These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

WHY the majority doesn't vote for CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#101 - 2012-02-02 16:37:53 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
democracy gives power to the best organized; the majority is not organized.

Then it's an oligarchy. In a democracy the representative body (CSM in this instance) responsibly takes note of the lack of representation of the majority and takes steps to alleviate the flaw. The representative body is assumed to be for a democracy, rather than for subverting a democracy into an oligarchy.

Then, we have the self-serving people whose dictionaries are in pencil...the folks with well-used erasers.

"Some are more equal than others." -George Orwell-

Leave it to the Goon's leader to have a goon take on things.


the best thing about election season is npc corp alts bleating earnest axioms of enlightenment-era political theory and godwinning themselves shortly thereafter

You know, most people think the best thing about election season is it ending with their win. So, one has to assume your response to Serene's accurate post is designed for effect...and in that light the only effect it has is to demonstrate how woefully lacking you are in knowledge of the subject. But, who cares? I know I don't

What's odd is how you try to subvert anything anyone says into some sort of agonizing cry from under your jack-booted heel, when in fact the regime from whom you steal most of your regalia would likely have gotten some latrine emptying out of you before your final disposal. Enough about real life!

I'm assuming you do have the depth of knowledge that includes the fact the "oligarchy" dates back to Greece - BC. That predates the Age of Enlightenment by quite a few centuries. I guess that's an age which passed you by, so all that's left for you is to ridicule it. Enjoy your life as a big fish in a tiny pond.


I'm all about the fight myself. Win or lose, if the parties put up an entertaining fight, I'm happy. My scale of happiness:
My Side Wins: Fun Fight
My Side Loses: Fun Fight
My Side Wins: Boring Fight
My Side Loses: Boring Fight

I'm not sure how you turned the rest of Skinny-Sickly-White Guy's post into something about... stealing regalia...?

The ideal of a representative democracy representing every voter involved, rather than every voter who voted for them is in fact an Idea born of the Enlightenment Era. That's the ideal the NPC Forum Alts are bleating about, so.... yeah....

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#102 - 2012-02-02 19:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Pok Nibin
RubyPorto wrote:

I'm not sure how you turned the rest of Skinny-Sickly-White Guy's post into something about... stealing regalia...?
I assume you're unaware one must be a member of the "SA" before consideration for membership in Goonwhatever...Should I further assume you're unaware of the historical "SA"? If so, not cool. If not, I hope you don't plan to assert it's an accident of initial invention.
RubyPorto wrote:

The ideal of a representative democracy representing every voter involved, rather than every voter who voted for them is in fact an Idea born of the Enlightenment Era. That's the ideal the NPC Forum Alts are bleating about, so.... yeah....

You might be able to assert "one-man/one-vote" and the government representing all the people, not just a favored few, is an Age of Enlightenment idea. However, I'm sure you'll find many cultures have entertained that notion, and even implemented it long before that so-called age. Take for instance the oldest democracy on the planet...Iceland.

But, the issue was this current CSM being an oligarchy - a government that represents a privileged few, that is put into power by a power bloc, not by consent of the governed. The point was being made for Mitt who (mistakenly) called that fact an error, which it is not.....doesn't take much to digress with EVE players, eh?

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-02-02 20:12:19 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:

You know, most people think the best thing about election season is it ending with their win. So, one has to assume your response to Serene's accurate post is designed for effect...and in that light the only effect it has is to demonstrate how woefully lacking you are in knowledge of the subject. But, who cares? I know I don't

What's odd is how you try to subvert anything anyone says into some sort of agonizing cry from under your jack-booted heel, when in fact the regime from whom you steal most of your regalia would likely have gotten some latrine emptying out of you before your final disposal. Enough about real life!

I'm assuming you do have the depth of knowledge that includes the fact the "oligarchy" dates back to Greece - BC. That predates the Age of Enlightenment by quite a few centuries. I guess that's an age which passed you by, so all that's left for you is to ridicule it. Enjoy your life as a big fish in a tiny pond.


you manage to godwin yourself and try to insult my intelligence w/r/t political knowledge in one post

1. you're an npc corp alt and anything you write is meaningless except for the amusement value your flailings provide

2. i'm more of a smartie than you, neener neener

~hi~
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#104 - 2012-02-02 20:29:10 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
you manage to godwin yourself and try to insult my intelligence w/r/t political knowledge in one post

1. you're an npc corp alt and anything you write is meaningless except for the amusement value your flailings provide

2. i'm more of a smartie than you, neener neener

Referencing Mike Godwin isn't much of a smokescreen, though it does smack of a bit of denial prep. Not surprising.

AND...gee Mitt, you're entitled to your opinion.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
None ofthe Above
#105 - 2012-02-02 21:08:08 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:

At least its contributing to the discussion as opposed to simply browbeating.

a genuine contribution to this board would be 'ban npc forum alts from csm forums'


Bad netiquitte to continuously post the same suggestion over and over.

Just saying.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#106 - 2012-02-02 21:48:21 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:

At least its contributing to the discussion as opposed to simply browbeating.

a genuine contribution to this board would be 'ban npc forum alts from csm forums'


Bad netiquitte to continuously post the same suggestion over and over.

Just saying.


lol netiquitte

maybe you'd have better luck campaigning via usenet in the early 90's
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#107 - 2012-02-03 00:18:06 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

I'm not sure how you turned the rest of Skinny-Sickly-White Guy's post into something about... stealing regalia...?
I assume you're unaware one must be a member of the "SA" before consideration for membership in Goonwhatever...Should I further assume you're unaware of the historical "SA"? If so, not cool. If not, I hope you don't plan to assert it's an accident of initial invention.
RubyPorto wrote:

The ideal of a representative democracy representing every voter involved, rather than every voter who voted for them is in fact an Idea born of the Enlightenment Era. That's the ideal the NPC Forum Alts are bleating about, so.... yeah....

You might be able to assert "one-man/one-vote" and the government representing all the people, not just a favored few, is an Age of Enlightenment idea. However, I'm sure you'll find many cultures have entertained that notion, and even implemented it long before that so-called age. Take for instance the oldest democracy on the planet...Iceland.

But, the issue was this current CSM being an oligarchy - a government that represents a privileged few, that is put into power by a power bloc, not by consent of the governed. The point was being made for Mitt who (mistakenly) called that fact an error, which it is not.....doesn't take much to digress with EVE players, eh?


I asserted no such thing, and Iceland is nowhere near the oldest example of One-Man/One-Vote principals. Off the top of my head, that falls to Athens in ~600 BCE. Rome had One-Man/One-Vote Representative democracy around ~300BC(?).

I said that the idea that a Representative has some obligation to represent the issues of those constituants who did Not vote for him is an Enlightenment Era Ideal.

If the current CSM were an Oligarchy, the members would not be replaced by vote of the entire populace every year.

But let's delve deeper.
Q: What is a "Power Bloc?" A: An Organized group of People large enough to have "Power"
Q: How does having a large group of people voting for you in a free election make you an Oligarch? A: ... ... ... Traumatic Head Injury?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#108 - 2012-02-03 05:10:40 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Q: What is a "Power Bloc?" A: An Organized group of People large enough to have "Power"
Q: How does having a large group of people voting for you in a free election make you an Oligarch? A: ... ... ... Traumatic Head Injury?

Power to the people!

But yeah, maybe someone (sadly) ODed on explosions. I hear being podded can be bad for you if it occurs repeatedly.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Serene Repose
#109 - 2012-02-03 11:13:28 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Q: What is a "Power Bloc?" A: An Organized group of People large enough to have "Power"
Q: How does having a large group of people voting for you in a free election make you an Oligarch? A: ... ... ... Traumatic Head Injury?

The definition is "elected by a select, powerful group of people," it doesn't include the dog and pony show orchestrated to create the impression of democratic process. The traumatic headwound would assume voters understood this, but the rationale was knocked from their senses.

This sort of exchange has the depth of explaining why we punctuate the end of sentences.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#110 - 2012-02-03 12:58:59 UTC
I'd say the majority of people that don't vote, don't vote because they don't even know the candidates who they would be voting for.

I'm sure we've all had experiences with politicians at election time, promising this and that and when they get elected they don't come through on their promises.

Why should these elections be any different?



Part of the problem with these elections is the fact that the candidates have a vested interest in what changes occur within the game and therefore will more likely be biased in their own and corp/alliance's goals.


CSMs should act in the game's and players (all players) interests and not for their own or corp/alliance agendas.


I'm against the CSM system as it is, but if CSMs were to act professionally and not be influenced by their own and corp/allaince agendas then I would not have a problem with it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#111 - 2012-02-04 00:59:59 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Q: What is a "Power Bloc?" A: An Organized group of People large enough to have "Power"
Q: How does having a large group of people voting for you in a free election make you an Oligarch? A: ... ... ... Traumatic Head Injury?

The definition is "elected by a select, powerful group of people," it doesn't include the dog and pony show orchestrated to create the impression of democratic process. The traumatic headwound would assume voters understood this, but the rationale was knocked from their senses.

This sort of exchange has the depth of explaining why we punctuate the end of sentences.


So, how do the members of "Power Blocs" have more individual power than the average player?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Serene Repose
#112 - 2012-02-04 03:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
RubyPorto wrote:
So, how do the members of "Power Blocs" have more individual power than the average player?

I can't really believe the sincerity of this question. For the sake of discussion, however,
I'll pretend it's not a lame trolling attempt.

IF the bloc succeeds in getting their candidate(s) elected, it would stand to reason the newly elected candidates would then have what power is available within the governmental process to which they were elected. The hoped for result would then be the interests of the bloc are paramount in the following policies enacted by the elected. The policies then have the potential to empower the bloc.

That's not to say the holders of said positions cast the "others" of the population aside. That would depend upon the character of the individuals involved, or if the bloc allows such leniency to the elected. However, if the interests of the bloc run contrary to those of the "others", the likelihood is significantly increased that the interests of the bloc would be pursued at the possible expense of the "others."

For further tutelage on Poli Sci 101 I'm going to have to charge a fee.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#113 - 2012-02-04 03:47:28 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So, how do the members of "Power Blocs" have more individual power than the average player?

I can't really believe the sincerity of this question. For the sake of discussion, however,
I'll pretend it's not a lame trolling attempt.

IF the bloc succeeds in getting their candidate(s) elected, it would stand to reason the newly elected candidates would then have what power is available within the governmental process to which they were elected. The hoped for result would then be the interests of the bloc are paramount in the following policies enacted by the elected. The policies then have the potential to empower the bloc.

That's not to say the holders of said positions cast the "others" of the population aside. That would depend upon the character of the individuals involved, or if the bloc allows such leniency to the elected. However, if the interests of the bloc run contrary to those of the "others", the likelihood is significantly increased that the interests of the bloc would be pursued at the possible expense of the "others."

For further tutelage on Poli Sci 101 I'm going to have to charge a fee.


Ok, that sounds a lot like voting in a democratic process. I was asking in what way the members of these "Power Blocs" have a greater voting power than any other member of the electorate.

Serene Repose wrote:
"elected by a select, powerful group of people,"

Makes me think that you've decided that the voters who have organized a little bit to improve their chances at electoral victory are doing something wrong.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Serene Repose
#114 - 2012-02-04 06:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
RubyPorto wrote:
Ok, that sounds a lot like voting in a democratic process. I was asking in what way the members of these "Power Blocs" have a greater voting power than any other member of the electorate.

Serene Repose wrote:
"elected by a select, powerful group of people,"

Makes me think that you've decided that the voters who have organized a little bit to improve their chances at electoral victory are doing something wrong.

Well...it may sound to you like that's a democratic process. And, we're each entitled to our own opinions, or interpretation of facts. Voting blocs do have the potential to exert greater voting power, but that's not what you were asking. It may have been what you were "getting at," but I rather infer you were trying to bait me into saying something you could then slam dunk...which was what that last line attempts.

There's a big difference between a voting bloc, and "organized a little bit". So, the more you say the more I believe you're being disingenous. As none of this is rocket science, and a pretense of confusion could only mean what I suspect, I'm going to assume that's the case here.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#115 - 2012-02-04 08:51:02 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Ok, that sounds a lot like voting in a democratic process. I was asking in what way the members of these "Power Blocs" have a greater voting power than any other member of the electorate.

Serene Repose wrote:
"elected by a select, powerful group of people,"

Makes me think that you've decided that the voters who have organized a little bit to improve their chances at electoral victory are doing something wrong.

Well...it may sound to you like that's a democratic process. And, we're each entitled to our own opinions, or interpretation of facts. Voting blocs do have the potential to exert greater voting power, but that's not what you were asking. It may have been what you were "getting at," but I rather infer you were trying to bait me into saying something you could then slam dunk...which was what that last line attempts.

There's a big difference between a voting bloc, and "organized a little bit". So, the more you say the more I believe you're being disingenous. As none of this is rocket science, and a pretense of confusion could only mean what I suspect, I'm going to assume that's the case here.


Yes they do, but how is the set {Voters Who Voted for candidate X} different from the set {Voters in a Voting Bloc who Voted for candidate X}? And how is the organization of people in an MMO a bad thing?

The benefit of organizing voters is that it makes it easier for a candidate to campaign, and easier for successful candidates to whip voters to the polls.

Nah, no bait. I have no problem with those who dislike democracy (and the party politics that are an inevitable part of it*). It's those who promote suggestions that run contrary to democratic ideals under the flag of improving a democratic process that annoy me. The pretense of confusion is called the Socratic method of teaching. I ask questions, and if I am able to ask the right questions of someone willing to learn, at the end of the day we both learn something.

*Rome had political parties. Athens had what amounted to political parties. Britain has had political parties since the introduction of Parliament. Political parties are the inevitable result of any process that give each person the same vote.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mintrolio
Doomheim
#116 - 2012-02-04 09:32:51 UTC
CONFRIMIGN I SEE MANY SLPERGIGN HAVE REED ALLES THESE POAST.

ALSO TO OP - I THINKIGN ANSWER IS ME.

KEEP UP THE GOOD POASTIGN!

MINTROLIO FUR CSM7
Serene Repose
#117 - 2012-02-04 12:38:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Yes they do, but how is the set {Voters Who Voted for candidate X} different from the set {Voters in a Voting Bloc who Voted for candidate X}? And how is the organization of people in an MMO a bad thing?

The benefit of organizing voters is that it makes it easier for a candidate to campaign, and easier for successful candidates to whip voters to the polls.

Nah, no bait. I have no problem with those who dislike democracy (and the party politics that are an inevitable part of it*). It's those who promote suggestions that run contrary to democratic ideals under the flag of improving a democratic process that annoy me. The pretense of confusion is called the Socratic method of teaching. I ask questions, and if I am able to ask the right questions of someone willing to learn, at the end of the day we both learn something.

*Rome had political parties. Athens had what amounted to political parties. Britain has had political parties since the introduction of Parliament. Political parties are the inevitable result of any process that give each person the same vote.


A little math correction first - {Voters Who Voted for candidate X} different from the set {Voters in a Voting Bloc who Voted for candidate Y}

As I never made any suggestions, and am not promoting a suggestion I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Personally, I don't care if I annoy you. Your patronizing approach to this discussion - a veiled attempt at a "gotcha" is sufficient evidence of your insincerity, so forgive my apathy. That you would speculate I must be advocating a line contrary to democratic process to the point of annoying yourself I find rather humorous, however. And, I might add, if your understanding of the subject is as limited as your posts seem to convey, you might need to reconsider what it is exactly that IS annoying you.

I will concede, however, you've managed to run the discussion right off the rails. I somehow think that was your original intent...or I'll give you the benefit of that doubt, for if it were to demonstrate your grasp of this subject...you didn't.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#118 - 2012-02-04 16:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
RubyPorto wrote:
The benefit of organizing voters is that it makes it easier for a candidate to campaign, and easier for successful candidates to whip voters to the polls.

I like the way you characterize bloc voting, ie: with whips.
Serene Repose wrote:
I will concede, however, you've managed to run the discussion right off the rails.

Meh, for how hard the mind of the silent majority is to gauge, everyone seems to know what it is, furthermore, it's always in their favor.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#119 - 2012-02-04 18:32:04 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The benefit of organizing voters is that it makes it easier for a candidate to campaign, and easier for successful candidates to whip voters to the polls.

I like the way you characterize bloc voting, ie: with whips.


It's an actual job title in most legislative bodies, and I find the name hilarious.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#120 - 2012-02-04 18:41:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
It's an actual job title in most legislative bodies, and I find the name hilarious.

Yeah, the party whip or whatever. Hilarious indeed.

Oh no, I need to get back to mining.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?