EVE General Discussion

CCP. Bring forth unalienable geographic representation into the CSM selection process.

As an example:-

2 Highsec candidiates.
1 Lowsec candidate.
1 Wormhole candidate.
2 Nullsec candidiates.
1 Chairman Elect - non sector specific.

- Candidates must nominate their position in advance.
- Chairman Elect is a declared position.
- No candidate may stand for nor claim to represent more than one position.
- Each candidate must reach out and identify issues within their sector to form the basis for their candidacy manifesto.
- Maximum term of no more than 2 years.

Discussion points
By it's very nature, such a system ensures sector candidates enjoy a standing opposition and cannot use their own sector benefits/strength to enhance/reduce the benefits of other sectors except:-

- Where members reach a consensus on an issue across all sectors. From this, CCP is to take that consensus as a given.

In deference to cross sector dissatisfaction:-

- Where sector A might disagree with changes sought by sector B then a debate on merits alone must be endured. There should not be change to a sector without a clear and unequivocable consensus.

This is open for discussion and whilst I accept the inevitable troll, the rationale behind this thread is one of concern for all players - the current CSM has suffered from percieved injustices bought about by an ingame idiosyncracy.

No blame. No shame. Discuss.

Second.

OMG its mittinz?!?!? is it him the Kwisatz Haderach!?!?!?!? :P die ingame....

Incorrect. The position itself is unalienable. The likelihood of a mere 4 votes per sector would be rather impossible when transferable preferences are taken into account (as has been suggested).

To ensure both pre-selection and re-election a candidate must stand and act with the interests of the sector he stands for as a priority.

Example:

The Mittani himself could stand for Highsec if he wished and be assured of hundreds of votes. Goons could easily do that - but by using their vote to do so - who would then vote for the Goons nullsec candidates? It will require a certain cleverness to win in more than one sector.

Under this scenario, with this unalienable right, Highsec will vote - if nothing more than to ensure The Mittani votes are wasted trying to win a seat he does not appeal to by voting for a different candidate.

Even further, The Mitanni could of course appeal to the Highsec electorate for preselection but he must also act favourably on their behalf to ensure reselection by the majority of highsec residents next time around.

Thus, your premise is wrong.

EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.

You obviously view high sec as being worth more than low sec and whiskey space. That's hardly good for the game since both need some work to improve them while high has a decent amount of love as it is.

I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation.

*Inalienable

Fixed that for ya.

So nullsec bloc A could run for highsec, bloc B could run for lowsec etc.

What we have today is virtually identical except the votes are divided along alliance lines rather than something dumb like an area you may or may not live in.

Not a good idea nor is the premise behind the idea well thought out either.

WH is represented by at least one candidate. I'd prefer to see 2 for each sector but CCP have called for and it seems they are convinced that 7 is fine - that's a quorum. My view is that by having 2 candidates, both need to be united on a point so "stand-ins" are automatically opposed if they decide to be stupid about things.

But on the rest, you need to have a think about that statement. A split vote is a split vote. As it stands you vote for candidate X and he wins by an overall majority.

With this proposal, if you decide to get your "highsec rep" in then who is going to vote for your "nullsec rep"? More's the point, why would you risk your nullsec candidate to ensure you get in the highsec candidate?

I've said you'd need to be pretty clever to make such a move and get away with it. Sure, it's open to some fraudulent misadventure but it does make such an act very, very risky.

Absolutely. But in my example, which you dropped in the quoting, if The Mittani DID run for highsec, he can't run for nullsec and "his" bloc vote is already split before he even starts.

But really, why would he stand for highsec in the first place? Making any representations for/against highsec to benefit Nullsec wouldn't be very effective way to manage Nullsec affairs now would it?

To be quite blunt, it's in Mittens best interests to try and secure BOTH Nullsec seats else who gets the second one may be a rather undesirable outcome?

Ask yourself, how far is the CFC prepared to go if they are forced to split their voting bloc?

---

EDIT: And on the point "alliance lines rather than something like an area you may or may not live in".

Firstly - that's the reason why highseccers don't vote. Whose 0.0 alliance does a highseccer vote for?
Secondly, why would you waste your vote for a candidate in an area you don't live in?