DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

I'll respond to Pro's points (in bold). 1A. Causing fraud candidates to create two dummy accounts will deter some people from hacking their way into the race.Since it only takes two minutes to create a dummy account, I don't think this will be a significant deterrence.1B. With 2 endorsements though the odds of 2 brand new users endorsing a candidate they just met are much steeper, The odds are not "much" steeper. It'd be hard to tell because n00bs don't know anything about DDO and may endorse anyone for any reason. 1C. ...And if they joined at the exact same time and endorsed the same candidate they did not know at the same time then the odds the candidate is not creating dummy accounts is almost negligible.So I think you're saying that with 2 endorsements of n00bs, it'd be obvious that the n00bs were really just dummy accounts. As I said, this is not necessarily the case since you never know what n00bs will do. They're n00bs after all. Nonetheless, I've pointed out how easy it would be to spot dummy accounts (we also have mods who can check IPs), so "n00b sniping" in this regard is not necessary. 2A. Number of campaign threads created by candidates who received multiple votes = 1. Number of campaign threads created by candidates who only received their own one vote = 4... Some "spamming" can occur. This ignores my point that people would create threads asking to be nominated, which would probably include some campaigning anyway. This statistic also doesn't explain how the two endorsement requirement would help or change the number of threads. As I said, DDO never intended to regulate who posts what forum topics. If you don't have an interest in the thread, don't read it. Pro seemingly agrees with these sentiments. 2B. ...There was also a thread of someone asking who all was running because of the influx of one vote candidates, so that thread added to the others.This could easily happen regardless of the 2 endorsement rule, thus is irrelevant. 2C. ...But this endorsement is meant primarily to clean up the campaign not to channel votes to more legitimate candidates. I don't see how 2 endorsements "cleans up the campaign." Pro has consistently ignored my points, including the fact that just because you endorse someone so they CAN run doesn't necessarily mean you intend on voting for them or want them to win. As such, I doubt many people would outright deny someone the right to run by saying they wouldn't publicly endorse them. Even if they did, I don't see the point or benefit. For instance, if izbo10 decided to run for President of DDO, I think we can all say he has no realistic chance at winning. As such, there is no need to weed out "silly" candidates. That is actually what is undermining the democratic process, and does the OPPOSITE of "cleaning up the campaigns" but rather provides more interference and unnecessary beaucracy. 2D. ...The idea that the number of votes wouldnt affect the race is only true if Innomen were in the campaign.Pro brings this up directly after he says channeling votes is not the point of the resolution. Regardless, people shouldn't be forced to vote for front-runners. If they legitimately want to vote for themselves or someone who very likely won't win anyway, that should be their prerogative.3A. If the endorsement deal were put in place, the number of potential candidates would be limited to only legit candidates. That means candidates who spam the forums would be greatly reduced, so all those threads advertising for their campaign would not be created since the candidates wouldnt be allowed to run.This is nothing but repeating points that I have already negated. Pro (a) offers no proof whatsoever that the number of candidates would be reduced; (b) that the number reduction in candidates would be a good thing outside of POSSIBLY creating less campaign threads [which is speculative and not necessarily beneficial]; (c) that 2 endorsements somehow produces better quality or more "legitimate" candidates - especially because n00bs and/or friends can endorse people; (d) there might still be a lot of presidential-related threads, except about nominations instead of campaigns. Pro is wasting my character space by having me repeat these things :( 3B. ...But the mafia thread is limited to the forum about games, not DDO.And likewise presidential threads are limited to the DDO forum, just like mafia is in the Game forum. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, and I've already addressed what he said...RE-CAP1. Most nominations only require 1 endorsement; that is sufficient. I don't see the significant difference of 2, so no need to expand the requirements unnecessarily. That hinders, not stengthens, the democratic process. 2. This wouldn't eliminate bad candidates, and could stifle potential good candidates. We have no reason to believe the community would elect an overwhemingly "bad" president. 3. The site could benefit by exposure to the platforms and ideas of as many people as possible, so more campaign threads can prove to be beneficial to the entire community at large. It also hasn't been proven this would lead to less threads.PROPISTIONSIf the community at large deems an endorsement to be beneficial, an alternative to the resolution can be to only require 1 endorsement; however, the endorsement must come from a member who has been active for more than 3 months. The logic behind this is that a member for 3 months has a better understanding of who a legitimate potential candidate could or should be, and would therefore have a more reasonable assessment than the endorsement of 2 people who are potential n00bs or don't know the going-ons of the site in detail. CONCLUSIONI've proven that changing the process is unnecessary. It provides little benefit, so we shouldn't waste our time with pesky beaurcracy. Even if you think endorsements are important, I've also provided a better alternative to the proposed resolution, so you've no reason to vote Pro. Back to ye, bench.