One man, one vote - or multiple choice?

Multiple choice. We are probably going to be in a situation where several of the choices are basically the same... on both sides of the fence.

I say one man, one vote. If we have multiple choice then we'd have people just clicking on all of them and that wouldn't further the polls at all.

One Man; One Vote. The way it should be

If we have multiple choice then we'd have people just clicking on all of them and that wouldn't further the polls at allBut it wouldn't set the polls back any either. At worst it dilute the vote... but the people who best represent the views still get elected.

On the other hand (under one man, one vote) if 2 or 3 people have the same point of view and are for all effective reasons 'the same' to you, then the vote is split and people with the views you agree with stand a better chance of losing.

The problem with multiple polls on the basis of one person for each is that everyone could vote for every person wanting to be a moderator, making the overall outcome a tie.

I think a Multiple selection vote covering those that are standing plus perhaps a "None of the Above" option would work better. (I would also suggest the voters being publicly seen, and the suggestion made to those that stand to cast a vote of "None of the Above" to stop any cheating.)

The problem with multiple polls on the basis of one person for each is that everyone could vote for every person wanting to be a moderator, making the overall outcome a tie.That isn't at all a problem. A tie is also possible in a one man one vote poll. I seriously doubt that we'd all vote for everybody.
I would also suggest the voters being publicly seen, and the suggestion made to those that stand to cast a vote of "None of the Above" to stop any cheating.I find it diffucult to justify somebody not being able to vote just because they are in the running.

Multiple choice, I think, is the better of the two options.
A tie is unlikely, anyhow.

I go with multiple choice

Multiple choice is ok. If somebody decides to vote for everybody, then their vote won't actually make any difference. On the other hand, a person may think any of three candidates out of six would be ok as a moderator, so they could vote for all three.

I like the idea of a "none of the above" option, because it might turn out that no suitable candidate nominates for the position.

Another idea would be to have two rounds of voting - the first one multiple choice to whittle the field down to 2 or 3 candidates, and the second one single choice among the three candidates.

Actually, maybe a second poll would only be necessary in the case of a tie...

Is the Grand Pseudoscience Election ever going to commence?

Patience, Rappaccini. Patience.

Foozball... I mean... patience is the devil!

multiple choice.

Plus a hundred word essay supporting each candidate you vote for. ;)

Multi-choice voting or “Approval Voting” is a superior form of voting compared to the conventional voting system. Although "Borda voting" would be best were we can rank the canadites by a points system, it would require some new coding on the part of Porfiry.

Reference:
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000637A4-DDB5-101E-990A83414B7F0123
http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm