I’m looking closely, but you just moved the goal posts - I’m talking specifically about evidence that one coalition or alliance used to the CSM to benefit that alliance alone - Goons doing something just to benefit Goons, for example. I have seen no evidence of that.
I think you can probably make a fair argument that nullsec has been most influential, but that’s also considered end-game content for many players. Same with capitals, and the like. But that’s not what we’re talking about here - I’m trying to address the concerns that one player group (a corp, alliance or coalition, not a playstyle) in the game could get CCP to change their game to benefit that player group by getting a majority of the CSM elected.
I’m not talking about a different CCP - just because they implement features that folks didn’t ask for doesn’t mean they can’t smell when somebody is being self serving. You can make bad decisions but realize when somebody is trying to take advantage of you.
As for the comparisons, you’ve got to look at the variables. The number of candidates and the number of positions matters - if Brave, Horde or any of the other big groups had a popular internal candidate, that could have driven turnout. I’m sure my guys voted in greater numbers than in the past because I was on the ballot. That impacts turnout. Every election is different, and the fact that despite the changes to the nomination period, the length of the campaign period, the format of the announcement (not at fanfest, for example) and the length of the voting window, to only drop 1800 or so votes is pretty good.
But hey, like I said, if you are concerned about this, let’s work next year on getting the numbers up.