Jita Park Speakers Corner

Look. It's ******* simple.


1 person. 1 vote.


5 accounts. 5 votes.


Changing the system makes it un-democratic. Quit worrying about how you might not get re-elected next year you shitdicks, and do what you're elected to: Fix our goddamn game.

I recall the last time people were talking about tinfoil.

So much so they renamed an important corp to Tinfoil.

EVE makes a point of being a "single-shard" game. I fail to see how making player representation effectively 'sharded' is a desirable thing.

because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ?

then you vote isnt worth less as you would voted for em in the first place or you simply being forced into voting for someone ?

persides the more votes someone gets the more ikely they are to be heading csm that alone should give your vote more power this is if your corp/alliance/voting block is so powerfull.

or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ?

Guys, guys... it's obvious we have a problem with bloc voting, so we need to find a compromise. It's readily apparent that most of bloc voting happens in null sec. Also easy to see, is that for groups that favor small, roving gangs, Minmatar ships like Lokis and Vagabonds are favored; also for large battles, artillery is king, and many people fly Maelstroms (and occasionally Typhoons). Because of these unfair powerhouses, I recommend, in the spirit of fairness, that every Minmatar pilot be counted at 60% of a vote. This would help balance null-sec power blocs, with the general apathy and ignorance found in high-sec.

We could call it a "Three-Fifths Compromise."

You mean "fair say" after we've gamed the system to get 4+ people on the CSM because we're better organized than the average pubbie, and the CSM's attempt to block us from "taking over" is a **** attempt made by **** wannabe politicians?

Okay then.

If 20000 votes have to establish two seats, then each vote has decided on 1/10000th of a seat. If 3000 votes decide on 2 seats, then each vote has decided on 1/1500th of a seat. 1/10000th is less than 1/1500th. How exactly is my 1/10000th seat vote worth the same as your 1/1500th seat vote?


nah we've already established that whatever you do we can game the system so that's nbd really[/quote]

i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion.

In the UK, people can't hold multiple citizenships in several regions simultaneously nor can they teleport from one end of the nation to the other as needed. Plus they actually have official places of residency, as opposed to squatting in a spacestation somewhere. Such things need to be accounted for before trying to implement some sort of federalist election import from real life. Apples and Oranges.

There is no democratic solution to the 'problem' CSM7 has with lots and lots of legitimate votes going towards people who aren't them.

Really depends one what the CSM is trying to be.

If the CSM is there for individuals with no clear mandate but are voted in on their PR/Alliance Numbers/etc keep the system the same as it is now.

If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above.

The problem with the proposal is it doesn't address either and does appear to be specifically designed to keep out one group from having 'too many CSM people in the top' which really doesn't seem to end up with the worst of both Worlds.

no that is correct but every region has its representative