I really don't see why there needs to be a list of top witnesses to choose from to begin with. Anyone I want to vote for I know the name of, and so I would simply put it in the field, much like tests in school worked before multiple choice tilted it all in a direction decided by people we don't know for some political agenda.

I do not want preselection by anybody. Election results are always dependent upon voter education and this place is no different.

That said, I still seem to understand too little about witnesses and the voting process myself, as I cannot seem to vote for the one guy I really would like to be more involved as a witness in helping to steer and maintain this place as a community-driven environment of actual people supporting each other (@chiefmappster)

Guess one needs to put himself up as a witness "candidate" first, right? Or why won't my vote go through?

His deeds prove his merit to me, and have done so over and over again since I joined so it's a no brainer for me. Until I find anyone else (beside you, who I CAN vote for apparently and who has proven his community-driven intention many times over as well, who I want to support in helping this place out), I will not vote for anyone on there just because they are on some list. Until I stumble upon them naturally, doing something worthwhile, like I have with you or with blocktrades who I see involved in many things I deem worthwhile up until this point.

It's either an election or it isn't. And I am sick and tired of the divide and conquer party games of pay to play and swaying people just so they give consent to their own long term disadvantage by being tricked into using some psychology-blackmagic-format like a voting list.

Though I NEVER do so, let me quote the ominous book: "You shall know them by their fruits."

All the rest is PR and dogmatic society bamboozlement. Voting for the sake of voting is always a terrible idea and gives consent to the lowest common denominator (or the one with the loudest stupidest voice or the fattest wallet to market himself), so I am not sure I want everybody to rush to vote as long as the list is in place as you have laid out here.

Voting is a statement of legitimization and support and should be entirely free of form and coercion, as well as the preconceived influence by others - especially on a digital platform like this where all limitations are completely artificial and arbitrary (because there is no actual NEED for those restrictions, technically).

I say, drop all names from that list, let people figure out who they like, not who is ALREADY liked. And then see who would actually have the competencies to run that position from amongst those most voted on (regardless of voting weight, but dependant on number of votes by provably authentic accounts).