I don’t agree that our system was “clearly intended to be a single-nominee system” — at least, I’ve never intended that since I first suggested it. I’ve always imagined that we might have multiple legislators interested in being the Chair, and thus might have competing resolutions.
I don’t find it strange that we can contemplate multiple candidates and end up choosing one. Like with any other legislative proposal, we may have multiple proposals put to a vote that can’t all pass because they’re mutually contradictory — whether because they amend the same part of the law in different ways, because they name different people as Chair, etc. The Legislative Procedure Act accommodates this with competing votes.
I think it would remain awkward for it to be a full-fledged election when all our other elections are tied to citizenship (voter registration, essentially) and the Chair of the Assembly is a position unique to the Assembly that I believe ought to be chosen by an internal Assembly process.
However, I am not necessarily opposed to “election-like” mechanisms. Our current process gives us the most flexibility, but if we don’t want so much flexibility, we can always give ourselves less. We could set a fixed term length or schedule votes at regular dates (similar to retention votes) without involving the Election Commissioner and the Citizenship Committee and whatnot in something that can just be a… vote in the Assembly to fill an Assembly position.