Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Assistant to the Quote of the Week

American-style politics?  In my EVE?
I guess this is where I say "too bad". You didn't vote for me. You don't get a say in how I do things. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that is the way things work.
Nope, not The Mittani.  This time, it was two step.  The guy didn't even get a full seat and he's playing the "we won, you lost, STFU" card.  ;-)  Does this mean that Trebor's the only person that represents me, since he got one of my votes?


  1. What annoys me about this is the supposition that democratically elected people should represent each individual of the electorate. The whole premise of the question is false.

    Democracy leads to a person or set of people who (collectively) represent the electorate; and because of they way democracy works you can still end up with certain opinions or beliefs present in the electorate not being present in the individuals elected. That's the way it works, and it's still a fair process.

  2. Nope, I'm afraid everything you just said is -- by definition -- wrong.

    Modern "democracies" are no such thing. They're republics. This is why -- for example -- the United States can choose a President that loses the popular vote. Theoretically, in fact, the U.S. could elect a President that loses the popular vote by a HUGE margin, 33-67 or some such the last time I checked.

    Republics, however, work the way you suggest, and lead to situations where -- as in this case -- representatives of 11% of the EVE population are making recommendations to CCP for the other 89%.

  3. Ideally, when you elect someone to office, that person has an obligation to fairly represent all members of their constituency, regardless of how they voted. My city does not have party representation for seats on city council. We vote for people based on our thoughts on who would best represent us. Now that they're in office, we have a reasonable expectation that our councillor will listen to us should we bring a concern or issue to their attention, and address it fairly considering other interests of the constituency, without considering whether we voted for them or not. Ideally.

    I'd like the CSM to be a council like that, where those of us who aren't full-time null sec residents can have our concerns considered and represented fairly by the council. Past councils made an attempt at this by taking issues raised through the Assembly Hall and assessing them and prioritising them and bringing them up to CCP. The current council appears to have no such interest. We have the top of the council and the bottom of the alternates both stating categorically that they have no obligations to any one who didn't vote for them. Since no one on the CSM is commenting otherwise, and given this council is so set on a "united front", it stands to reason that this attitude is shared across the council.

    Before the councillors get too involved in representing a constituency of only those that voted for them, consider this: they don't have a constituency. The Mittani has spoken of business realities, well here's one to consider: 85.75% of the eligible accounts don't even consider the CSM worth voting for. That's 85% of CCP's subscription income. The 9 CSM councillors got 56% of the votes cast, so they represent only 8% of CCP's subscription income. If money talks, and in business it certainly does, a CSM claiming to only represent those that voted for them hasn't much to say.

    If the CSM and CCP want better voter turnout in the future, they need to show the 86% who don't think the CSM matters that they're wrong. The attitude that the council members only represent their buddies that voted for them won't do that. Rather it reinforces the idea that the CSM is really the CSIM - Council of Specific Interest of the Moment.

    (For the record, I voted during CSM6. The ideal of the CSM is worthy.)

  4. Cripes. @Bob, that comment is so good that you just caused me to start a new regular feature. That third paragraph is a thing of beauty. Well said!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.