EVE General Discussion

what is the matter scared someone you don't like gets elected and starts exposing your RMT schemes or how some pro goon dev giving you all kind of cheats for your alliance to use

And nor should it be but I haven't delineated candidates, I've deliniated seats. It's up to the candidate and subsequently the voters to determine the best choice based on the manifesto of the candidate. He can add/omit his various game style to claim a specific seat.

Really, if Highseccers want candidates with only Highsec experience, that's their call. If highseccers want candidates with multi-sector experience that's also their call - but let it be THEIR call.

If they have a seat that represents them specifically they WILL vote. Atm it's voter bloc and they are NOT buying into it.

Besides, if what you say is true, then no changing of the system will have an effect because people will continue to vote for the one with the best "total game" experience.

Thus nullseccers can quite easily field a Highsec candidate and if Highsec agrees - they're in anyway - IF what you say is true.

Somehow I bet it doesn't work that way.

"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" -Wikipedia

Now, replace "decisions... lives" with "representatives elected to make decisions" and you have representative democracy.

Sounds a lot like the CSM elections.


Now limiting the choices that the voters can choose is undemocratic (thus write ins), so why do you think we should have the inalienable right to a less democratic institution than we have now?

You're believing that the candidates put forward by sheer weight of numbers is both representative and democratic? You're also believing that they are both objective and impartial?

As I've said, how can a Nullsec entity be a representative of ME - a highseccer? They neither care NOR do they know of my concerns.

But alas, point is being missed. Tell me, how is your presidential candidate (I assume you're American) selected? Does the candidate elect require a majority of states in order to stand for president or do they simply add all the states votes together and declare a winner?

Please correct me if I am wrong but Romney (for example) could win 35 states and still have LESS then the majority vote making him the presidential candidate? (Ignore the obvious reality - even Australia knows Newt is moot)

I care little for the current membership, it's irrelevant in this thread - I'm discussing process.

If you took the time to read through "5 pages" you would have spotted the lack of exclusion and seen the posssibility of absolute inclusion in this form.

TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.

By guaranteeing they represent the very sector they stand for will also guarantee - by default - that the candidate INTENDS to represent that sector. If he choses not to or lies to get the seat he won't be back and it guarantees that a DIFFERENT candidate is likely to be there NEXT TIME.

Any candidate that wants to play "the game" is welcome to try. They'll only do it once.

In addition: If you decide to stand for a highsec seat then you can't stand for a nullsec seat. The candidate gets to choose and must choose wisely.

Sector based representation has an inherent flaw in that it excludes a candidate from contributing to the entire EVE experience. You cannot just consider high-sec in exclusion and if a candidate comes with that view, that candidate will skew the system.

You forget.

The CSM represents the players. You could make ALL the seats High-sec and we would STILL be able to control what they took to CCP.

I can't make that any clearer, unfortunately.

Your idea will bring nothing beneficial, will do harm and will not achieve better representation.

As Ai Shun already pointed, the fallacy of your proposal lies here- "sectors" do not have conflicting interests nor distinct demographies, they merely mark the borders between different levels of CONCORD presence.

Yeah, I know. I'm just prodding him to see how long it takes him to give up.

This.

When OP and his friends will start to realize that, there will be no need for devious election schemes pulled out of the opposite ends of their bodies.

But Nova it's like you think that imposing arbitrary constituencies that bear no relation to the reality of the game in order to ringfence a few seats for your own views because you can't get enough actual votes in a free contest would be somehow bad for the CSM.

Seriously though, claiming that an election is "rigged" because the guys with the most votes win is like claiming that a race is rigged because the guys who run fastest have an unfair advantage.