They can try, but sometimes when you try and take the crust off, you just find more crust underneath. :o

And doing an excellent job of it:

Voters are typically going to vote for people that are already elected or posters that have been on the boards for a long period of time with high post counts

Strongly in favour of term limits.

You need fresh ideas and new input from a variety of posters.

How many of the current Talk Board members have held office for two or more terms? Is it more than one?

In favor of term limits. The proposal seems like a decent number (4 years on, must take 1 off)

We've never had a shortage of candidates to run for TB election. You can't convince me that name recognition doesn't have a major effect on the results.

Thus why I believe no one should serve more than two terms total... taking one year off will not stop them from getting re-elected. So you would probably have someone serving 8 out of 9 years... not much of a term limit... :)

Here are election results in a nutshell:

2006 - techgirl, Spiff, Jenbel, bhatnasx
2007 - gleff, Cholula, lucky9876coins, Punki, kokonutz
2008 - Spiff, bhatnasx, skywalkerLAX, nsx
2009 - gleff (replaced by UA_Flyer), lucky9876coins, Markie, B747-437B, Radioman (replaced by jackal)
2010 - Spiff, Cholula, SkiAdcock, bhatnasx
2011 - goalie, kokonutz, nsx, jackal, RichMSN

I couldn't find anything concrete as to who was elected in years prior to 2006 or if anyone prior to the 2009 election was replaced by another member, but perhaps someone else could shed some light on those.

So interestingly enough, all of this year's "winners" would have been eligible if the rule was "two terms on, one year off", and the only ones who would not have been eligible to run again would have been gleff and lucky9876coins if they were to attempt to run. I think the rest of the data speaks for itself.

Here's one more take - term limits are pretty useless, IMO. Some countries have had term limits for decades - doesn't materially make a difference to the voters; some states have put term limits in place - it merely changes the game, and eliminates people who are invested in the long urn or have contributions to make because of longtime experience.

The people elected are more important than term limits, but the idea of term limits is great window dressing - but that's all it is.

The first TB formed in 2001. Randy appointed three members (Dorian, Punki and spvii), six were elected (Cigarman for sure.) Randy suspended campaigning/voting for some length of time -- a week maybe? -- due to events on 9/11. A number of resignation were tendered within a few months of the election and wharvey, Spiff and hfly were appointed as replacements. The rest of the story you'll have to dig for yourself. :)

Term limits isn't a new idea.. As I wade through condo by-laws and community association by-laws, it is actually quite common..

The reasoning is interestingly similar to some of the opinions in this thread.. To give everyone a chance to serve.. but usually, its one term off and on again for another term or up to three, what I've been reading.. this an aside to what FT does..

But I agree with the notion, it only could be window dressing before the inevitable happens.. that worthy directors are re-elected to serve..

Spiff and Cholula have both served more than two terms. Cholula took a one year break after his second term and is currently in his third.

I can not tell you how many terms Spiff has served, but he was on TB before I was elected my first time (in 2004) and has remained on since.

I agree with term limits with a break in-between to start the counter running again. I like the idea of having new ideas/positions on the board.

bhatnasx has also served (at least) three terms.

For housekeeping reasons, please follow the discussion on a specific initiative the TB is considering:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...rm-limits.html