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. mh:electowiki: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 mh:electowiki:Score voting is a better fit. Psephomancy (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What will happen if we fail to elect 5 members?
It seems to me that the voting this year, with only 5 candidates running after the withdrawal of CnocBride, might fail to elect all 5 members due to the 80% support rate rule. I'm not saying this will surely happen, but I think it's likely that it will go this way, and we don't have a policy for this as of now. The question is, should we run the commission with less than 5 members, or should we have a by-election?

Please note that discussion here will only apply to the election this year, and for the future amendment we should create a separate RfC.-- 06:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Voting form
Please fill in the form below with the following format:
 * Yes/No
 * 1/until 5 members are elected/1 or 2
 * 1/until 5 members are elected/1 or 2
 * Please note that if the by-election fails or we do not hold it, we will run the commission with less than 5 members.

Additional comments (if any)

 * While I don't think we should force the community to go until they elect 5 members, I think the community can have another chance before running the commission with less members. There should be a by-election (giving everyone a chance to nominate secondary candidate(s)), but if it fails again, that's what the community thinks; we do not have enough capable members.-- 06:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a by-election would be in order because otherwise it wouldn't work. While the rules mention that a candidate must receive 80% supoort, it also mentions that there have to be 5 elected members. So the way I see it until there are 5 new members elected the new CoCC may not function and the old ones stays in place until the new vote provides 5 members. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 07:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the old members are not as active as they were when elected. I wonder if this "old" commission can be functional in practice as well. Additionally, I don't think electing 5 is a must. If the voting fails, we can interpret the results as the community has decided to elect a blank seat (though I think it's better if we can avoid it), and while we admit that "Member can resign voluntarily, or removed by a majority vote of the commission members, without counting the member in question," we don't have supplementary rules for filling in a new member when this actually happens.-- 07:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't think of it (by-election stuff), that's my bad. Commission has a quite a liberal freedom to have "own procedures (my interpretation: as long as) that is not defined on the CoCC page (CoCC)", so I think current commission can quickly decide what to do in case of less than 5 elected, pending policy modification via RFC. &mdash; revi  07:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that, while the CoC supplementary provision for the first CoCC has defined the 5 seats, it doesn't say "you must have 5" for all the future commission. IMO, as long as the number of the seat is odd (to avoid tie) it should be fine. &mdash; revi  07:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)