Just some recommendations:

The voting period during an election should last five days. Right now it lasts ten. That takes up way too much time in my opinion.

Secondly, a council term should be one month or one and a half months. In the current term (before the new councilors are elected), ALL PC councilors have been killed. Towards the start of the term we lost just about three immediately. Combine that with the fact that players come and go with their characters for various reasons.

Seconded.

5 days doesn't provide a very good amount of time for the widest possible range of people to log in and vote.

With 10 days it lasts a little over a week, allowing people who have to say, go away for a week to get back in time to cast their vote.

Seven days might be optimal

Seven days for voting and six weeks between elections seems suitable in my opinion.

there are pc councilors? i thought that was a myth.

Personally I want monthly elections.

can this really bad handled here? shouldn't someone get elected and then make the proposal?

7 days is ridiculous due to the IG passage of time. 7 days only really makes sense in our world, in fact, because we're stupid lamers that enjoy using as many odd number bases as possible, and take pride in inventing a use for a new, even more odd number base. But I digress.

I agree in that the term could be shortened down a few tendays, however, but if it's any more than that, the 1000gp fee should be lowered a little.

I think the system works fine the way it is. I understand the issue with all PC Councilors having been killed/left Sanctuary forever. We could just put in place a rule (and pursue this IC, of course) that in those cases, the next person in line gets to serve the rest of the term. It ought to solve this problem, at least. I think two months between elections are fine. It gives Councilors time to work on their agendas. The 10-day voting period is appropriate exactly because of what Kotenku said, but I believe 8 days could work just as well.

My thoughts.

- Kiaring

I really would like to see monthly elections. If you happen to make a new character just before the elections and you have no time to get your "policys" to the wild, it will be very annoying to wait around two months before you can try to get your character elected.

And I also agree, that we should drop the time how long you can cast votes, 5-7 days should be fine

maybe we should keep it the way it is but when a council member dies have another election to fill out their term or something...

from the turnover there'd be plenty of opportunity for new characters to get elected and all this other stuff to happen...

I am absolutely against shortening the term. The way it is now, the only truly productive part of the terms are right of the bat when all the new ideas come in from fresh councilors and then two weeks later there seems to be a new blaze of activity (though by this time it's usually more IG than inter-council politics). Reducing term length would only foster reduced activity.

Secondly, campaigning takes up quite a bit of time. It drops councilor efficiency exponentially. What do we want our councilors to do? Campaign almost constantly, or do we want them to try and be active and get out some without having to beg for votes? Two months is almost ideal.

As for all the PC councilors being killed- this was a fairly unusual term in politics. We were an awkward mix of varying ranges of crazy. I don't expect this kind of councilor loss for a while, though I suppose it really depends on the councilors and the characters in the field during the term. *spoiler? -> * I also won't say much, but I do think the DMs have realized this little problem and are making some changes.

As for shortening the voting term, that's a consideration. Ten days is quite a long time. Of course, our voting system (our literal OOC system) is incredibly simple compared to the methods we use in modern times. Also, a great deal of people in the city of Sanctuary strangely disappear when their counterparts in "real life" disappear for a little while. I think ten days suits that little oddity. Seven days is certainly passable though, that's not a big deal and reduces a little anxiety. Also, the thought that the full-time workers among us might be a little pushed by this... meh, why not just keep it at 10?

Of course, this is all something that should be taken IG, as seth pointed out. The Council can indeed make changes like this, though the Mayor might be a trump card who can do it as well.

----------------------------------------------

San Telmo: If you really wanted to be on the Council, you should be making your character LONG before the elections to start campaigning. The problem isn't the length of the elections, but the brevity of your stay in-game prior to the election. Also, you'll need to raise 1000 gold, which is a pretty penny that you're not going to get in a few days (although there are some IG methods to get it).

----------------------------------------------

Last note:

The problem is that PC councilors just need to work on NOT dying. Hopefully, the martyring of Genevis Ward (hey, let me dream here!) will spark new enthusiasm for looking at your candidates as "who will actually live long enough to get something done" instead of "who has the crazies agenda?" *votes*.

Kiaring the issue with all PC Councilors having been killed/left Sanctuary forever. We could just put in place a rule (and pursue this IC, of course) that in those cases, the next person in line gets to serve the rest of the term

If I were a law-enforcing type, that would make Councilors-in-waiting prime suspects in the murder / disappearance of every councilor who didn't show up for work three days in a row.

:twisted:

I like it!

There are certain candidates who promise that they will be tougher to kill as part of their campaign efforts. It's an interesting idea, and, as Garem pointed out, there are already IC consequences to the fact that 4/9 Councilors were killed this past term.

(Also, I would like to buy Anti-Naga insurance).

On a second note: We could possibly work IG towards a 'staggered' system. Every even month, (Months 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the year) we have elections to decide 5 Council seats. The people who joined in one of those seats in the last Even Month election, must then run for re-election if they wish to follow their carreer in the Council.

Every odd month, (Months 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 of the year) we will have elections for the remaining 4 seats of the Council.

If this idea is adopted, shortening the voting time to 5 days would be ideal.

Why do I like this? Basically, it generates near-constant political activity in Sanctuary without shortening the time Councilors have to work on their policies. It also favors the creation of political parties, since you can have one of your candidates run in an Even election, and another one run in an Odd election, both with the same voting base, advocating for the same things, but without splitting their votes down the middle.

- Kia

Spiffy idea, Kia.

You can even add a very interesting element, notably a part of any flawed democracy (read: All) which is political 'fostering' (unsure whether this is the actual term in English, but it conveys the idea well enough) of a candidate. Quite simple. An already-elected, already-established official helps a new candidate achieve an elected position, and then calls in major political favors when they are in office. Under the current system, that isn't feasible, because each candidate has to compete with the others for votes. If we make staggered elections a reality, this could become a very interesting reality on EfU.

Kiarings idea sounds marvelous. My both hands are supporting this.

If you want to change it, pursue that in-game. Seven votes are needed in the Council to overturn a law or existing procedure.

Well done Kia, though if Majre wins, I think it's more appropriate for Bhast or Tyrell to propose this...

And I love the fostering idea. I always ran into that little trouble which made me all the more hesitant to support candidates I wanted to support...