User blog comment:ZoshiX/Switching to Democracy/@comment-3293097-20151009212301

Now that I've collected my thoughts and have enough time to sit down and write up a defense for this, I will do so accordingly.

Argument 1: Democracy will put inexperienced users in positions of power.

Counter: Users are more likely to select users who have prior experience with editing to manage the wiki than volatile or inexperienced users. The likelihood of a "literally who" being selected for office is slim to none, and if there is still paranoia about it then we can perhaps change the candidacy requirements.

Also, as I cannot demote my own position, if everything goes to hell, I still have the ability to set a clean slate.

Argument 2: There is no charter or other form of limiting power.

This is true. We will need to compose some sort of limitations on admins to ensure the rights of users are protected.

Argument 3: The system we have now works fine, and has never been abused, so why change it?

Counter: Beyond the argument of not changing something just because it doesn't have to be, the idea that admin power has never been abused here is considerably false. While we have good relations between users and admins for the most part, some points of contention have created or have the potential to create situations where biased or abusive behavoir is present in administration and is impossible to remedy.

Argument 4: Elections will cause angst and turmoil among users.

Counter: Voting is completely anonymous. Nobody will have the opportunity to berate others for their choices because none of them will be individually known. Regardless, excessively abusive behavoir is a bannable offense to begin with.