You raise good points, which I agree with. Just pushing back on the idea that there’s “no point” if we already know who will win (which applies to many elections of all kinds in real life).
- “Special cases aren’t special enough to break the rules.” Keeping the machinery oiled reduces friction of all kinds for the next election that “could matter”.
- Keeps voters marked as active on the voter roles.
- Gives the candidates opportunities to actively engage with the electorate about high-order issues. Nomination statements are sometimes the only things some of us hear about aspirations and disappointments, and discuss them before a wide audience. Introspection about the Council’s role is something that’s almost never on display outside of the election context. It’s of value to the candidates too to be “forced” into stepping back from crushing daily duties to think about, and articulate, their visions.
- STAR voting gives a much clearer picture of individuals’ relative approval/disapproval levels than Approval voting did. The number of stars each gets is valuable feedback for everyone.
That said, I think a practical change with several good aspects would be to move to 2-year terms, with only “about half” up for election each year. If someone doesn’t want to sign up for a full 2 years, PEP 13 already allows for that a member can resign at any time. And leaving details beyond that unspecified for now. If it’s attractive, it belongs in a different topic.