Jita Park Speakers Corner

Yes that is possible and it is also possible more people will vote.

It depends on the scale of an election.

Fighting a local election in the UK that is held once every 4 years means with even 8 months notice you can knock on every door in the Ward as ward sizes are probably a couple of thousand houses. Plus you can only spend £1000 on your campaign so a lot of it has to be going out and meeting people. At most it will be a few leaflets and knocking on doors.

To use the UK again the parties fun national campaigns at election time, yet even though the political system actually means you're voting for an individual most people vote based on which party that individual is for rather than their own opinions, voting history etc. In individual constituencies it will just be several leaflet drops (maybe 3-5) and even then targeted at specific groups that will maximise voter turnout for minimum effort. The national stage is mainly the Party Political Broadcast that every single party gets on the same channels, for the same length of time. Again strict spending limits apply. Most of the money for campaigning goes on "campaign experts" or "branding experts" and staffing costs. Plus printing costs as they buy the leaflets for each constituency.

Finally you have the US Presidential Elections which is the grand daddy of political campaign spending where they use all sorts of tactics and techniques. Millions and millions of dollars into providing TV ads, billboards, massive rallies etc. Pretty much everything goes as they call in all their favours from the well connected people in the media.

Turnout in these elections are as follows: approx. 30%, Approx 55%, approx. 51%. The US Presidential election has a lower turnout then pretty much the entire of Europe despite spending the most. Some countries in Europe don't even allow parties to acquire their own funding and have very strict rules on what they can and cannot campaign on.


That is for actual real life stuff. However, I answered your question but I have no idea what it has to do with the ridiculous suggestion that High Sec is hard done by because it's players don't vote. No amount of "voter outreach programs" will get people to vote if they don't care.

It also helps voter turnout if the Highsec candidates stop acting like they have schizoaffective disorder, or tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Actually, it's called incursions.

Nope, you've quoted out of context - probably too much snippage. I answered 'whats wrong with missions, not whats wrong with eve.



As I said above I'd leave that to CCP - they are the ones who need subscriptions and it should be their choice as to which of their customers they solicit interest from.

If it were me I would *start* by trying to make sure everything was represented by someone and see how it panned out. So I would split the 14 as 4 by geography (1 HS, 1 LS, 1 NS, 1 WH) and 4 by role (indy, pve, pvp, and CorporateIssues&Sov) and then have 6 floaters.

If it worked well, I'd bump numbers in important/popular areas and/or specific gameplay roles.

So depending on how you count that up.....



I don't want to get sidetracked into specific issues, there are plenty of other threads on this.



I quite agree.

ERMAGERD TEH ENTERNEYT SPESSHIPS DUN HAS ENUFF REPRESNTSHUN

Go vote lol.

It seems that simple to you and me Inquisitor, because it IS that simple, because all we need for things to work out is oppurtunity.

Some people (in game and in real life) don't want oppurtunity, they want guranteed outcomes. So it doesn't matter to them that (for example) voting for csm or tanking their mining ship or flling their Tengu's EM hole, or being prepared for whatever an afk cloaker can bring ect ect is so ridiculasly easy as to take a few seconds and 2 or less braincells. No, what matters is that someone else , someone in power, should be fixing these things for them, because they want them means they must be right, of course.....

The people complaining about the csm and lack of high sec representation are relying on some powerful fallacy filled logic. They think that everyone in high sec is like them, this if more high sec people vote, high sec csm members will get elected and press their (un-eve-like) agenda.

They fail to realize that other people in high sec are not always like them, that some of those "awakened" high sec voters will STILL vote for null sec csm members because unlike the op and co, the awakened voter might not vote his/her "narrow interests", but instead might vote in favor of the established nature of the game.

Sometimes hate to bring real life into it, but recently a U.S. state had a recall election after a governor signed a law taking some power away from Labor Unions. The pro-union people were SURE they would win, but at the end of the day they found out that 37% of union house holds voted FOR the union busting governor, which put him over the top

The pro union people couldn't udnerstand that some people vote their BEILEFS and MORALITY rather than narrow political or material interests.

In other words OP, even if you did somehow succeed in getting ccp to somehow gerrymander the election process, that's no gurantee that the OUTCOME you want would even happen.

And even after the nerf are still extremely overpowered as a means of highsec income.

In other words, the problem is democracy. I see.

How is a "purely popular vote" favoring null sec?

More to the point, why in hell does anyone thing the most protected and coddled space in the game needs input? high sec serves a purpose (it's a compromise to keep the game going through the subs of those who want to sub but don't like the player driven gameplay that is at the heart of EVE), but it's simply not the most important place in the game.

There is a reason you don't see ccp making vids about mission running or mining, but rather epic PLAYER battles. If anything, a "gerrymandered" voting scheme for EVE should favor the makers of content (aka pvp'rs and empire builders).

As with everyone else, you assume 'input' means buffing income and preventing conflict.... It does not.



To 60% of the player base it is. Does it occur that if those 60% went to low/null/wh the game might be better? That the churn players who play for 6 months then quit in boredom and frustration staying would make the game better? That without those 60% the economy would probably not function? That even the null seccers depend on it on a day to day basis? That actually player created content does exist in high sec? That actually just actually representing highsec players also entails representing highsec players who want to progress out of highsec?



No I'm not surprised they don't make vids there - they would be shockingly dull. That doesn't pove the point you wish it to, quite the opposite.