So, it appears we might get one card released from ban land, but we all know whoever is it will be on temp ban lockdown.
If we, the players, want to see fewer characters listed as banned then I think it's time for a slight adjustment on the weekly elections.
Presently, a card must receive 5% or more of the total votes and half those votes need to go towards its ban.
I suggest that a card should receive a minimum of 5.5% or even a whole 6% of the total votes and 60% of those votes should go towards a ban to ban it.
The staff want to keep several dozen cards banned? Why should we indulge them by adding an extra ten to thirteen?
^ I am completely aware of that subject seeing as how I've contributed to it. This, however, is a more specific suggestion that fits well within this forum and, thus, draws attention of elo players toward the game mode's democratic process.
Doubling the votes would give even more control of the bans and unbans to the top 100 players of the week. That's nearly 800 votes you'd like seen made into nearly 1,600 votes for 100 players out of less than 10,000. Voting participation rarely, if ever, sees 30% or more.
To double the votes would supply almost 1,600 votes to 100 players who can choose to be among approximately 2,000 voters.
I don't like this suggestion. Temporary bans are what keep elo interesting from week to week. If the number of temp bans was reduced there would be less variation in the available cards. Almost every week in elo would be the same.
If anything we should be increasing the number of temp banned cards. Maybe there could be a staff temp ban list every month. Or additional temp bans voted on by only players who reach the top 100? (You could reduce the number of perma banned cards).
I agree that doubling the number of votes would be a bad idea. The top players who really care about doing well probably (I'm assuming,) vote every week. The players who don't do very well probably don't bother. This might be totally inaccurate but I feel like it's a safe bet because I get 1300+ every week and 9 times out of 10 I don't even remember to cast my 6 votes.
It would be elitist and self-serving to allow the 'good players' to have any sort of monopoly on election.
As for the other topic on the table... personally I'd like to see MORE weekly bans and LESS permabans. Some of those permabans really don't need to be on the list. The size of the permaban list kinda dictates the weekly ban list for it. Lets face it... it's either a Mona and Saki week or a Rolph and Ongh week. Meanwhile we can't use cards like Elvira, Bristone, Striker, Eddie, and Zapatino. Silly. I want some Jeena in my life yo. I wanna get my Mokra on
I felt like adding the stipulation that there should be a cap on how many votes you can cast on a single card, but because I don't vote much I dunno if there is one and I figured that would go without saying. Whoops.
(also I misunderstood the OP to be asking for a wider variety of votebans, not less)