Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

CSM Elections - Pretty much rigged voting?

Author
#141 Posted: 2012.01.31 14:40
The election isn't rigged. It is heavily manipulated, however. The real problem is the community as a whole doesn't want a democracy. In a competitive world, one never wants to lend an advantage to the competition. Some of us win. Some have to lose. In a true democracy a fundamental force is to ensure everyone has their access to understanding the issues, and to the vote. Should someone not avail themselves of this, then that's their fault.

In EVE the CSM is viewed not as a player representative body, but as another source of power. All power is to be used against everyone but ones own. Ipso facto, it's impossible for the CSM to represent the players as a whole. The notion of the CSM representing anything but their own narrow interests as individuals and members of larger groups isn't an impossible dream, it's just highly unlikely.

As the top goon said, the majority isn't organized. Rather than stating a fact, he showed his hand. The majority, or totality IS organized into the player base of this game. Divide and conquer is the enemy of democracy, but the rule of EVE. So, the question is: Who is fooled into believing the CSM represents the player base? That of course is for each player to answer.

What exacerbates this is CCP's insistance on parading the CSM around as a player-input of some sort which guides their decisions. It's not the issue of CSM representing whom. That's probably what sticks in people's craw. If CCP admitted they understand the CSM doesn't really represent the player base, the purpose of the CSM wouldn't be in question.

What would be in question is: Just where IS this group CCP keeps claiming represents the player base of EVE? I haven't seen one. Have you?
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man. 
Goonswarm Federation
#142 Posted: 2012.01.31 15:05
the best thing about election season is legions of npc corp alts complaining about how i'm an awful person and did meeen things to them

mittens csm7: ~chairman for lyfe~

~hi~
Goonswarm Federation
#143 Posted: 2012.01.31 15:17
about 70% of the badposts in this thread can be summed up as 'nerf charismatic attractive people with a modicum of social graces who know how to have a good time on the town'

~hi~
#144 Posted: 2012.01.31 15:33
I regards to the CSM being rigged.. sorry but that is how elections are run.

You have various charismatic people who are able to bullshit there way out of a paper bag and are able to gather a force of people to support them.

In Eve this is made somewhat easier for those who run null sec alliances as by their very nature they all ready have a solid and coherent structure in place and a large membership.

The Goons have a even bigger advantage as they are comprised of people from outside of Eve who all share a sense of comradeship.

If you want to have a place on the CSM then you have 2 options.

1. Form your own corp, build it up into a successful alliance comprising of thousand of players and then get them to vote for you.

2. Create a interesting campaign that has important and relevant points that is able to grab the attention of players who are not part of a large alliance. This will be a lot harder and will involve many people having to campaign on your behalf in game and on the forums and other places such as Eve Radio to generate the support you will need but is possible.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#145 Posted: 2012.01.31 16:04
The Mittani wrote:
the best thing about election season is legions of npc corp alts complaining about how i'm an awful person and did meeen things to them

mittens csm7: ~chairman for lyfe~



If you are that evil genius that people say, i suppose all those npc corp alts are goon alts. You ordered them to smacktalk the CSM 6 with unfounded diatribes and make themselves look like drooling idiots to shift the public opinion back to the old CSM and it's chairman.
Clever, very clever indeed....
I'm just going to walk the Earth. You know, like Caine in Kung Fu: walk from place to place, meet people, get into adventures and die of autoerotic asphyxation in a sleazy Thai hotel room.
#146 Posted: 2012.01.31 18:47
The Mittani wrote:
about 70% of the badposts in this thread can be summed up as 'nerf charismatic attractive people with a modicum of social graces who know how to have a good time on the town'




..I've seen you...


......you are not attractive, my friend........
Goonswarm Federation
#147 Posted: 2012.01.31 19:33
Selinate wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
about 70% of the badposts in this thread can be summed up as 'nerf charismatic attractive people with a modicum of social graces who know how to have a good time on the town'




..I've seen you...


......you are not attractive, my friend........


you're right:

i'm fabulous~
~hi~
WAFFLES.
#148 Posted: 2012.01.31 19:33
Ohh democracy, you so funny.

What it comes down to is as what has been stated many times in this thread. The problem lies with the inherent flaw of ANY form of vote backed representation. When the sole factor of election for authority is based on amount of votes, the major parties will always use their influence over their own majority to get their representative elected (large alliances).

The alternative which would be CCP choosing at random leads to people who don't know the game, or favoritism by the devs. This is also a terrible idea. Realistically the best idea would be a hybrid of the two.

The best system would be vote driven, but it should be decided into tiers of influence. mega alliances that hold multiple regions should be put at the largest size tier (with exceptions made when needed like for PL or any other large alliance that may not choose to hold space) Then in the second tier you would have smaller alliances that ride on the back of the larger alliances, or secure a small amount of space for their self. Then you go down to tier three which are lowsec / nullsec based, but not that large and not space holding (the true pirate style PvPers) and finally you have the smallest tier, the highsec no space holding corporations.

Each tier should have roughly the same amount of representation power, and roughly the same amount of candidates (lets say 4 per tier?) that way you cover a wide range of EVE life, and have people from different alliances and lifestyles instead of all people in nullsec or whoever has the most votes. This kind of system is an augmented form of democracy that could help to solve the one sided representation that is currently bitched about.

I realize there is probably a single term that describes the entire system I just described, but I'm not exactly a politician or political major so I'm afraid I can't give you a simple word that you could look up on wiki to use as a reference hahaha.
Amarr Empire
#149 Posted: 2012.01.31 22:48
I don't see why people get so wound up about it. It isn't like CSM members are given advantages in game or anything. I don't care who gets voted as long as they make something of it and improve the game for the better. They could all be from the same corporation for all I care. As long as they show some knowledge and commitment, I'm game.
"The entire British empire was built on cups of tea... and if you think I'm going to war without one mate. You're mistaken."
#150 Posted: 2012.01.31 23:03
Sasha Khaine wrote:
I don't see why people get so wound up about it. It isn't like CSM members are given advantages in game or anything. I don't care who gets voted as long as they make something of it and improve the game for the better. They could all be from the same corporation for all I care. As long as they show some knowledge and commitment, I'm game.


Can I suggest you look up the term Meta Win then and re-examine their stance on who they represent. Simply by neglecting certian members of the playerbase they are applying a preference for their own interests. Something CCP has in their constitutional afforded significant guidance to avoid and declared they wont tolerate or afford for legitamacy.

You'll soon learn who has specific interests and don't consider the overall collective interest of the whole of EvE.

I can't emphasise this enough for newer players to research and determine for themselves who are really on the council for selfish interests and consider philanthropy as a weakness to their position.
#151 Posted: 2012.01.31 23:19
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Can I suggest you look up the term Meta Win then and re-examine their stance on who they represent. Simply by neglecting certian members of the playerbase they are applying a preference for their own interests. Something CCP has in their constitutional afforded significant guidance to avoid and declared they wont tolerate or afford for legitamacy.

You'll soon learn who has specific interests and don't consider the overall collective interest of the whole of EvE.
But that just raises the same old question that always comes up in these threads: so what? Has there been any case of a single entity gaining any kind of advantage from having a representative on the CSM?

We know one guy tried some insider dealing and got smacked down hard because of it (and in that case, he represented himself, not his corp/alliance iirc). Another got thrown out for (among other things) trying gain real-world advantages from the CSM seat. The key thing here is that they tried, and it didn't end well for them.

So is it in practice such a large problem if special interests are being represented on the council or if individual members only really represent their own (small or narrow) constituents?

Admittedly, it might be to ascribe more discretion and discipline to CCP than I would normally do, but without any clear examples of the CSM abusing their position, is it not at least a possibility that they manage to sanity-check any such excesses to keep them from happening?
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1.
#152 Posted: 2012.02.01 02:59
Eve must be one deep sandbox to fit so many heads.
#153 Posted: 2012.02.01 03:20  |  Edited by: Aggressive Nutmeg
Zirse wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
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.



Here's how it will go down:


Player: What the hell is this ****? Since I just want to play, and I don't really care about this ****, I'm picking this one because of :boobs: in the portrait. Or the one with green lipstick and yellow eye shadow because :lol:.


In the end you have a CSM that isn't vetted by the players interested enough in having a stake in the CSM. Mandatory voting blows. Sorry Australia.


I love all the opposition to mandatory voting. These power blocs know full well they'd be GOOOOOOOONE if CCP gently encouraged ALL players to have their say.

These big Eve gangs (full of wannabes) are not in favour of a democratic system they can't control and manipulate.

CSM elections are very much like American politics. No representation - just a competition to see which well-connected millionaire/billionaire gets given the job.

Oh, and I've seen the CCP/CSM videos on youtbe. There is no way I'd be voting for any of those weak, awkward, unprofessional dickwads.

ps. Australia rocks. Wouldn't catch me living anywhere else on the planet.
Never make eye contact with someone while eating a banana.
#154 Posted: 2012.02.01 11:54
ERRRr im retired Mittens has his on RMT empire.. SO he doesnt need my account.... And i actually voted for him just because i think the CSM is useless hahahaha..

But hey keep throwing out that smoke screen.....
#155 Posted: 2012.02.01 11:59
meh its expected that alliances will vote for candidates within thier own numbers, i see no issue there, if 4000 humans who play in null/low want to vote on 1 guy/girl then great.

Only thing i think is an issue is where those 4000 people can then use thier numerous (or not) alts to muscle the votes out of proportion.

All these posts about democracy. Any legitimate election anywhere on the planet only allows each voter to make 1 vote. No vote vote vote vote vote for how many cats dogs birds and fish they have too. Thats the only major imbalance with eve's csm voting that i can see.

Find a way to limit votes to 1 per person or the problem of double triple endless votes from each user will carry on
Goonswarm Federation
#156 Posted: 2012.02.01 16:32
so about 4 pages discussing bloc voting and 20 pages of screeching argument about rmt in the drone regions
~hi~
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#157 Posted: 2012.02.01 20:35
Ira Theos wrote:
I'm surpised that anyone other than the Goons are even in the CSM. If the Mittani coordinated and allocated his troop's votes better, he could capture all the CSM seats.



Not very good at math?

Each account gets one vote. At worst, Goonswarm has 7565 accounts. (that's assuming each account has only one character in Goonswarm, which is probably a bad assumption).

It took around 2000 votes to get on CSM 6. At best, that's 3 seats on a council of 9. Actually, I think they got two, not three, but The Mittani also got like 5000 votes total. You do the math. It's not numerically likely that Goonswarm could completely control the CSM. Goonswarm, TEST, and the Technetium Bloc (Pandemic Legion/Ev0ke/Raiden/Northern Coalition.) might be able to claim 4-5 of the nine seats. I'd be surprised if they took 6. That leaves room for other well organized groups to gain a voice.

So organize, work within the system and get a candidate. Then, when you've voted and nothing you care about is brought to light in the CSM/CCP summits, you can complain like a good voter - one who participated.
Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
Minmatar Republic
#158 Posted: 2012.02.02 00:47  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
WhyTry1 wrote:
I have no faith in the election voting process at all.

A candidate basically has his hundreds of alliance mate votes, and their alts on top. Pretty much seals the candidates seat and we can say is pretty much rigged voting..

People in small corps/alliances even though they may have lots of eve experience, would never get voted because of this.. So thats why i guess a lot of ppl dont stand and ppl dont vote either...

I still think that CCP should be the people to effectively 'interview' candidates from all areas (null, low, empire, pvp, trade) and they choose who they think is the best person to be on the CSM. Thats pretty much the only way to ensure fairness.

How is this really any different then real, IRL politics? US Supreme Court ruling even states that Corporations have the same rights as people.

You have organizations like the Tea Party who will stop at nothing to elect ANYONE other then obama. How is this really any different then an eve corporation banding together to vote for their group candidate? At least in eve you cant pour billions of isk/plex into getting their CSM elected.

You claim the democratic CSM election is flawed, and then suggest curing it by having some kind of moderator that chooses who can be voted for? not letting the majority have their vote? (hey, you know, that does sound like IRL politics too!)
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
#159 Posted: 2012.02.02 09:11  |  Edited by: ISD Grossvogel
(Relocated from GD.)

Threadnaught cleanup complete; all explosive content removed and disposed of. Proceeding to the CCL rehab facility for a well-deserved soak in a hot tub.
ISD Grossvogel (ISD Гроссфогель)
Captain, Community Communication Liaisons (CCL)
Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками
Interstellar Services Department
Minmatar Republic
#160 Posted: 2012.02.02 12:11
ISD Grossvogel wrote:
(Relocated from GD.)

Threadnaught cleanup complete; all explosive content removed and disposed of. Proceeding to the CCL rehab facility for a well-deserved soak in a hot tub.



Well... TBH I am glad that is over with LOL


One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources
Forum Jump