Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
35
   |
Posted - 2012.09.09 08:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Well CCP is already making this sound like a complicated affair with having multiple alternates, double bonus elimination rounds and championing "under represented votes." What exactly is an under represented vote anyway? Did you vote? Great your vote got represented, it may not have won but that's democracy for you. Any vote cast is a vote represented. The idea of one voting making a difference is a farce, political campaigns have always focused on bringing constituencies together to win elections. The only time one vote makes a difference is in a dictatorial system where the one vote lies with the dictator, that and American Idol. Neither institution has done mankind any good.
So we have our beloved democracy which certainly is imperfect, but it is pure in the sense the voting representation is as good as it gets outside some political scientist's day dream. The peril for the minority in a democracy is well known, documented and accounted for in our current system. A smaller group that knows it would take a beating running a candidate by itself has a few options. It can run the ball up the middle and wage a fierce campaign to gather support from a larger community, it would take the right confluence of charisma and events to pull off. That's where the options of gathering constituents or trading votes comes into play. Your candidate can opt to find similar groups sharing the same views and offer them a larger tent to come under, promising representation and advocacy upon election. Maybe your candidate can't pull together any constituents or enough to directly challenge more popular candidates. Here is where trading votes comes into play, a candidate approaches another promising a bloc of votes in return of advocacy and representation. A deal gets made and suddenly a more popular candidate ends up pushing your agenda and gains the needed votes to win the day.
So what happens to those groups that don't avail themselves to these options, or for that matter candidates not savvy enough to engage in the necessary politics to make victory a reality? Their reward is to find themselves on the outside looking in, their vote wasn't wasted it was heard, it just wasn't popular. A more cynical observer would comment that it is not the vote that was wasted, but Democracy that was wasted on the voter. What political commentators often term as "throw away" votes are just that, they are for bad candidates with bad policies. That's what happens in democracies, the Loon Party, Communist Party, Green Party and Anarchist parties don't see the light of day. I name these parties as they often push their own agenda and rarely if ever approach larger viable candidates to trade off votes for representation, also the candidates spawned from their respective echo chambers are equally appalling as leaders.
So what happens if we decide that an "under represented vote" is a fiction worth believing in? Well it can certainly mean the EVE equivalent of having a bad candidate from constituency that narrowly reflects EVE get on the CSM. Remember that in elections the candidate and their leadership qualities is as much an issue as their respective stances on issues. So on top of having potentially bad positions represented on the CSM, you can have people with little recognizable leadership ability. Bad policies and bad leaders are perfect justifications for not having a CSM, making CSMs player presentation impotent or simply turning it into a rubber stamp committee.
Imagine having a group of people who wandered into the CSM because through the process of elimination several dead votes found new life in a candidate so milquetoast they were able to win. They are pliant, suggestible and overwhelmed when they are locked in a room with CCP. 8 hours later gold ammo becomes a good idea and Empire is a WoW like theme park where meaningful consequences no longer exist.
I also find it strange that CCP thinks an organized player base when it comes to elections is a bad thing. I would think you would want the people who care about the game in a position to give input and advice on matters that will effect the subscriber base. Even for those who can't gather 10K votes, they would certainly arm themselves with as much knowledge as possible and seek out candidates that can reach the CSM and represent them.
CCP gave a great example of if the CFC so wanted they could have 3 people on the CSM as if its some glaring failure in the democratic system of electing people to the CSM. That the only way to correct this glaring problem is this new system being proposed. 10K in votes was what like 3% of EVE give or take? So the reality is could a bloc of 10K votes get shot down, sure if people organized or put down in-game political differences. 10K is not some golden unassailable number. Apathy, ignorance and inability should always be unable to assail and obtain positions of leaderships. Instead of creating this "participation award democracy" where you get less than you hoped for by voting by resurrecting inferior candidacies and niche constituent interests to frustrate the purpose of the CSM, why can't CCP remind the players the obligation to effect change in EVE rests on them. This game is driven by player created content, its what makes EVE unique and viable as an MMO.
As you go to write angry reply about me being a Goon, Goons, CFC, HBC or the MiB think about these two parallels. The nerfing of Hi Sec into a theme park MMO and now the proposed nerf to democracy for CSM elections. Maybe you can live with a theme park MMO, but do you really want a theme park CSM for EVE? |