Even if true, IMO a leader shouldn't lower him- or herself to the same level as its friends or foes for one because a leader is an example for its followers. Social skills are very important for a leader, and being sarcastic is not appropriate behaviour of a leader.

A much better response, but it is still related to Nokia because the 5 winners will be the contact persons for Nokia.

Me neither (therefore I didn't look much into the process; I was apparently too late already) while hunderds of inactive people with a profile (can be created easily) are eligable to vote.

The problems I see are

* Consensus process didn't work well.
* Eligable base of voters is inaccurate.
* Votes can be sold or bought.
* Election method archaic.
* Unclear about anonimity.
* Goals of the candidates are not outlined well (far too brief for a serious election).
* Relationships between candidates are unclear; who will do what? I haven't found any discussion between the candidates either. I'd like to know who agrees and/or disagrees with whom.
* Elected persons decide on next voting process?
* Minimum number of votes required to pass election is not defined.

Thanks for your interesting posts.

The underlying methods have different severity regarding strategic voting. Just because a method does have the side effect of strategic voting doesn't say anything about the severity of this side effect.

Hmm, I never heard of Borda. Care to enlighten me about this person?

You're right regarding the definition but IMO the definition of democracy is flawed. You need to remember it is a a combination of 2 greek words, and that in any ((other) language) it has an artificial meaning already when applied. The current definition of democracy you'd find in a dictionary is based on the current democratic systems whereas in practice the current democracies lead to a chosen dictatorship of max 4 years. Democracy isn't an abstract word anymore. Like liberty.

There is no effective feedback system (ie. "who moderates the moderators?"). In direct democracy this problem is mitigated, but it isn't efficient for fast decision making, and another problem is lack of time and/or involvement. Good book about this is "From the director's democtacy to direct democracy".

Interestingly, in Europe in general one does not vote for their sheriff. Although referendum is implemented in some European countries, it sometimes doesn't work because not enough people vote. The meaning of 'liberal' is also very different in the US compared to Europe.

Consensus, according to my experience, often leads to the person with the biggest mouth becoming the leader while such so-called "leadership" is in many situations not desired.

Agreed, and if more people get in contact with such methods they might see how our current democratic models are out of date. Unfortunately, it seems IRV is a popular alternative, while it is severely flawed. Earlier mentioned site contains some mathematical examples.