Talk:Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2019

Election rules
Hello Miraheze! I'm not running for the Code of Conduct this year again, but I just want to clear up something. Over the past few years, we have had a bit of a unclear situation in regards to voting. I believe that users should not be able to vote for more than 1-2 candidates, this makes the election more competitive and ensures that the best representatives are selected. What I propose is this:
 * Every user has 1-2 votes. Specifics of this should be decided by consensus.
 * Nominees have a vote and can vote for themselves.
 * Nominee must have at least 80% support i.e. if 7 people in total voted for/against the nominee, 6 people at least must support the candidate. If 5 people only support the candidate, then that candidate is not elected. (If this proves infeasible, I would recommend bringing the support threshold down to a supermajority of 2/3 as used in the House of Commons in the UK.
 * If there are at least 5 candidates who have met the support threshold, they are elected.
 * If there are less than 5 candidates with the support threshold, the ones who did meet the threshold should be deemed elected. A second round of voting should then take place on the remaining candidates until the rest of the seats are filled. These candidates do not need a support threshold, there just needs to be no more than 40% opposition to their candidacy.
 * Let me do an example scenario. Let's say that CnocBride, Reception, John, Alvaro, Revi, Void and Spike are all running for election (7 candidates). Spike, John and Reception all reach the minimum support threshold (quota), but that's only 3 seats. So the remaining candidates, CnocBride, Alvaro, Revi and Void are all entered into a second round of voting. Community members (except the other elected nominees) will then vote on the remaining candidates. The person with the lowest number of supports, or with opposes in excess of 40% is eliminated. In this case, 2 people will need to be eliminated. CnocBride is eliminated first round, then people are asked to vote again on the remaining 3 candidates. Revi is eliminated on the second round, so Alvaro and Void become members of.

In essence: 1-2 votes per person, nominees can vote, minimum of 80% support needed (I would recommend a debate on this), run off votes if there is not a sufficient number of candidates who reach the quota. I know this may seem like a quite confusing system and of course, if people feel the system in existence works ok, then I will happily stand by its continuing use. Thanks for reading! &#32;  CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  12:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While we can encourage people to do so, there is currently no limit to the numbers of the vote. While the commission is authorized to have their own rules about everything not defined by the CoCC page (so CoCC can decide the rule on election), it is probably too late to set it up now and is best to leave for 2019-2020 commission to decide should they wish so. (Maybe STV?) &mdash; revi  08:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a firm believer in STV and proportional representation, or as fair a system as we can get! Now, I know we don't really need it since most previous elections have been uncontroversial and fairly unanimous but I agree, let this election go ahead and discuss with the CoCC on procedure for election to the commission for next year. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  12:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or super more simplified, just give everyone three votes (as in +3, +2, +1), and let them do things like Revi +3, CnocBride +2, SPF +1 and then calculate the numbers. The 5 with most numbers get elected. I recall the similar method on Wikimedia Commons photo contest, and it looked pretty good. &mdash; revi  16:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So my Miraheze wiki is actually specifically about voting methods :) and I disagree with only letting people vote for 1-2 candidates. Approval voting is a better voting system, which is more likely to elect consensus winners that best represent the electorate, or the more expressive Explicit approval/disapproval voting used for this purpose on Wikimedia board elections, etc.

Proportional representation like STV is nice, too, but it's meant for situations where there are a variety of different ideologies that each need representing in some kind of legislature. If you're just trying to find the highest-qualified candidates for a particular job (like treasurer, etc), then a utilitarian system like Approval, Explicit Approval, or Score Voting is a better fit. Psephomancy (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)