Jita Park Speakers Corner

Everyone wins, democracy triumphs - no more CSM chairs with complete dominance of the council voted by a tiny fraction of the player base.

Well if that still happens then at least the players can''t complain they are being robbed by 0.0 voting blocs any longer can they?

The issue isn't so much whether there is rigging or not, but that the CSM is predominantly (if not completely) occupied by those whose interests lie with the nullsec sov-holding powerblocs.

As a result, proposals pushed through to CCP by the CSM are more likely to make those groups the primary (or only) beneficiaries of the changes, and often at the expense of everyone else - simply because the ones who are impacted negatively by these changes don't have a voice on the CSM and can't speak out against it.

And sure, putting on a good and effective campaign is part of it, but a single voice on the CSM isn't enough to take care of the interests of the people who live in highsec or lowsec. Personally, (if you'll pardon the reference to US politics and government) I'd rather see CCP arranging the CSM to work a little more like the Senate/HoR, where a given area of the game's populace is guaranteed some sort of representation that actually represents them. Highsec dwellers would have people representing them. Lowsec - both FW and pirate - would have theirs. Nullsec would still have their reps as always, and w-space would even have a few.

The only change for the nullsec blocs is that they would have to fight harder among themselves for a reduced number of seats. Not something I'd hate to see.

As a result, proposals pushed through to CCP by the CSM are more likely to make those groups the primary (or only) beneficiaries of the changes, and often at the expense of everyone else - simply because the ones who are impacted negatively by these changes don't have a voice on the CSM and can't speak out against it.

Looking at this last CSM, some representatives sure were vocal about ideas that would have a wide range of negative effects on nullsec, for instance.

Oppinion

Though I haven't actually taken part in any of the previous CSM elections, I highly doubt there is any rigging involved. If the goal of the CSM is to have players have a vote in the direction the game development takes with the aim of improving it and making it more appealing to its player base then rigging it would defy its very purpose.

If people like The Mittani have an easy, but not guaranteed, spot on the council it's because a vote for him is more appealing than a vote for the other candidates. This can be the case because he can draw more on internal resources such as the members of his corporation/alliance, because his ideas are more in tune with the EVE community or simply because he is better at public relations than the other candidates but that's one of the core principles of a western democratic system to begin with.

And while it is true that people with more accounts can have more votes, they also make out a larger portion of the player base either because they spend more time at EVE or because they pay more at their monthly subscriptions. Essentially this makes the election somewhat of an oligarchy, rather than a democracy but who is to say that people with a lesser impact on EVE should have an equal amount of influence in elections.

Proposal

This doesn't take away the fact that a player who is more familiar with 0.0 is more suitable to represent the best interests of 0.0 while a high sec player would be better aware of high sec issues.

Instead of changing the way the votes are being cast it would be more to the point if the CSM, with its pre-determined number of spots, would be divided between those elected for the improvement of high sec and those elected for the improvement of 0.0/low sec, the division based upon a measurable variable such as system traffic.

For example if there are 10 seats on the council and 60% of the player traffic goes through high sec systems and 40% goes through 0.0 or low sec then there would be 6 members on the council representing the interests of high sec and 4 members representing the interests of 0.0 or low sec.

High sec CSM members would discuss matters of high sec, 0.0/low sec CSM members would do the same for low sec. Issues that involve the entirety of the game would be discussed by all CSM members simultaneously. Eventually the conclusions that need to be drawn from the results of these discussions should remain with CCP, deciding on wether to follow the advice, put it in a poll to the community or dismiss it altogether.

Just an idea.

e: cleaning up wall of text

Well I think I'm living proof its possible for an independent from a small corp/alliance to win the CSM elections. I was the first chair of the CSM defeating Darius Johnson of Goonswarm and Hardin of the CVA who both had huge alliance blocs behind them simply by running a high profile campaign and doing a lot of hard work on the campaign trail (and having an excellent team behind me).

So it is possible.

But that said, I do think its got harder for independent candidates recently to compete with the alliance blocs and there has been some evidence of "rigging" (4 hour trial accounts etc) I guess "exploiting weaknesses in the voting system" might be closer to the mark since what Goonswarm did last time is the virtual equivilence of lorry driving in homeless people from another state and registering them to vote for a particular candidate in exchange for a bottle of hooch to play havoc with the ordinary voting demographics.

This is pretty easy to fix. Trial accounts don't get a vote.
I'd be inclined to say that there should be a minimum age of character that should vote too. Maybe 1 month. It won't entirely solve election manipulation but it'll help.

But the bigger issue is that 0.0 alliance blocs will always find it easier to pressgang their members into voting than the vast unwashed hoards of highsec. And in a system where minority actually vote you get fringe mentalist candidates dominating the story.

I think CCP need to take a leaf from Australia's voting system and make voting mandatory for every eve player who is on a full account and has existed for one month. During the voting period you get a pop up on the launcher that prompts you to cast a vote. CCP already has the ability to randomize the order of candidates on the voting page - so no alphabetic favouritism and let the candidates stand on their message. (abstain should be an option of course)

In exchange for the inconvenience a six pack of quafe zero arrives in the hanger of the person who just voted.

Everyone wins, democracy triumphs - no more CSM chairs with complete dominance of the council voted by a tiny fraction of the player base.