Badly organized votes don't determine consensus; they destroy it.
A vote will force a choice between two or more specific options, which
may even be poorly defined. A true consensus may lie somewhere outside
of those specific options.
Actually, Jimmy, aren't they to determine
consensus, not build it?
>This is why I'm opposed to rampant voting on everything. The only valid
>purpose for a vote in Wikipedia is actually as a *poll* which seeks to
>build community consensus. Deliberately excluding some interested
>parties is a great way to "win" a vote, but it is not a great way to get
>buy-in from the entire community.