User talk:Chiacomo/Arbitration notes/Elections 2

For the record, I oppose stagered reelections as voting systems often function less well with fewer numbers of candidates and seats. Two reelections of threee people each is viable, but three elections of two people each is just plain silly. Nyarlathotep 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the structure imposed by this process. It does accommodate the need for nominations of likely people to succeed a current panel member, so this wouldn't be an up or down vote, rather a run-off vote.
 * I do have a reluctance to the constant chore of voting, perhaps the community at large does too. So in that sense, what Nyar said is agreeable to me in that it will bring more focus to two, rather than three, elections. -Edbrown05 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It would, of course, be no problem to have only two elections during this cycle. It really makes no difference. I do think I favor three elections.

I wish I'd thought of it before, but...
 * If we have two elections per year covering three ArbCom members each:'
 * We should have them every six months -- the next election, following this one, should occur in the last part of June 2007. If we do choose to have two elections, we would almost be on a schedule that we could maintain.
 * If we have three elections per year covering two ArbCom members each:'
 * We should have them every 4 months -- the next election, following this one, should occur in the last part of April.

I will push for elections on one of the above schedules whether or I not I am re-elected. This will be more fair the those elected and more fair the community, I think. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for three panel members in the first election. That way, if the community feels its wishes are not being met, then it has a bigger pool of persons from which to make changes in round one. -Edbrown05 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple nominations? --> alphabetically, Borofkin and Cartman02 (I hope I spelled them correctly). -Edbrown05 06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not really to the point of nominating yet... :D --Chiacomo (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Our voting system isn't so structured, but it seems like the sort which is more fair with larger numbers of seats and candidates. I don't think the aesthetic factors of timing or having three elections are at all important. I'd say just stick to ellecting three seats every six months. And fewer elections is best for keeping life less political too. Nyarlathotep 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of nominations
Assuming the voting system proposed were implemented, then what is a suitable number of nominations to run against existing panel members. The vote shouldn't get watered down by too many alternates. -Edbrown05 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We should not and cannot restrict nominations, I think. --Chiacomo (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nominations are totally harmless, people will ignore most nominations. Ed, what your actually wishing for here is a preferential voting system, like STV.  But I doubt we need anything so complex.  Nyarlathotep 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The voting practice currently in place has it that either you are, or are not:


 * 1) an editor (actually, this isn't even a vote, but a matter of circumstance)
 * 2) an accredited reporter
 * 3) an administrator
 * 4) an arbitrator
 * 5) a bureaucrat
 * To become any of the numbered 2 through 5 listed persons requires a thumbs up or down vote. For any of that to change requires the same kind of vote.


 * Anything beyond that, meaning a change in the voting system, would be a change in the way the community conducts its business. Policy change stuff. -Edbrown05 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)