I think that there may be a (soft) second option here that doesn’t require changing the election timeline or term length, which is for candidates to elect to run “together”, in pairs or trios for example, in conjunction with other candidates with whom they’d like to serve on the Major Grants Committee. Modifying the formal voting mechanism might go against the spirit of ZIP 1014, but nothing prevents candidates from specifying that they want to serve only with specific other candidates, and the Community Advisory Panel can take this into account when voting.
What is the formal voting mechanism? As far as I can see, it is not specified in ZIP 1014, other than:
There are many possible election mechanisms - first-past-the-post, approval, ranked-choice, etc. - and some might be more amenable to voters taking into account this kind of “joint candidacy” - or, I suppose, it would even be possible for two candidates to literally run together under one line item, like voting for a presidential or party ticket - I’m not sure whether this contravenes the “spirit” of ZIP 1014 or not.
I think there are (at least) three relevant questions here:
- Are “joint candidacies” likely to be more effective at selecting a committee which works well together, or are there risks of a lack of diversity or too much politics?
- Are the current candidates for the Major Grants committee happy to serve regardless of who the committee turns out to consist of?
- Is anyone not running for the Major Grants committee because they don’t know who they’d be serving with, and would they be more inclined to run if they could run with someone else?