Single Seat Nominees - A More Competitive Election Pool
PROPOSAL CATEGORY:
Process
ABSTRACT:
In the interest of concentrating the competitiveness of each election pool, this proposal would limit ApeCoin DAO election nominees to run for one single position per election cycle.
BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:
By ensuring that a nominee may only apply to run for a single position in a given election period, we would see greater selectivity by candidates as they opt for the position that plays to their greatest strengths. This has the effect of enriching the overall talent pool for each position, as well as reducing crucial administrative overhead.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENT & TIMELINE:
Upon the passing of this proposal, all subsequent elections would permit a nominee to apply exclusively for a single elected position. Implementation would be enacted immediately.
There are some challenges like this during election cycle:
candidate running for multiple seats
candidates signing up and withdrawing but still in the voting choices
candidates signing up and no interest to run or campaign but still on nomination posters
candidates signing up for multiple seats then cancelling one of them depending on deals or talks with friends or rumors of who is running for which nomination
candidate running every cycle for whichever position comes up
candidate who is first in vote “pouring” votes to another candidate to pull up to second
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
I appreciate your proposal aimed at improving our process, but I see it different about limiting nominees to one position per election cycle at this time. While I understand the aim to enhance competitiveness, I’m concerned it may restrict candidate diversity and discourage participation, particularly given the current level of activity and attention within the DAO. Additionally, there’s a risk of unfilled seats and administrative challenges.
My suggestion is to hold off on implementing this change for the current election cycle. With 8 positions to fulfill, we have an opportunity to observe and gather data before making a decision - to inform our decision on whether or not to proceed with this initiative.
Appreciate the feedback, as always. I certainly don’t expect this proposal to be a unanimous one, but I do believe it’s time we consider the voters’ perspective on this issue now that we’ve now seen several election seasons featuring multiple open positions.
While the intention is not to discourage participation or restrict diversity, I think this proposal will nevertheless have several net-positive impacts. As previously mentioned, it will call professionals toward their strongest areas, allowing them to concentrate their campaigning efforts in a more focused way. I don’t believe we’ve ever seen a nominee running for more than one position make it out of the first round, let alone become elected. This is likely not coincidental.
It would also have the effect of augmenting other nominee voices while reducing voter confusion. The number of Stages (ApeComms, UGH, PukeCast, etc.) has only grown, and so too has the number of postions being offered (we will have an additional Working Group added to the mix this next election). From a community standpoint, having the same person remain on Stages as different groups receive their platform time often serves to take away time from others. Additionally, these Stages can become a bit confusing for voters with so much potential overlap and such a finite time frame for all nominees to share their background and position(s).
To your point regarding the risk of unfilled seats, we have only seen the nominee pool grow in recent elections; even without this, however, we do have procedures in place that would see even a pool of a handful or less go to vote, so this needn’t be an administrative hindrance in any capacity. And in terms of administrative challenges, I’d argue that this proposal only reduces those challenges as it would help minimize excess clerical overhead in an ever-expanding election season.
For all of these reasons, we are proceeding with next steps and I’m encouraging voters to consider the merits I’ve laid out here when the time comes. Thanks as always for your feedback.
Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.
Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.
This proposal is live for vote at Snapshot. The voting period closes 13 days from now at 9PM EST.
The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimize for security, and usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.
