These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM Elections - Pretty much rigged voting?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
WhyTry1
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2012-01-28 16:19:18 UTC
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-01-28 16:26:17 UTC
No that's a way to ensure that CCP cherry picks people they prefer for who knows what reasons. Maybe they'll choose an alliance mate, maybe a buddy from out of game forums, perhaps someone who agrees with their own vision for the game or maybe just some warm body they want to fill up with their Icelandic manseed. I'll take the people we voted to the CSM over that anyday thank you very much.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3 - 2012-01-28 16:27:42 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this..
No, the reason they rarely get voted in is because they can't capture an audience or a following and try to rely on their small corps/alliances to get them in rather than to run a proper campaign. History has show as much.
Ira Theos
#4 - 2012-01-28 16:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ira Theos
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.


The problem you describe is the primary downside of "pure" Democracy, that being

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

This is why truly representative systems tend be more a form of Republicanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism



Yes, I agree that CCP should have a stronger hand in vetting and selecting the candidates based upon the theory that the CSM's function is to filter through ideas and opinions to CCP from various player segments of the game. As things are now, the Goons and certain Zero interests are too strongly represented.

I'm surpised that anyone other than the Goons are even in the CSM. If the Mittani coordinated and allocated his troop's votes better, he could capture all the CSM seats.
Orion Guardian
#5 - 2012-01-28 16:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Orion Guardian
Hell yes let people without support get voted into office like.....ME! (or not)

Well isn't that how democracy works in the real world? People combine into larger entities called "parties" and get all their friends to vote for them? If you find it so unfair, then you should look at the american system. Only members of the two "alliances" Republicans and Democrats really have a chance of being elected anyhwere. Its like DRF and Goons isn't it?

TO be voted you need the following: VOTERS! No alliance candicate can FORCE his alliance to vote for him but they do nonthelesse, perhaps because they want him up there because he stands for their combined goals. SO if one candidate cannot get enough followers i.e. voters or bring enough people to see him/her as the one to stand in for them: he just isn't elected. THAT is how democracy works. It has nothing to do with rigged election.....
WhyTry1
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2012-01-28 16:51:43 UTC
Im sorry but learn about democracy! The only thing democratic is the freedom to vote. Apart from that you votes ARE GUARANTEED! its basically FIXED!! its your own damn alliance mates voting for you, therefore its FIXED!!
Prince Kobol
#7 - 2012-01-28 16:53:53 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.


No it isn't because all that would happen then is CCP would be accused of picking people who they have person relationships with.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-01-28 16:54:38 UTC
I'd try and voice an opinion but it would just get chucked over into CSM Jita's corner to collect dust.

http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

Read the process and details for yourself.
Ira Theos
#9 - 2012-01-28 16:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Ira Theos
Prince Kobol wrote:
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.


No it isn't because all that would happen then is CCP would be accused of picking people who they have person relationships with.



So you would prefer to have it populated with people who have a personal relationship with the Mittani?

(and before anyone asks, I'm not an alt of the OP and don't know him at all.)
Dztrgovac
#10 - 2012-01-28 16:57:13 UTC
This isn't tyranny of majority. This is 15% of game population being organized into strong blocks being guaranteed to take all CSM seats. Vast majority of players will know nothing about the candidates available and either vote randomly of just not vote. EVE was supposed to be a game and game is supposed to be fun. But CCP has given too much influence and importance to CSM causing them to actually have quite a impact on game development and balance.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-01-28 17:04:49 UTC
Dztrgovac wrote:
This isn't tyranny of majority. This is 15% of game population being organized into strong blocks being guaranteed to take all CSM seats. Vast majority of players will know nothing about the candidates available and either vote randomly of just not vote. .....


So, if there only were some kind of forum where those players could exchange their point of views and coordinate their votes so that they could use their advantage in numbers to get their candidates into the CSM.....
Oh, wait....

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Tore Vest
#12 - 2012-01-28 17:12:44 UTC
Ofc CSM elections is rigged Bear

No troll.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#13 - 2012-01-28 17:23:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.



This is actually not the issue at all. The rigged part of the voting process comes from multiple account holders and accounts purchased with Plex, combined with ISK faucets that only Null Sec alliances have access to.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Prince Kobol
#14 - 2012-01-28 17:23:03 UTC
Ira Theos wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.


No it isn't because all that would happen then is CCP would be accused of picking people who they have person relationships with.



So you would prefer to have it populated with people who have a personal relationship with the Mittani?

(and before anyone asks, I'm not an alt of the OP and don't know him at all.)


Your point is what?

Whether you hate or like The Mittani, the reason he is able to get so many votes is because of his influence in game.

Maybe in a few years if you have done as half as much as he has done then maybe you can get people to vote for you instead.

Also, if we follow your idea then the The Mittani is guaranteed a place on the CSM for life considering he is good friends with many CCP employees, so your idea is even more fail.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#15 - 2012-01-28 17:25:13 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
This is actually not the issue at all. The rigged part of the voting process comes from multiple account holders and accounts purchased with Plex, combined with ISK faucets that only Null Sec alliances have access to.

What ISK faucets would that be, seeing as how all faucets are a available in all space?
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-01-28 17:42:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
the only "rigging" last year was through 4h reactivations and that hole was plugged rather quickly iirc

.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-01-28 17:43:50 UTC
(Missed!) Snypa!

Confirming that voting for someone in your alliance is rigged voting and should be stamped out. How DARE you vote for someone you've actually gotten to know and respect, right?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#18 - 2012-01-28 17:45:47 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.



So your definition of "rigged" voting is one that someone wins just because more people vote for him?

And your definition of a "fair" election is one in which people are presented with a list of acceptable candidates and told they have to pick one?


OK

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-01-28 17:52:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
This is actually not the issue at all. The rigged part of the voting process comes from multiple account holders and accounts purchased with Plex, combined with ISK faucets that only Null Sec alliances have access to.

What ISK faucets would that be, seeing as how all faucets are a available in all space?


"If" we are led to beleive that the earning capability in Null sec is much better than others then in theory the provision of alt accounts by plexing is skewed in favour of that environment.

Interestingly couldn't be yet another motivation for the call to nerf various non-null faucets.

Maybe that is why Hulkageddon is not going to run this year, Mittens is spending all his plex on Alt accounts for the voting process?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2012-01-28 17:57:54 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Maybe that is why Hulkageddon is not going to run this year, Mittens is spending all his plex on Alt accounts for the voting process?

Unlikely. It has been run just fine without him during previous years.

As for the earning capability, yes, the faucets generally pay out more in null than in highsec, but it's still the same faucets and they aren't quite as freely available as in empire space.
123Next pageLast page