It was pointed out to me recently that, starting with the upcoming Mathematics election, all nominees for a site election must have at minimum 1000 reputation in order to run.
Notice: Starting with this election, the minimum reputation requirement for nominating has been raised to 1000 reputation. If you plan on preparing your answers for questions collected in this thread in advance, keep in mind this change.
So, I guess the first question I have is really, is this going to be a network-wide change or does the quote just mean that all future elections on Mathematics will require 1000 reputation from the candidates?
I don't have a problem with this - I have a general perception that most, if not all, viable candidates have significantly more than 1000 reputation on the site they're running on. Even if this is Mathematics only, I think it's worth looking at the reputation of users who have won their elections and how it relates to others running in the same election.
- What is the lowest reputation of a user when winning an election on a site?
The closest I can find reference to is a user with around 1200 reputation when winning their election (jonsca on Web Apps) - though I think it's worth noting that, from what I can tell, none of the users in that election had much more than 2-3K rep (if that) when it was held, so it wasn't an outlier for someone with 1200 reputation to win.
This leads to my second question...
- How does the winner's reputation compare to the other candidates running in the election?
If all users running had the same reputation that says something different than someone with 1500 reputation beating someone with 30K.
- Are there cases where users with under 1000 reputation have gotten close to winning?
This one is a bit more complex but it's, essentially, in an election with (for example) six nominees and two slots, has there been an occasion where a user with under 1000 reputation was placed in the third or fourth slot and, if so, what was the reputation of the users who placed lower?
- In the case of low-reputation election winners, what was their network reputation at the time of their win and were they already a moderator elsewhere?
Sometimes someone has the skills and experience to be a moderator, uses a site (votes, participates on meta and in review queues, etc) but doesn't necessarily have the local reputation because they don't ask or answer questions on that site. They may have tons of network experience and reputation elsewhere, though.
I guess the point of these questions is
if this change is Mathematics only (because apparently they've had some issues in the past with very low-reputation users nominate themselves in elections) does the data support making this network-wide?
if this change is network-wide answers to this post may support the reasoning for why this change has been made.
I have an inkling that there have been issues in the past where the election system has been abused. Apparently nominees in elections used to be given swag for being willing to be considered as a candidate but that was ended when it became clear that some users were nominating themselves just to get the swag. It seems that raising the bar slightly to a level that wouldn't have prevented any of the current elected moderators from winning their elections makes sense.