The Apostle
The Black Priests
425
   |
Posted - 2011.10.16 22:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
imho, the only CSM model that can represent the entire Eve playerbase has to be based on representative boundaries.
Admittedly, highseccers are going to have trouble fielding a rep because they don't play as a collective. In my mind, that's their problem and it just needs someone with drive/motivation to make it happen. It would still only be one voice so he needs to be good.
But certainly low sec and 0.0 need to be proportionally represented regardless. And it's "proportionally" that's critical.
We also need to have maximum terms to I think. Polarisation of the current CSM is all too obvious. Not their fault but an issue nonetheless.
That's my 2 bits.....
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest.
WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
The Apostle
The Black Priests
489
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 00:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The Apostle wrote:imho, the only CSM model that can represent the entire Eve playerbase has to be based on representative boundaries.
The only model that can give special treatment, more like. Let me make a wild guess here... these "representative boundaries" would just happen to give a slew of candidates who would by pure concidence, be more likely to endorse your views? In short, you want CCP to ignore the majority in favour of the minority, since you can't get enough people to vote the way you want them to.
And THAT doesn't happen now? Current and proposed changes to Eve are slewed which way?
But no. Regions should include lowsec, null wherever. In fact let's say you divided Eve by 8 marks of a compass and put up 8 candidate posititons for those regions. ALL sec status is included. The same political process applies for your candidate as it stands now.
Your right to vote in Area A, B or C is easily implemented by snapshotting populations. You can have as many alts in as many places as you want but you need to know when a snapshot occurs for them to be corruptible. It reduces if not eliminates the likelihood of alliance stacked voting immediately.
Quote:The current model perfectly represents the entire playerbase. If the whole of "hi-se"c between them can't even get a candidate the 9th most votes, and of the people who did vote, over 70% of them voted for a candidate who got elected, then you might want to consider that either.
-Not so many people in hi-sec are in agreement with your ideas as you assume, regardless of where they conduct their play
The highsec apathy is an issue and that's what I was pointing out. It does not make the current method of voting any more 'correct" because of it.
And, if I had a fixed view of highsec and what it should be, what others said wouldn't matter now would it? What I do is promote and seek debate/discussion to harness/modify my own views. I have just as quickly changed a view based on good rational argument.
Quote:
You can't claim that hi-sec voters aren't represented because so many of them voted but didn't get to see their guy win; 70% of all votes were winning votes. If, on the other hand, there truly is a huge groundswell of support for your point of view in hi-sec amongst people who can't be bothered to spend 30 seconds to click a button, then it seems much more ~democratic~ for you to try and persuade them to spend that 30 seconds than to cry to CCP for special treatment.
Yes indeed. And I'm posting here for what reason? Wasn't one of my comments complaining about highsec is too lazy and disorganised to find and field a candidate?
But I totally agree. And of course, the ones that didn't vote are usually the loudest against the elected. But you know, there's another reason for that. None of the candidates might have been deemed suitable... Even in Australia, with compulsory voting, we can still vote informally by voting for no-one.
Quote:Since you care so much about democracy and all, I mean.
And I do. Having alliance candidates voted in by predominately alliance members is NOT a democracy. The largest alliances will always get their candidate in.
It's part of the reason why highseccers etc. void the CSM and don't/refuse to vote. THEY will not be represented.
In my plan (open to debate as always), they ARE represented, whether they like it or not.
EDIT: As an adjunct here, 8 regions by compass point will almost guarantee the rep will need to take into account both 0.0, lowsec and highsec into account in his deliberations. Pissing off whole regions is NOT going to be productive is it?
(And the snapshot mentioned should also ensure WH residents are picked up by eg: static WH at time of snapshot.)
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest.
WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|