummable item (like Quafe). Increasing the voter count will go far in reducing the influence of large organized blocs.
ReplyDeleteAussies, correct me if I'm wrong - don't you get fined if you *don't* vote? Simple KeynesIan solution, make voting in the economic interest of eve players.
ReplyDeleteThat's correct Christopher. Australia has compulsory voting, with a fine if you don't vote.
DeleteHas anyone asked- Why is the CSM concerned many people do NOT vote? Obviously the null blocs vote. There's no guarantee that if the votes by those who do not voter were cast that they would benefit any one other than the null bloc vote.
ReplyDeleteYou can't force people to vote. I agree that education is the key. And if people still don't care, welp...