Baha'i Voting
System
The Baha'i Electoral System seems to employ a 'Plurality-at-large' system, but without any candidates. The descriptions of this system on the web all seem to assume candidates and campaigning, so I've not found any suitable analysis for the Baha'i system.
Bodies with Authority
Any Body having authority over something, should be entirely and freely elected by that which it has authority over.
This means if a Body ever falls below an acceptible standard, those it governs will be absolutely unrestrained in replacing it.
If they know exactly why it fell below standard (for example a particular member on it) they can replace just that bit, but if they don't know why, then they can replace all members they cannot affirm beyond doubt, which may mean the entire membership of the Body that's fallen below standard.
So for example, the Local Assembly governs Edinburgh, and Edinburgh elects it freely; the Scottish Council governs (by appointed authority) the LSAs of Scotland, and the LSAs of Scotland vote freely for it; the National Assembly governs institutions and individuals in the UK and UK individuals vote for it. The House tends just to govern National Assemblies, and it is they who vote for it.
In secular politics, all this is not possible, as the election is not free - you are effectively provided with a very limited choice of candidates representing two or three parties, which hold a whip to their members' free expression, whilst in Catholicism, the Pope appoints the Cardinals who elect his successor, drawing them from the pool of Bishops who are themselves appointed!!!
Voting for People Personally Known
People you vote for should be personally known
The effect of voting for people personnally-known avoids all the problems of campaigning, claims and unfulfillable promises. What you really want are humble, consultative people whose character you can and do trust to get on with matters in a proper consultative way as best they can. This freedom from propaganda and promises made also gives the Bodies the opportunity to do the right thing they feel is required.
Multi-Tier Voting
Obviously in small communities, people personally know each other fairly well, but once you are electing the higher bodies it becomes impossible to know everyone, and so it becomes necessary to rely upon electing a body or person you know personally and feel is well-informed of the wider scene outside the community, to vote on your behalf. Whilst LSAs could vote for the NSA on their community's behalf, each LSA has a different size community and the result would be votes that represented widely-different numbers of people from across the country, and this would then be a vote by LSAs not a vote by individuals, much as if the NSA had authority only over LSAs rather than over LSAs and Individuals. Instead, 'Units' of equal numbers of people are arranged to vote for a delegate, who votes on their behalf for the NSA, and so each vote becomes fair as it represents an equal number of people. As Local Assemblies have large communities, they will also become voted for in this two-tier way.
People in the Limelight
Although it is fair to say there are no candidates, and this would particularly work well at local level, the higher the election you go, the reality is that you can't know everyone in your country or the planet, and so 'people in the limelight' become more important. However, these function more as suggestions than candidates, and since voters are always voting for people they personally know, 'a person in the limelight' will not get elected if they are unsuitable for the job being elected for. The obvious candidates are of course the outgoing members of the Body in question, and given their expertise, experience and wealth of individual contacts, it actually makes sense that if they are doing a good job they should generally get reelected.
New Blood
Keeping a core membership from one year to the next aids continuity of experience, stability and individual contacts, whilst if a Body's membership changes every year, its members will have to keep re-learning what they are doing and how to consult. Certain amount of new blood is definitely desirable, but in a system that increasingly tries to devolve responsibility onto lower bodies, individuals and groups, new blood becomes less important once the system is mature and properly devolved to the grassroots.
Appointments
Anything or anyone appointed (rather than elected) in the Baha'i Faith, lacks authority; they have a consultative position, but no vote, so that whatever their views are channeled through the perspective and decision of Bodies personally voted for by and answerable to their electorate.
No Individuals with Authority
There are no individuals elected into a position of authority; many heads are better than one at making decisions, and this also helps to take the burden of responsibility or guilt off an individual if things don't go as planned; it also means that individuals don't (or are far less likely to) carry a personal prestige around with them, and what prestige they might be given by individuals will tend to act to elevate the prestige of the Body they are on.
This contrasts with a figure like the Pope, who carries his office as his person, or a President or Prime Minister who can take an unequal share of authority in certain areas.
Authority and Interpretation Separated
Whilst a Local or National Assembly has to interpret the Faith in the sense of being able to implement it, this is not an authoritative interpretation and can be questioned or revised at any time, and the main purpose of implementing the Faith is not of unifying doctrinal issues but one of nurturing non-specific community growth and human harmony. This doesn't mean people's religious views might not cause them to come under an Assembly's consultation, but only where, usually through an unwarranted or unsympathetic marketing of their views, they are causing disharmony and friction or undermining the safeguards of community harmony. (The reality is that if you have a challenging novel view of any kind you want to bring to people, you have to be sensitive in sharing it, and in most cases people with challenging novel views are impatient and tend to share it or try to impose it in a way insensitive to the needs or understanding of their audience and so are likely to stir up disharmony and alienation in place of love and fellowship.)
No Parties
Without having contending parties, an elected body is free to get on with the job at hand without having to have the conflict of interest of being harangued by competing parties more interested in point-scoring and undermining than working towards solutions and goals. However in having no parties, it is the duty of the Body to consult people's feelings and do a good job, or it will find itself elected with a different constituent membership.
Electoral Periods
Local and National Assemblies and Regional Councils are voted yearly, whilst the International House five-yearly.
Electoral Limitations
There is a theory that says that no voting system can fully fulfil what is wanted of a voting system:-
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem