You're right - this election is looking a bit ridiculous right now. Not that I don't believe most of the candidates are sincere in their desire to help... But this site has over 4 years of history, nuanced policies have grown up, and expecting someone who hasn't spent a lot of time here to even know about them - much less uphold them - is kinda silly.
The current requirements for nomination made sense 4 years ago when Mathematics held its first election (IIRC, the first election in this format anywhere on Stack Exchange!) - but y'all have grown since then, and it's time the election requirements changed to reflect that.
Changing the rules after folks have already nominated in good faith is a bit sketchy. Such changes should be discussed at length and made known well before an election starts - so the most drastic alterations will have to wait for next year.
But there's one thing we can and should do: reduce the number of nomination slots available. Conscientious voters (or potential nominees) shouldn't have to wade through dozens of posts from folks who, realistically, aren't going to figure in the final election. So effective immediately, I've lowered it from 30 to 20.
What this change means
Immediately, nothing changes. No current nominations are being forcibly withdrawn. However...
- The reputation threshold for nomination immediately becomes the lowest reputation of the current set of nominees.
- For every new nomination, the candidate with the lowest reputation score is automatically withdrawn, and the new threshold for nomination becomes the reputation of the new lowest-reputation candidate.
- Effectively, this puts the election into a mode whereby you - the eligible members of Mathematics - decide what the minimum allowable reputation should be for nominees. Want it higher? Convince higher-reputation users to post serious nominations.
I sincerely believe this will help reduce the strain on both candidates and voters, but we'll also be keeping a closer eye on how this election progresses to make sure future nominees are serious in their intentions - I know how much the selection of competent moderators matters to y'all, and pledge to do all I can to prevent this democratic process from being abused.
Finally, I want to apologize for not anticipating the need for more strict requirements sooner. Last time around, there was concern that there wouldn't even be enough candidates for a Primary phase - this time, y'all hit that threshold within a day. Which solved one problem, but brought others with it.