Poll on "Raise the Standards"

[Peter]

Just want to see what the general public opinion on this is. If you feel compelled to answer "Other", please indicate that opinion in a post.

For the sake of completeness, I am happy with anything between 35 and 75, but I have voted for 50.

As for post requirements for Presidential candidates and Senate candidates, I think you should need the posts to become a candidate, not just to assume the office. Second, Presidential candidates, something ambititious like 500, or maybe 1000 posts. For all other federal officers (Senators, Cabinet, Justices) the requirement should be about 200 posts - I certainly think other offices ought to be included though they weren't before.

[Alcon]

I support 50.

18 is too few. More than 50 invites spamming. 50 is an excellent balance.

[Redefeatbush04]

I support 50.

18 is too few. More than 50 invites spamming. 50 is an excellent balance.

Which is why our idea of an additional time limit is also necessary. Here is what I proposed:

To Vote: 50 posts + 7 days
To run for senate: 100 posts + 14 days
To run for president: 250 posts + 30 days

[Keystone Phil]

I voted for 100 though 50 or 75 would be fine with me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think time periods would defeat spamming, only spread it out.

I'm neutral on the issue of whether the number of posts should be raised, but if it is, I favor going to the 50-100-250 level for V-S-P.

[Colin]

I support 50.

18 is too few. More than 50 invites spamming. 50 is an excellent balance.

Which is why our idea of an additional time limit is also necessary. Here is what I proposed:

To Vote: 50 posts + 7 days
To run for senate: 100 posts + 14 days
To run for president: 250 posts + 30 days

I agree with these time frames 100%. While they will not stop Spamming or uninformed voters voting it would help the process and make it hard for people to spam or do tomatosoupping.

[A18]

200

[Redefeatbush04]

200

Not everyone can get 200 in 5 days Philip

[A18]

Well, at least make it a hundred. Fifty is almost nothing.

[KEmperor]

I voted 100, the higher the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Redefeatbush04]

Well, at least make it a hundred. Fifty is almost nothing.

better than it is now. If it is 100, it will piss off all of those who want to keep it at 18. if it stays at 18, those such as yourself Philip, who want it at 100 or 200, will be upset.

[A18]

I would be willing to leave it at 18 if you also had to own 1/5 of an acre of-

[Redefeatbush04]

I would be willing to leave it at 18 if you also had to own 1/5 of an acre of-

lol nice.....

[MAS117]

I support either 18 or 35. I voted for 35. 1000 posts for Presidential is way to many. 500 is a good amount. A YABB God.

[Josh]

18 may be a bit low, but it allows those of us who are less active than most, but still enjoy participation, to vote.

[J. J.]

I agree with Lordship.  A time factor should be included.  To give an example, I've read the entire PA-13 thread, and find it interesting, but I don't contribute all that much to it.  If somebody is interested enough to register, and stay for 30 days, I'm in favor of that person being able to vote, even if they don't post too often.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any evidence that we need to worry about people rushing in to run for officies willy nilly, or that even if we did, that we would have to worry about them winning.  Time limitations for office holding are therefore superfluous.  We already have a ten day requirement for voters, and nothing I've seen suggests that lengthening that would cause any noticable improvement in voter quality.

[A18]

The problem is voting, not so much running for office.