Forum:Revisal of the Voting System

Our current voting system is a simple majority vote system. We've been using this for a while, and it's always worked generally well.

However, some events have called my attention to the system's biggest flaw.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

User A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are all new users, barely on 50 mainspace edits. They see the wiki Achievements WR topic and think it's cool, so they vote Support with no other reason than the fact that they get a cool image for editing

User 1, 2, and 3 are all experienced editors, well over their 2000th edit. They see the wiki Achievements WR topic and see the flaw in the system, that it would encourage edit spamming. However, since 8 users have already supported it, Users 1, 2, and 3 have no chance of vetoing the vote.

That's just a hypothetical situation, but you can see my point.

We need to base consensus on the quality of reasoning, not the quantity.

Please consider this, fellow Wikians.

My new proposed system would work like this:

After all votes have been cast and the topic has been closed, a jury of senior admins or bureaucrats confide together in a section below the topic. Here, they discuss who they think won and present their decision to the public. This system would be more effective and would prevent execrable additions to the wiki.

Vote
We should base votes based on reasoning, rather than quantity ot votes

Support

 * 1) --    8 ight   0 h   8 ight  15:57, July 30, 2010 (UTC)