@MegaIndianCharizardX (and all others who think a democratic system is a good idea) - This last little while you have simply been trying to create a system that works with you want instead of looking at why this current system may be better.
Not to be too blunt but here are some pretty good reasons (I think so anyway) that your method would end badly
1. All of your rules and sub-clauses that you want to implement are unnecessarily complicated whilst the current system is far simpler and yet still effective. There's no need to switch to a more complicated system when the current one is already working fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. As has been stated, it would just end up as a popularity contest resulting in a situation in which
a) We end up with popular member who do not have the skills, time or reliability to run a forum in a position of power.
b) Everyone votes for their closest friends on here resulting in very few votes going to all members who participate in voting. This could leave us with ties between several members (potentially going into the hundreds) resulting in sections with no moderators at all. To fix this, higher staff would have to step in and make the decision and if they're going to end up doing that anyway I don't see why we don't cut out the middle man and just leave things the way they are.
3. You're going to get a lot of members who cause trouble because they will view it (correctly) as a popularity contest with disastrous results or because they are butthurt at not being chosen.
4. The current mods are doing a fantastic job already. There are very few people with problems with any of them and really the majority of those people with issues just need to remember that mods are humans. They are not emotionless machines and if you make them angry, chances are they're going to make that anger known. That's human nature, you can only push people so far even if they are in positions of power.
5. The mods are already popular members. It is highly likely that the the elected mods in your system would be those who are already mods now or who were staff members who were demoted or stepped down before.
Simply put, a democracy on this site would be far less effective than our current system. The only reasons I see for the implementing of a democratic system are
1. We want more of a say in what happens around here and
2. It would be fun.
At least the first point is somewhat valid, but really we do get plenty of a say. Mods routinely poll to see how people are liking the current way things are run in their forum (there's one running in pokemon voting polls right now for example) and in case nobody noticed
we're currently posting in a forum that solely exists to house feedback and suggestions from the memberbase staff or otherwise. There's already somewhere for us regular members to be heard and most of the staff I have spoken to would be open to hearing your suggestions via PM anyway.
As for that second point, people in positions of power should not ever be chosen in a way that is fun. Even on a friendly forum like this where staff are not paid and we get to join for free choosing people with authority over the rest of us is something that should be taken seriously and considered by people who know what they're talking about. Considering everything that could go wrong "because it would be fun" is just not going to cut it as Went has said repeatedly.
