My concern about making mitchell a global mod is that many months ago, he said that he mostly reads a few select sections (I am not sure if this is still true or not), so he might not be interested in reading threads outside of those sections, which would be necessary to handle reports outside of those sections.
As you clearly state, I said that many months ago. I think that was even before I got promoted to be a moderator of certain sections. So, please, do not assume what I currently do (or don't) read nor what currently interests me as those do change over time.
If this is no longer the case, then this particular statement would no longer apply to you.
If you do have an interest in becoming a global moderator, then I would recommend that you indicate to theymos your interest in moderating bitcoin discussion or another section that has a very high volume of posts/threads. If he promotes you to moderator to said section, and you can show success moderating said section (which I have confidence that you would), then you would likely eventually be promoted to a global moderator in due time.
Thats exactly why I hope this decision will not be made based upon the outcome of this vote. Let the vote be the decider in case of a draw, but it should not be more.
If two (or more) moderators are (roughly) similarly qualified to become a global moderator, then I don't see why theymos would not promote both to global moderator. I would doubt that the forum would ever be in a situation where it needs
exactly one additional global mod, and two additional mods would be excessive.
Some of the rules of voting are arbitrary, results in the election not meeting UN election standards, and would likely be ignored in the event that theymos were to take the results of the election into consideration.
Being that the moderators do not take any actions against scammers, and do not moderate scams, there is no reason why those with negative trust should not have their vote counted.
"Electioneering" is a standard practice in any election, and allows voters to become aware of the pros and cons of each candidate.
Additionally, participating in this thread in ways other then to clarify rules, to say "hi" (eg what dabs did), or to clarify what is believed to be incorrect information about them would likely fit the definition of electioneering. The same is true for making the results of the voting publicly available prior to the closing of voting because if one candidate is down by a large number of votes, it is unlikely they will receive any additional votes from those that would otherwise vote for said candidate.
Also there are about 120 posts in the voting thread, but there are about 9,000 new accounts created last month, there are about 9,500 full member accounts currently, so I don't think the vote is a representation of the community.