2
$\begingroup$

In the "featured on meta" on the site I find a reference to the question "What would you like to change about the moderator election process?". In the recent past we had a situation where we had just a single good candidate, but the elections were cancelled because the rules did not have provisions for single candidate approval.

Now I find that one of the proposals is to accomodate for this situation. You might consider having a look. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/396485/630218

Consider running elections with 1 candidate. In that case just make the election a yes-no choice. I've seen at least a few times (mainly on smaller sites) where one good candidate nominates themselves, but an election isn't able to proceed. What usually happens is that the period is extended, and someone else puts themselves down as a "fake" candidate to offer the illusion of choice (making that explicit in their nomination).

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Open Source just went through the same thing.

I've submitted a proposal a little over a week ago (I knew this was coming) and it essentially said that elections should always be held unless there are no candidates at all. Positions should always have a chance of being filled, even if the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of positions. And in return, electors should be able to vote for "none of the above".

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .