Wow, really @WBT? Sad state of affairs then. The abundance of one-liner, non-cited, and misplaced 'answers' produced by Dale over the years should automatically disqualify him from this position.

Hi, @StephanS, thanks for addressing real issues/ideas in your writings regarding this election. You mentioned proper citations. By that do you actually mean the formatting (e.g., which words in a case name are/aren't abbreviated, pincites to specific pages in a case, essentially "Bluebooking," etc.)? Or do you simply mean proper citation as in simply providing sources somewhere within an answer?

The reason I ask is hyperlinking to appropriate source material is of course quickest for writers (answerers) and readers and seems appropriate for this sort of online forum. Additionally, requiring (or at least aiming toward highly encouraging) actual legal citations would dramatically limit the pool of people who can provide any helpful insights.

Either way, though, I commend you for mentioning this issue - I find it far too often overlooked on here. And requiring - at a bare minimum - some sort of substantiation of one's answer on here would save everyone a lot of time scrolling through and/or dealing with the nonsensical and insufficient answers that do pop up.

@A.fm. I'm not saying that outcome is necessarily optimal for the community, but it's by far the most likely outcome, especially considering how many vote principally by moderator score. I've also seen elections where the number of candidates who put serious thought into a nomination post and questionnaire answer (if they submit one at all!), especially in advance of just-before-the-deadline, is not very favorably comparable to the number of open spots. This set of candidates has done better.