The Meta Election is taking nominations.

[Charles Fiterman]

At 03:38 AM 10/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>So I second Fiterman's proposal to hold such an election.
>
>If a proposal for an election is made & seconded, doesn't that
>amount to a good reason for others to vote if they're interested?

The first step in the meta election is obviously
deciding to have it. I regard that as taken.

The second step is everyone nominating any candidates they
find appropriate and making brief nominating speeches.

So far candidates are

Honesty
  Proven fraud magnets like written ballots and slow 
  counts are excluded.
Secrecy
  You vote in secret. Your community votes in secret.
Simplicity
  Its easy to understand the system. Half the voters
  are below median I.Q. and 10% are in the bottom tenth.
  You can't exclude them.
Openness
  Easy access to the system.
Convenience
  In and out quickly.
Pervasiveness
  Lots of elective offices.
Decisiveness
  The system returns an answer it doesn't demand a run off
  or another election.
Participation
  People are encourged to vote by some mechanism but not at 
  gun point.
Accuracy
  Votes can be balanced several ways.
The most unpopular candidates lose
  Being hated is more bad than being loved is good. e.g. if
  some stand will make 5% of the people hate you and 5% love
  you it should be a mistake to take that stand.
The most acceptable candidates win
  The people with the broadest acceptance win even if they
  aren't the most loved. They do after all have to run things.

We are nominating only goals not methods.