Scott Ludwig wrote:
I will interject a small comment, I concur with the thoughts, but also note, that all those who voted "Yes" for the revised Rules, I hope you understand politics is what you'll get every year now with the elections that'll take place. Sure some elections will be straight forward, while others might be a bit more murky and "political"....so everyone has been forewarned....

Scott, when I read this it sounds like you are intimating that the membership having the privilege and the right to vote for their leadership positions is a bad thing (correct me please if my understanding is wrong...), or will certainly cause some headaches...
And the alternative to this, for those who voted NO for the Revised Rules, or from your PoV, should have voted NO would be what?
Would this be an alternative to the membership voting for their leaders: A CiC decides it is time for him to resign the position of his Army Command, and his role as CiC, so informing his fellow Cabinet members.
The Cabinet proceeds to discuss among themselves how best to address the situation.
The departing CiC proffers the suggestion that finding a replacement for the vacant positions be put to a vote by the membership, but, his fellow Cabinet members decide in favor of themselves asking one specific person to assume the position...
That sounds like elitism to me...
And it surely smacks of back room dealing...
So a few good people know what is best for the masses... ?
Regards,