kokonutz

I'd be open to that thought. But I don't know if a majority of the TB is. Heck, the original idea was to require 2 years off, but that was negotiated down to 1 in order to make the amendment more palatable. It still may fail.

We shall see!

kokonutz

Excellent points.

I think it makes sense to table this issue for now and focus on the term limits. We can revisit it as a stand-alone issue.

Ancien Maestro

You've read both correct.. what I meant regarding the second statement is that the TB needs to be clear in their policy that if new blood is needed then make it clear.. otherwise leave it up to the voters..

Dovster

Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it is a major error to ever let something like this slide until the situation becomes a reality. At that point, personalities become involved. It is far better to settle it in advance.

Frankly, I think that in the case of a 5-2-2 split the issue is unimportant. Whoever got the 5 votes is going to win the run off. If you do want to have a run off anyhow, you can determine which of those who received 2 votes got more votes in the TB elections the last time he ran and let him run against the person who got 5.

kokonutz

I think it should be fixed soon too, but as it is going to require some discussion I'd personally prefer that we focus on the issue that is contained in the OP and take this technical correction to a technical correction thread. But it's not like I am going to suspend you or anything if you want to keep talking about it here. ^

SkiAdcock

I'm a bit perplexed on why the 2nd part (TB Prez election) was even included with the part about term limits. They're 2 separate items.

Since this thread is about term limits, I'd rather the discussion stayed on that. Actually I would have rather the proposed term limits been started in a new thread, as someone has to wade through almost 140 posts to get to it & they have to wade through a lot of off-topic discussion. But it is what it is. Since koko's the OP, maybe he can edit his post #1 to direct people to post #128.

I agree w/ koko that the TB prez thing will get sorted soon, but that will be a separate discussion and hope FTers stay focused on the TB term limits discussion in this one.

Cheers.

nsx

The advantage of including it was to reduce the number of separate announcements needed. Two separate votes on internal TB procedures will feed the perception that we only twiddle our thumbs here. See if you agree with me after reading the second part of this post!


Thanks to Smaug we can correct our technical errors on the technical correction.

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

wharvey

I believe my position is clear in the post you quote...

I am NOT for term limits for Talkboard members.

HOWEVER, if they are going to put in term limits make it a true limit.... the current proposal says that a members can sever as many terms as they want as long as they take one year off in between.... in essence, people would take one year off... and could be reelected for another four years... so could searve for 8 out of 9 years.

If you consider that stirring the pot, so be it... but I have been very clear.

tcook052

Clear in their policy? Isn't it clear enough now? Wouldn't it be clear enough if it were to enact term limit guidelines? I see it as more cut & dry, yes or no to TB term limits with my humble opinion being yes.

DeaconFlyer

"In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote."

In the rare case that 4 people ran, 1 receiving 3 votes and the three others receiving 2 votes each, no candidate would receive a majority. You might consider language that stated the "top vote getter" would win.

nsx

Damn, you guys are good at this!

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the candidate with the most votes shall be declared the winner. A tie will be resolved by a random drawing conducted by the Community DirectorPresident shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

wharvey

I would be really disappointed if some was elected by a random drawing... and we know how the conspiracy helicopters will be circling no matter who is chosen.

Why not say "in the event of a tie, the candidate who received the highest percentage of general member votes when they were last elected".

Ancien Maestro

If you read upthread there is discussion about getting fresh blood. The point is if TB wants it, discuss it and implement the change.. if not, drop it.

SkiAdcock

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think anything that requires a vote by TB deserves its own thread, and I'd rather new verbiage be put in post #1, not posted in the middle of an existing thread.

But on the topic of TB Prez election (which shouldn't be put in the middle of a thread on term limits which we're seeking input on IMO), you were working from old verbiage & smaug caught what TB members did before they voted:

"On 16 Jan 2011, the TalkBoard unanimously passed:

Moved by Markie and seconded by jackal:

The TalkBoard recommends that the following amendments be made to the TalkBoard Guidelines:

Section 3, paragraph ii, sub-paragraph c be replaced with the following text :

The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering 2/3rd of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and none receive 2/3rds of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect. "

I'm considering starting a new thread on term limits & posting in post #1 the verbiage/motion we're considering since this thread is long, and has gone sideways, first w/ mod discussions & now discussions on TB election which had been addressed earlier this year.

When asking for public comments pro/con, I'd like us to at least semi-stay on the topic.

Cheers.

goalie

Bolding mine: I agree completely ^. While TalkBoard is not Washington (least I hope not ) where too many things get buried in a bill with the hope that no-one notices, I favor the KISS method and a separate thread for each vote item is the best way to do it.