So recently, I feel like the votes for candidates are fairly lackluster. For the most part, they're generally one sentence to upvote or downvote candidates. While this doesn't seem to be an issue when talking about most traditional candidates, we are starting to run into an actual problem when talking about more complex cases. For example, someone unfamiliar with the criteria might upvote an obvious non-qualifer by saying "Yes to [Candidate X] for doing [Action Y]". In order to stop these types of situations from happening, I've decided to require votes to be relatively detailed enough to show that voters actually understand the criteria. For example, instead of just talking about their actions, it is encouraged for Voters to address the actual personality of candidates from now on. While actions are important for a character to count, personality is another important aspect for these archetypes. Any vote that is deemed lackluster will be registered as Invalid if not properly expanded.