Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/The Karmafist Plan

To me, it seems that the biggest weakness of the current vfd system is the ambiguity involved with voting. The result can seem random at times, thus reducing faith in the system. However, the lack of too much structure has been seen as a strength. So, why not split the middle and combine the two sides? Here's my plan.

Step 1

The nominator states the reasoning behind their nomination and then is allowed comment on two ordinal votes (best case scenario, then second best case scenario) under the Instant Runoff System, if they don't wish to use both votes, their first vote becomes a Strong and is counted as two votes. If they feel Weak about an option, then they get three votes (two Weak options, each Weak option counting as a half vote), or four half votes if their first two are Weak. The nominator or voter should only vote for Weak options if they feel that the option may work, but there are preferable options. It should not be used for options they believe will not work, and these beliefs in options should be expressed in the comment.

Step 2

Voters state their comments beginand then follow the same voting system.

Step 3

After 7 Days, an administrator counts the votes. If no option gains more than 75%, then the option with the fewest best case votes is eliminated and then the second best votes of those users become the first votes. If 70% isn't gained by an option after that, the process continues until there are no more votes or an option wins. If 70% is not reached, the administrator can declare a No Consensus, or declare a result if one total is above 60%, but must declare a No Consensus, if there is no option above 60%. It is also the administrator's job to encourage anon voters to register a free account and come back , as non anon votes will be counted. Suspected sockpuppets will also not be allowed to vote, and will be blocked.