In a prior meta Q&A, it was suggested that moderators would benefit from clarifications from the community. Certainly, our moderators currently are even-handed, but there seems to me to be a myth that there is some sort of consensus in voice and practice resting in a series of dichotomies that are inadequate for building consensus.
I would like to move from discussion to action-item on improving the site. Is it merely the consensus of the moderators that determines how this forum functions. Is this site no more than a benevolent, democratically oligarchy in practice?
How do we implement a polling mechanism to empirically determine the political will of contributors?