The bill is in a state where it can be brought to vote, but I think it would be a mistake to address the issue of election scheduling in a piecemeal way. Over the years I've found that it's best to not only establish a consistent schedule of elections, but also to spread them out as much as possible; elections serve not only as a generator of activity, but as a way to engage new players in the political process. Having long periods without any electoral activity can be seriously detrimental to a region - historically, that was the reason why I scheduled judicial and cabinet elections in a staggered manner, so that elections would occur every two months. There's also benefits in terms of having more people contest the elections, as if they all occur at the same time there's more offices and the same number of people to go around. If elections are staggered then people can run in one set, lose, and then run in the next set.

At present we have four "sets" of elections; Cabinet, Delegate, Chair and Local Council. Two of those feature solely forum stages, one a forum and region stage, and one a region stage. If we're moving to four month terms for Cabinet, then it makes sense to move to four month terms for everything and schedule it so one forum and one region election occurs in each set of the "stagger".

What I'd like to suggest is pairing Cabinet and Local Council elections, and Delegate and Chair elections. That way there'll be a set of elections every two months, involving both the forum and the region.