One where there will be calls of "We promoted him, we should be able to demote him". We should be able to demote him, if we chose him. Just like impeachments and such. Firstly, it is still going to be a popularity vote in the end between whichever users are on that list. I think calling it a popularity vote is a copout, no matter how the system is run. Everything is a popularity vote in some sense. And I'm sure every mod promotion that has ever happened could be spun in such a way that it looks like a popularity vote. Worse still, this creates a very awkward situation for users who may not get selected to be admins later on. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I would rather not know that I was once considered to be an admin, than to know that I was considered and it was felt that I did not have the required capabilities. I'd like to think if someone is mature enough to be up for mod consideration, they wouldn't feel slighted in the least at not being chosen. Whatever happens, there will be politics, there will be rigging of polls, but worse still, it may just split the JC up. And I think that the bottom line is to avoid that. Again, I'm sure people could argue that the JC is already split. jediguy, in one of his earliest posts in this thread asked that the idea itself rather than the technicalites be criticized. I'm generally curious to hear a response from the admins to this question: If everything was perfect, if no politicking took place, if a popular vote wasn't an issue, if people would nominate quality candidates rather than friends, if the polls couldn't be rigged, if there were none of those side issues at all, would the idea of public voting be implemented or even seriously considered? And kindly avoid answers like "we can't answer that question, since everything isn't perfect" as that, too, is a copout. Amazing.