What are available/appropriate avenues to oppose a particular candidate in moderation elections?

Question

Let's say I'm deeply convinced that a particular candidate in a moderator elections is deeply unsuited to the role.

What are available/appropriate avenues to oppose that particular candidate?

• Unlike Moderator Pro Tempore nominations on Beta sites, there's no "vote down" option.

• There's also no way to post a comment when voting

• While you can post comments during nomination process, people are unlikely to read nomination posts during an election itself (presumably), and even less likely to read comment threads.

• I'm guessing that posting a Meta question as an attack ad on a candidate is at best inappropriate and at worst, off-topic as per Meta rules and closable

• I'm also somewhat hesitant to use Chat for negative campaigning.

Answer 1

Very limited indeed, bordering on none.

Your main opportunity was during the nomination phase (by commenting and asking pointed questions about a candidate's suitability to run) and since you've ruled out the possibility of using the Mos-Eisley chatroom (and presumably by extension the 2015 Election chatroom) as a vector to attack a particular candidate, you aren't really left with any realistic ways to make your voice heard.

You could probably get away with asking a more general meta question ("should candidates who've only got x be allowed to run in a moderator election?") but that could easily backfire, either by creating a Streisand effect or actually encouraging people to vote for your unsuitable candidate out of a sense of sympathy voting.

Answer 2

Another option is to instead of attack, praise. Instead of criticizing the candidate(s) you don't want elected, talk up the candidates you would prefer are elected. Encourage people to vote for the people who you think will do a good job, and that can help earn them votes.

Answer 3

In most cases bad candidates simply won't win the election. The election itself is the primary defense against unqualified candidates.

Critical comments on the nomination during the primary phase are the main method for criticism. They can be rather effective when there is some actual evidence that a candidate would make a bad moderator. But as you said, because they're not visible during the actual election, their effect is limited.

In extreme cases SE can forcibly remove a nomination. But this ability is rarely used except for obvious joke nominations. If you have clear evidence that a candidate intends to abuse their moderator abilities, you might get SE to intervene.

In the most likely case of a problematic, but not obviously evil moderator that manages to win the election, you can still work towards removing them afterwards. Clearly document abuses of power and bring them to meta. If there is a pattern of abuse, you can contact SE and get the other moderators to invoke the ability to remove a fellow moderator.

Answer 4

In a past election on another SE site, negative comments on a nomination probably (IMO) contributed to a candidate not being elected.

• The comments were not attacks on the person and not cranky in any way.
• They were presented in a very matter-of-fact way: "I think this candidate's statements A and B mean that they are likely to do C and D and I think C and D are not desirable."
• They were made by a long-standing, active member of the site
• Some other active members agreed with the sentiments expressed

https://serverfault.com/election/1

By contrast, in a more recent election, comments on a nomination might have had a Streisand effect, contributing to a candidate's election:

• In this case, there were many serious comments, mostly not made in a very matter-of-fact manner - more like "You're kidding, right?! You can't possibly think this guy would make a good mod!?!"
• Many of the comments were made by people who are not active members on the site.
• Many of the comments were made by SE staff including ones who used to be active on the site but hadn't been seen much for a few years. So these came across as the powers-that-be jumping in on something they didn't understand.
• Multiple people who are active on the site strongly disagreed with the comments.

https://serverfault.com/election/4

(But on review, to find all the relevant comments, you also have to browse some of the Qs on meta.ServerFault. I'm too lazy to post links, but there are 4 questions in a row on Nov 20 and 21 2014 that I was thinking of when I made this post. )

If it were me, if I had what I thought was a serious concern that I could express in a dispassionate way, I'd certainly post it on the person's nomination. I would guess that if it's a concern that not many others share, it wouldn't have much impact. OTOH, maybe there are other people who would agree with you, they're just waiting for someone to be brave and take the first step...