MRA bylaws changes round 2

[Throttleroller277]

I think the wording is correct AND it matches your description. If only one person accepts a nomination, then the incumbent may also run (exception to term limits). If two candidates accept, then the incumbent must step aside for one term or run for a different position.

With this in place and only 2 new nominations needed, you could easily have two people work together as a form of collusion to simply get someone removed from the Board, and win the election.

Example: You could have one person that wants to Run for the said Board Position, and then he convinces someone else "new to the club" (that no one knows anything about them) to simply get nominated for the position, knowing that the second person would not get voted in, therefor forcing the existing Board Member to step down, and winning an election by default of the Bylaws, rather than a true vote of Choice by the members including the existing Board Member.

Anyone that doesn't think this can or will happen is simply in denial. As we have seen forms of people attempting collusion in other forms throughout the years, whether it be to get someone protested out of race results via teardown, or get people against the Board and/or elections. It is very unfortunate that just like in the Racing itself, some people want to "win" via the rule book, rather than out on the race track actually racing.

As Brewer stated, I don't see where the current process is broken. As it currently is, you can run for a Board Position against other Nominees, and the incumbent, and let the members vote by choice of who is best fit for the position. If the incumbent is not the best fit, someone else will be elected in.

[Jim Brewer]

You could have one person that wants to Run for the said Board Position, and then he convinces someone else "new to the club" (that no one knows anything about them) to simply get nominated for the position, knowing that the second person would not get voted in, therefor forcing the existing Board Member to step down, and winning an election by default of the Bylaws, rather than a true vote of Choice by the members including the existing Board Member.

Jeff's spot on here. In fact the person running for the board position could win without a vote by him/herself nominating someone else who they know would bow out.

No matter how many people you say it'd take to disqualify a termed out member (my rochambeau joke), a small group of people could bypass the election process and take over a board position.

The more I thought about it overnight, the more I'm convinced that any form of forced term limits creates a gateway to an organized corruption attack. Can someone convince me it wouldn't?