PollEdit

We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting".

This vote will determine whether Proportional Party Affiliation Guideline will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page.

Vote ends October 5th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count.

Confirmation of vote (1/6/0)Edit

Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form:

{{myvote|[Approve/Disapprove/Abstain]|~~~~|[optional comment]}}

• Disapprove. - Chadlupkes 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics is defined and executed by those who show up, to articulate our values, to vote in polls, to build wiki sites. I don't believe that we should limit admin candidates by saying that if we have enough admins of any one party or ideology, we can't allow any more. I think it's asking for trouble. Perhaps we should define qualifications for admin, but I don't believe those qualifications should include political ideology. We should be focused on getting the work done, which is building this site to be useful to and usable by everyone. --Chadlupkes 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - whosawhatsis? 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For a potential admin, political beliefs are far less important than the ability to work within the rules and be fair to everyone, especially those with different political beliefs. It's very unfortunate that that all such individuals that we've found so far fall into roughly the same part of the political spectrum, but to choose admins any other way would be shooting ourselves in the foot. --whosawhatsis? 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Approve. - Lou franklin 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An admin's political beliefs affect their ability to work within the rules and to be fair to everyone. I don't have to tell you that. We have seen it happen again and again.

This site has "the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives" [1]. This policy will help achieve that goal.

A political wiki that is controlled by one political party is destined for failure and obscurity. We shouldn't allow that to happen. --Lou franklin 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We should certainly endeavor to find admin candidates from throughout the spectrum, but to enforce it, especially with the sparsity of candidates, would result in not enough admins and/or admins who are unfit for the position. --whosawhatsis? 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If we don't enforce it, it won't happen. "We should certainly endeavor" has no teeth. Either we are serious about the mission of this site or we are not. Lou franklin 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with Chad and Whosawhatsis' positions, I have to add that this policy is completely US-centered. A PPAG for an international site (like this one) would need to calculate the representation of countless parties. I identify myself with the Partido Socialista de Chile. Does that mean the next admin can't be a Republican or a Democrat? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - JenniferForUnity 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I voted against this because it's US centric and it assumes party affiliation matters (personally I change parties all the time depending on what primary I see offering the most meaningful place for my vote). On the other hand, I think Lou franklin has a point about moderator bias. I think he should be given admin powers to help rectify it and also to help him learn to see the wiki from the perspective of someone trying to "bring users in and manage their issues" rather than "get my way on content issues"... at least if he wants the job :-) --JenniferForUnity 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - RJ 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins should be selected on the basis of the ability to support the wiki's aims. In this case, they should be able to fairly allow multiple points of view. We handicap ourselves if we do not permit a someone with the appropriate skills and attitude to be an admin. I hope we will have admins with diverse points of view. Those points of view are not always captured by a single word label (or party affiliation). Since admins should not be pushing any one "side", proportionality should not be relevant. And votes like this are open to all participants, so they are proportional to the users, even if not the general population. --RJ 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. Another user with no contributions explaining what "we" should permit. Lou franklin 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - McLurker 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unworkable, seriously biased to the US, and antidemocratic (not non, but actively anti). It won't work. Balance is maintained by looking out for signs of bias, not unfair premptive measures --McLurker 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are looking for an issue where balance is to be maintained, then geographical balance is far more important. Gender balance also, not to mention people from various socio-economic groups. And then there is age. Once you start saying "we must balance these issues out" where do you stop? McLurker 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)