Campaign: This could have a very disruptive effect on the election campaign because candidates would not know whether there were three or five seats available until after the election. For a potential candidate, there is a huge difference between running in an election for five seats, with at least two of them open (open = the incumbent is not running), and an election with just three seats with at most one open seat (the incumbents haven't yet formally announced whether they are running). Some candidates may choose not to run, and others may run a radically different campaign.
Legality: The precise mechanism for implementing this reduction has not been determined, but it would eliminate the seats for the fourth- and fifth-place finishers.
Cohorts: 2005 reduced from five to three; 2007 remains at four.
Campaigning: Much less disruptive. The fifth place finisher in the 2005 election would get a seat on Council and would be able to run for a full-term seat in the 2007 election. Three of the four incumbents in the 2007 election are termed-out.
Legality: Again, the precise legalities for changing the fifth-place finisher's seat from 4 years to 2 years has not been determined.
Cohorts: 2005 reduced from five to four; 2007 reduced from four to three.
Campaigning: Potential of having more than three incumbents vying for the three remaining seats.
Legalities: no difficulties known.
Cohorts: 2005 reduced from five to three (in 2009); 2007 remains unchanged.
If the proposal for a directly elected Mayor passes and the one for Council reduction fails, one of the Council seats in the 2005 election would be converted from a four-year term to a two-year term. You do not want to convert one of the 2007 seats because that would leave a cohort of three in 2007 versus one of five in 2005/2009.
If both measures pass, there would be three seats remaining in both cohorts. Changes to above scenarios for implementing Council size reduction: