What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 140 Stack Exchange communities.

In future elections (as the user-base grows) I would like to see a reputation deposit required.

This is similar to UK elections where a candidate is required to pay a nominal fee. This is returned if they poll at-least 5% of the vote.

I suggest a deposit of 500 reputation, returned if the candidate polls over 5%.

This would provide several benefits:

  1. Allow for a lower required reputation (and address concerns like these)
  2. Increase the quality of candidates
  3. Voters can be assured the candidate is serious
share|improve this question
Or better yet, the good ol American way, with those having >50K rep; deposit is 33%, those having >10K rep; deposit 25%, those having >5K rep; deposit 10%, those having <1K; gain 1K rep (wahaha, jk on the last one). I like the idea though. –  SwDevMan81 Jan 19 '11 at 18:25
I like the idea, but doesn't this approach favor high-rep users? –  Robert Harvey Jan 19 '11 at 18:26
@Robert Harvey: As opposed to the current system? –  mmyers Jan 19 '11 at 18:34
@Michael: You're right; withdrawn. But frankly I'm glad I won't have to look at more than 30 candidates to cast my vote(s), and I feel that the high rep users have earned the "privilege" (if you want to call it that). –  Robert Harvey Jan 19 '11 at 18:40
Yeah, Deposit for Moderator! Oh wait...you meant something different... –  Time Traveling Bobby Jan 21 '11 at 11:38

3 Answers 3

Do we have a problem with "joke" candidates? If not, why are we trying to make the system more complex to solve a problem we don't have?

share|improve this answer
It's not a problem now but might be in future elections. But as sites grow the reputation required to "run for office" will increase. My suggestion will allow lower rep users (not too low :/) who are passionate and committed to get involved. –  rjstelling Jan 20 '11 at 14:12
We do have that problem in the SO election, although I think devs have been going through the list and manually pruning out people that are obviously not serious –  Michael Mrozek Jan 21 '11 at 10:34
I believe it was a problem in the current elections - I'm pretty sure the admins manually removed some candidates. –  Oak Jan 22 '11 at 9:19

I like it - just to show the candidate is serious. However, I think the rep should be returned not for those "polling over 5%", but simply for those that had a net positive score in the primary phase.

Joke nominations will likely get an overall negative score in the primary phase and thus lose the rep, while almost anyone else will get to keep it - and if there are no joke nominations and everyone was serious, everyone would also get the deposit back.

I think that this could be a great way to weed out joke / non-serious candidates without intervention by the admins, which is what is happening in this election.

share|improve this answer

I believe that that is a bad idea because if I were to run I might lose to someone else who has more rep than me, and I might only get a couple votes out of the hundreds of votes. People would favor 10k rep people, for example, and I might lose 100 rep for nothing.

So I think you should do that for, say, 5k+ rep users and it could be a flat fee of 5% no matter what.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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