Nicolas Williams wrote: > +1 > > The lack of a candidate statement is a statement of a sort, as is a > candidate's track record and reputation -- voters are fully capable of > taking this into account when they vote. It is entirely possible that > candidates who did not post a statement could be elected or otherwise > come in ahead of others who did post statements. To disqualify them now > seems wrong to me.
If they skip any sort of election manifesto I really don't care; but the important requirement to me is the required statement of affiliation. Before someone is elected don't we need to know they are a "natural person" (i.e., not a fake id created to represent some organisation), who if anyone they are employed by, their relevant organisational affiliations etc. Yes, a rogue candidate may not declare their presidency of the Kill Solaris Foundation - but when it is later uncovered it's a reason to disqualify their elected status (a bit like not ticking the "I am a Nazi War Criminal" on the US visa waiver forms - someone who is guilty probably won't tick it, but if later uncovered they can get thrown out for lying on immigration forms; of course we'd stop short of declaring failure to declare affiliations as a war crime!). Gavin
