Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Candidate

A candidate is an individual who seeks nomination or election to a public office, aspiring to or qualifying for the position through formal processes such as filing paperwork, meeting legal eligibility criteria, or gaining party endorsement.^[1]^[2] In electoral contexts, candidates represent themselves or political parties, competing to secure voter approval via ballots in democratic systems worldwide.^[3] Candidates typically engage in campaigning, which involves public speaking, policy articulation, and resource mobilization to influence public opinion and turnout.^[2] Defining characteristics include adherence to jurisdiction-specific qualifications—such as minimum age, residency, and citizenship requirements—and compliance with campaign finance regulations to ensure transparency in funding sources.^[4] Notable aspects encompass independent candidacies, which bypass party structures but often face resource disadvantages, versus party-nominated candidates who leverage organizational support.^[3] While electoral success hinges on voter preferences shaped by issues like economic performance and governance records, candidates may encounter controversies over ethical lapses, such as undisclosed funding or misleading statements, underscoring the importance of verifiable accountability in the process.^[5] Historical patterns reveal that incumbents frequently hold advantages due to name recognition and established networks, though upsets occur when challengers effectively highlight systemic failures or unmet promises.^[2]

Etymology and Origins

Linguistic Roots

The English word candidate originates from the Latin noun candidātus, denoting a person seeking public office, literally meaning "clothed in white" or "white-robed."^[6] This term derived from the adjective candidus, signifying "white," "pure," or "bright," which in turn stemmed from the verb candēre, "to shine," "to glow," or "to be white."^[7] The association with whiteness reflected the Roman electoral practice where aspirants for magistracies donned a specially whitened toga, termed the toga candida, to symbolize moral purity, distinguish themselves in crowds, and evoke brightness amid the era's muted dyes.^[8]^[9] Roman sources, such as Cicero's writings, attest to this custom, with candidātus specifically applied to those campaigning under such attire, contrasting with official terms like petitor (seeker) or competitor (rival seeker).^[9] The practice likely emphasized visual prominence in public forums, where candidates canvassed voters (ambire, from which "ambition" derives) through personal appeals.^[8] Linguistically, candidus traces further to Proto-Indo-European roots *ḱeh₂nd- or kand-, connoting "to shine" or "white," linking it to cognates like "candle" and "incandescent" across Indo-European languages. The term entered English around 1600, initially retaining its sense of one proposed for office via election or appointment, evolving from direct Latin borrowing during the Renaissance revival of classical terminology.^[6] By the 17th century, it had broadened to denote any aspirant for positions, while retaining the metaphorical implication of "brightness" or openness, as in "candid."^[7] No significant semantic shifts occurred in major Romance languages, where equivalents like French candidat or Italian candidato preserve the Latin form and electoral connotation.^[6]

Historical Symbolism in Ancient Rome

In the Roman Republic, aspirants to magistracies such as quaestor, aedile, praetor, or consul were termed candidati, a designation derived from the Latin candidus, meaning "white" or "bright," due to their distinctive attire.^[6] These individuals wore a specially prepared toga candida, whitened through bleaching or application of chalk powder, to stand out visually during canvassing in public forums like the Roman Forum.^[7]^[8] The white coloration symbolized moral purity and integrity, projecting an image of untainted virtue amid the era's competitive elections, which often involved bribery (ambitus) and factional rivalries from the 4th century BCE through the 1st century BCE.^[7]^[6] This symbolism extended beyond mere aesthetics, serving as a rhetorical tool to appeal to voters' expectations of civic rectitude in a system where magistrates held imperium or financial oversight roles.^[10] The toga candida contrasted with the standard woolen toga, which could appear soiled or colored, thereby emphasizing the candidate's supposed detachment from corruption and alignment with traditional Roman values of mos maiorum (ancestral custom).^[7] Historical texts from the late Republic, including advisory writings on electioneering, highlight how candidates leveraged this garb to cultivate favor through personal salutations and public visibility, though its effectiveness waned as electoral violence and elite patronage dominated by the late 2nd century BCE.^[8]^[10] The practice underscores the performative nature of Roman republican politics, where visual symbols reinforced claims to eligibility under the cursus honorum, the sequential ladder of offices requiring minimum ages (e.g., 30 for quaestor, 42 for consul) and prior service.^[6] Despite the idealized purity it evoked, contemporary accounts reveal that many candidati engaged in illicit vote-buying, indicating the symbolism often masked pragmatic realities rather than reflecting empirical ethical standards.^[7] This tradition persisted into the early Principate under Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), where electoral forms continued briefly before imperial control supplanted competitive candidacies.^[8]

Definitions and Scope

Core Meanings Across Contexts

In general usage, a candidate is defined as an individual who aspires to, is nominated for, or is qualified to receive an office, membership, award, or similar distinction.^[1] This core meaning emphasizes proactive pursuit or suitability for a competitive or selective process, often involving evaluation by others.^[11] The term extends beyond persons to occasionally describe objects or entities regarded as appropriate for a particular purpose, such as a chemical compound as a candidate for pharmaceutical development, though human applications predominate.^[12] Politically, a candidate specifically refers to a person seeking nomination for or election to a public office, triggering legal definitions under frameworks like U.S. federal election law, where candidacy begins upon active pursuit of such nomination or election.^[13] This usage underscores electoral competition, where individuals must meet qualifications like age, residency, or citizenship to be eligible.^[14] In professional and employment contexts, the term denotes an applicant vying for a job, promotion, or organizational role, evaluated based on qualifications, interviews, and fit.^[15] Academically, especially in British English, it applies to examinees pursuing certification or degrees, such as degree candidates completing theses or finals.^[16] Religious traditions may use it for aspirants to clerical roles, involving probationary preaching or vetting before ordination.^[17] Across these domains, the concept implies provisional status—neither guaranteed success nor mere speculation—but a stage of contention where empirical merits, such as track records or endorsements, determine advancement.^[1] Distinctions from related terms like "nominee" (post-selection) highlight candidacy's emphasis on initial seeking or qualification rather than final endorsement.^[2]

Distinctions from Nominees and Applicants

A candidate refers to an individual actively seeking or competing for a position, office, or honor, often through public advocacy or demonstration of qualifications, as derived from the Latin candidatus, denoting a white-robed aspirant in ancient Roman elections who sought office via personal effort and visibility.^[6] This term emphasizes initiative and competition, particularly in electoral or selective processes where multiple contenders vie for selection. In contrast, an applicant denotes someone who formally submits materials for consideration, typically in employment, grants, or admissions, marking an initial, unvetted entry point without implying active campaigning or prior screening.^[18] ^[19] The distinction arises causally from process stages: applicants enter via self-initiated paperwork, while candidates emerge post-initial review, having been deemed viable based on criteria like skills or endorsements.^[20] A nominee, meanwhile, is someone proposed or selected by a third party—such as a party, committee, or electorate—for advancement to final consideration, shifting agency from self-pursuit to external designation.^[21] This differs from candidacy's self-driven competition; for instance, in U.S. presidential elections under 26 U.S.C. § 9002(2), a candidate must secure nomination through primaries or conventions to become the official nominee advancing to the general ballot.^[22] Empirically, this sequence is evident in data from electoral systems: of 2024 Republican primary entrants, over 10 candidates vied, but only Donald Trump emerged as nominee after delegate accumulation exceeding 1,237 thresholds.^[23] Nominees thus represent a narrowed field post-competition, whereas applicants remain broad and preliminary, often numbering in thousands per vacancy without guaranteed progression.^[24] These terms' overlaps occur in hybrid contexts, such as awards where self-nomination blurs lines, but core causal realism holds: candidacy demands demonstrated suitability amid rivals, nomination requires external ratification, and application initiates passive entry. Misuse conflates them, yet legal and procedural records, like hiring pipelines advancing 5-10% of applicants to candidate status, underscore the progression.^[25] In non-political spheres, such as academic positions, applicants flood portals (e.g., 200+ per faculty opening per NSF data), candidates face interviews, and nominees receive departmental endorsement for hire.^[26]

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern Practices

In the Roman Republic (c. 509–27 BCE), individuals seeking magistracies such as quaestor, aedile, praetor, or consul formally announced their candidacy months or years in advance, adhering to age and prior office requirements outlined in the cursus honorum.^[27] Aspiring officeholders, known as candidati, distinguished themselves by wearing a toga candida—a toga whitened with chalk to symbolize purity and moral integrity—while engaging in ambitio, or intensive personal canvassing.^[6] ^[7] This involved direct voter solicitation in the Forum, handshakes with potential supporters (especially plebeians and equites), hosting private banquets, and sponsoring public spectacles like gladiatorial contests or chariot races to build favor and visibility.^[27] Candidates cultivated networks of clients and patrons for endorsements and protection, often extending loans or positions to young elites in exchange for active campaigning on their behalf.^[27] Wealth was essential for funding these efforts, as self-financed campaigns relied on personal fortunes or family resources to cover entertainments and distributions, though outright bribery (ambitus) was prohibited by laws such as the Lex Baebia tabellaria of 181 BCE and later statutes under Sulla in 81 BCE.^[28] Despite such regulations, corruption persisted through indirect influence, vote-buying, and intimidation, with enforcement uneven due to reliance on accusations and trials post-election.^[28] Elections occurred annually in assemblies like the Comitia Centuriata (for higher offices, weighted toward property classes) or Comitia Tributa (tribal-based for lower magistracies), where initial oral voting evolved to secret ballots on wax tablets by 139 BCE to mitigate elite coercion and sponsor pressure. Success hinged on oratorical prowess, as exemplified by Marcus Tullius Cicero's 64 BCE consular campaign, where he leveraged speeches and brother Quintus's advisory manual (Commentariolum Petitionis) to overcome his novus homo (new man) status lacking senatorial ancestry.^[27] Beyond Rome, pre-modern candidacy-like practices appeared in limited republican contexts, such as medieval ecclesiastical and imperial selections, though without the candidatus nomenclature or mass canvassing. Papal elections, formalized by 1059 CE to restrict voting to cardinals, involved conclave deliberations emphasizing divine inspiration and consensus, but lobbying (campagne) among electors for favored candidates occurred, as in the contentious 1130 schism.^[29] The Holy Roman Empire's electoral college, codified in the 1356 Golden Bull of Charles IV, confined emperor selection to seven prince-electors negotiating via envoys, prioritizing dynastic claims and alliances over public appeals.^[30] Venetian doge elections from the 13th century employed multi-stage lotteries and approval voting among nobles to select from pre-nominated candidates, aiming to diffuse power and prevent factional dominance.^[31] These systems reflected elite-driven processes, contrasting Rome's broader (if oligarchic) assembly voting, and prioritized strategic manipulation over transparent competition.^[29]

Modern Developments in Selection

The introduction of direct primary elections marked a significant modern development in candidate selection, shifting power from party elites to broader electorates. In the United States, this began during the Progressive Era amid Progressive Era reforms aimed at curbing machine politics and corruption; Wisconsin enacted the nation's first binding presidential primary in 1905, allowing voters to express preferences for delegates.^[32] By 1912, several states followed suit, though these early primaries were largely advisory, with national conventions retaining final authority to select nominees.^[33] The pivotal transformation occurred in the mid-20th century, particularly following the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention, where anti-war protests highlighted the disconnect between party insiders and voter sentiment. The McGovern-Fraser Commission, appointed by the Democratic Party, recommended reforms in 1969-1970 to prioritize primaries and caucuses for delegate allocation, emphasizing greater inclusivity and representation of minorities, women, and youth.^[33] Implemented in 1972, these rules bound most delegates to primary results, fundamentally altering the process; by 1976, over 70% of delegates were chosen through primaries or caucuses.^[34] The Republican Party adopted similar changes via the 1972 Mikulski Commission, leading to a hybrid system where state-level primaries and caucuses now determine the vast majority of delegates, with national conventions largely ratifying outcomes.^[35] Globally, modern developments have seen varying adoption of inclusive selectorates in democracies, influenced by democratization waves post-World War II. In parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom, parties traditionally relied on internal selectorates but increasingly incorporated membership ballots; Labour's use of one-member-one-vote since 1981 exemplifies this trend toward broadening participation.^[36] Empirical studies indicate that more inclusive methods, such as open primaries, can enhance candidate quality by favoring winnable profiles over ideological extremes, though evidence on polarization remains inconclusive—primaries correlate weakly with increased extremism in U.S. congressional races.^[37] In developing democracies, experiments like Sierra Leone's 2018 variation of voter versus elite selection showed that greater voter input improved electoral performance for selected candidates by 10-15 percentage points.^[38] Technological and data-driven innovations have further evolved selection since the 1990s, enabling parties to assess viability through polling, fundraising metrics, and voter analytics. For instance, the Democratic Party's 2016-2020 emphasis on diverse candidate slates reflected data-informed strategies to maximize turnout, though party elites retain influence via superdelegates (phased out for Democrats post-2016).^[34] These developments underscore a tension between democratization and party control, with causal analyses suggesting inclusive processes reduce elite capture but risk selecting less experienced candidates in low-information environments.^[39]

Political Candidates

Nomination Processes in Democracies

In democratic systems, political parties nominate candidates through structured internal processes that determine who competes in general elections, functioning as a gatekeeping mechanism to align contenders with party goals and voter preferences. These methods vary by electoral system and national context, ranging from voter-driven primaries to elite-controlled selections, with parties balancing inclusivity, efficiency, and control over outcomes.^[40]^[41] The United States employs primary elections and caucuses as the primary nomination tool, particularly for presidential races, where state-level contests allocate delegates to national conventions. This system expanded significantly after the 1968 Democratic National Convention's disruptions prompted the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which in 1970 recommended reforms mandating that delegates be selected via primaries or participatory caucuses rather than closed conventions; by the 1972 election cycle, primaries determined about 60% of Democratic delegates, a shift replicated by Republicans and solidifying voter influence over party elites.^[42]^[43] For congressional and state offices, all 50 states conduct primaries—closed (party voters only), semi-closed, open, or top-two nonpartisan formats—to select nominees, with dates staggered from January to August ahead of November generals.^[44] In parliamentary democracies, nominations emphasize party hierarchies over direct voter input. In the United Kingdom, major parties like Labour and Conservatives select House of Commons candidates via local constituency organizations; Labour's Constituency Labour Parties conduct member ballots following national guidelines, often shortlisting applicants and voting in meetings, while Conservatives use similar association-based processes, with selections typically completed before general elections to cover all 650 seats.^[45]^[46] Germany's Bundestag elections, blending single-member districts and proportional lists, involve district party conferences nominating constituency candidates and state or national conventions determining list orders; for instance, in the 2025 snap election, parties accelerated these internal votes under compressed timelines, with 806 direct candidates among 4,506 total nominees approved by the Federal Returning Officer.^[47]^[48] These processes influence candidate diversity and policy alignment, with empirical studies indicating that more inclusive methods, like primaries, correlate with increased ideological polarization by favoring activists over moderates, though evidence varies by context.^[39] Independent candidacies exist across systems—requiring signatures or deposits without party endorsement—but succeed rarely, as in the UK where they garnered under 1% of votes in recent generals, underscoring parties' dominance in nominations.^[49]^[50]

Variations by Electoral System

In majoritarian electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post used in single-member districts, candidates must secure a plurality or absolute majority of votes within a geographically defined constituency, prompting parties to select nominees with broad appeal, local recognition, and centrist ideologies to optimize chances against rivals. This structure emphasizes personal campaigns, where individual candidates bear primary responsibility for mobilizing voters, often leading to profiles dominated by experienced local figures or those with established community ties, as evidenced by patterns in systems like the UK's Westminster model or the US congressional elections.^[51]^[52] Proportional representation (PR) systems, by contrast, allocate seats based on parties' overall vote shares in multi-member districts or nationwide lists, shifting candidate selection toward centralized party mechanisms that prioritize ideological alignment and loyalty over personal charisma. In closed-list PR variants, common in countries like Israel or Spain prior to reforms, parties determine the order of candidates unilaterally, resulting in nominees who reflect party elites' preferences rather than voter-driven individualism, which can foster more diverse but less locally accountable profiles. Open-list PR, as in Brazil or Sweden, introduces voter preference votes that allow candidates to compete intra-party for list positions, blending party control with personal electoral incentives and often yielding a broader spectrum of candidates, including those from underrepresented groups.^[53]^[54] Mixed systems, combining majoritarian and PR elements—like Germany's hybrid model with half seats from districts and half from lists—produce hybrid candidate behaviors, where nominees must balance district-specific appeals with party-list viability, leading to dual strategies that enhance overall party cohesion while permitting some personalization. Empirical studies indicate that PR systems correlate with higher intra-party diversity in candidate traits, such as gender and ideology, due to lower barriers for niche candidates, whereas majoritarian setups favor "safe" incumbents with proven electability.^[55]^[56] Preferential voting systems, including the single transferable vote (STV) used in Ireland and Malta, further vary candidate dynamics by enabling voters to rank preferences, which rewards candidates adept at building coalitions across voter subgroups and encourages more collaborative campaigning within parties. This can disadvantage highly polarizing figures, as surplus votes transfer to alternatives, contrasting with plurality systems where frontrunners with intense but narrow support prevail.^[53]

Empirical Predictors of Success

Incumbency confers a substantial electoral advantage, empirically demonstrated through causal inference methods such as regression discontinuity designs. In U.S. House elections, barely winning incumbents exhibit reelection probabilities 20-50 percentage points higher than narrowly defeated challengers, reflecting benefits from name recognition, constituent services, and resource allocation rather than mere selection effects.^[57] This incumbency effect has persisted but varied over time, with estimates around 0.6 percentage points of vote margin in recent Senate forecasts after controlling for other factors like partisanship.^[58] Incumbents also secure 20-25% more campaign donations due to established networks, amplifying their visibility and organizational edge.^[59] Fundraising capacity independently predicts success, as higher spending correlates with vote shares in competitive races. In U.S. congressional elections, candidates outspending opponents by ratios exceeding 2:1 win approximately 90% of the time, though marginal returns diminish beyond certain thresholds and causation is partly mediated by donor signals of viability.^[60] Polling aggregates serve as reliable near-term predictors; national popular vote forecasts from polls averaged errors of 1-2 percentage points in U.S. presidential elections since 1988, outperforming economic or historical models alone when combined.^[61] Candidate traits, particularly those inferable from appearance, exert measurable influence. Static judgments of facial competence predicted U.S. gubernatorial election winners with 68-72% accuracy across multiple cycles, independent of party affiliation or incumbency.^[62] Nonverbal cues signaling traits like dominance or trustworthiness from photographs further forecast outcomes, with positive trait assessments boosting projected vote shares by 3-5 points in experimental voter simulations.^[63] Biographical factors, aggregated into indices from variables such as education, military service, and prior office-holding, have retrospectively classified U.S. presidential winners with accuracies up to 90% in models spanning 1789-2004.^[64] Cognitive and non-cognitive abilities positively select successful candidates, with elected officials scoring higher on IQ proxies and traits like conscientiousness than the general population or unsuccessful aspirants.^[65] Experience in prior elections enhances predictability, as candidates with winning records leverage organizational learning and voter familiarity.^[66] These predictors interact; for instance, attractive or competent-looking incumbents amplify advantages, though systemic media biases may overemphasize certain traits while underreporting others in coverage. Empirical models integrating these elements, such as those blending polls, fundamentals, and candidate data, achieve out-of-sample accuracies exceeding 80% for district-level outcomes.^[67]

Candidates in Religious Contexts

Roman Catholic Traditions

In the Roman Catholic Church, the term "candidate" formally denotes a seminarian who has been admitted to candidacy for holy orders, marking a significant milestone in priestly formation after initial discernment and philosophical-theological studies. This admission, governed by the Code of Canon Law (cann. 1024–1052), requires the candidate to be a confirmed Catholic male in good standing, typically at least 22 years old for diaconate candidacy, with no impediments such as heresy, apostasy, schism, or prior marriage without dispensation. The rite of admission, a liturgical ceremony, involves the candidate being called by name—echoing biblical calls to ministry—and publicly declaring intent to prepare for ordination, underscoring the Church's emphasis on divine vocation over self-nomination.^[68] Formation of candidates emphasizes rigorous scrutiny at multiple stages, including psychological evaluations, spiritual retreats (at least five days before ordination), and moral assessments to ensure suitability, as outlined in documents like the 1997 Congregation for Catholic Education's guidelines on scrutinies.^[69] ^[70] Seminaries, mandated by canon 235, provide integrated human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral training, often spanning six to eight years, with candidates progressing from pre-theology programs to major seminary. Celibacy is required for diocesan priests, rooted in tradition from the early Church, though exceptions exist for converted married clergy under provisions like the Pastoral Provision.^[71] Historical practices evolved from patristic-era selections based on apostolic succession and community acclamation to medieval scholastic formation, formalized post-Trent (1545–1563) with seminaries to counter Reformation critiques of clerical unpreparedness.^[72] For episcopal candidacy, bishops are appointed by the pope from among priests of proven virtue, doctrine, and prudence, per canon 377, with recommendations from nuncios and consultations avoiding overt campaigning to preserve the Church's non-partisan ethos. Papal elections, while not using "candidate" terminology, involve cardinals under 80 voting in conclave by secret ballot for a two-thirds majority, traditionally from eligible cardinals, reflecting 13th-century norms established by Gregory X's 1274 constitution to prevent prolonged vacancies.^[73] ^[74] These traditions prioritize sacramental grace, communal discernment, and fidelity to doctrine over electoral popularity, distinguishing Catholic processes from secular politics.

Broader Religious Selection Practices

In Protestant denominations, the selection of clergy such as pastors often involves congregational input through search committees that nominate candidates based on theological education, preaching ability, and character assessments, followed by interviews and votes by church members or elders.^[75]^[76] Elders, serving as lay leaders, are typically elected by the congregation for fixed terms to oversee administration alongside ordained ministers.^[75] This decentralized approach contrasts with hierarchical traditions, emphasizing community consensus over centralized authority, though processes vary widely by denomination, such as Baptist emphasis on congregational autonomy versus Presbyterian reliance on presbytery approval. In Sunni Islam, imams—leaders who lead prayers and provide religious guidance—are generally selected by mosque boards or congregations based on demonstrated knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, Quranic recitation skills, moral character, and community service, without a formal ordination equivalent to Christian or Jewish systems.^[77] Selection may occur through hiring processes or election by mosque members, prioritizing practical qualifications like memorization of the Quran and ethical conduct over institutional certification.^[77] This community-driven method reflects the absence of a centralized clerical hierarchy in Sunni theology, where any qualified male can serve as imam. Rabbinic candidates in Judaism receive semikha, a certification of ordination, after rigorous study of Talmudic law and halakha under established rabbis or yeshivas, granting authority to issue legal rulings and lead communities.^[78] Synagogues then hire rabbis via search committees appointed by boards, evaluating candidates on scholarly depth, pastoral skills, and alignment with congregational values, often through trials or interim roles.^[79] In Orthodox Judaism, semikha traces an unbroken chain to Mosaic authority, underscoring competence in Torah interpretation as the primary criterion.^[78] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, bishops are nominated by diocesan clergy and laity, then vetted and elected by the Holy Synod of a local church, requiring monastic vows, theological maturity, and irreproachable conduct, with final approval ensuring doctrinal fidelity.^[80] Candidates must typically be archimandrites or experienced monks, selected to maintain apostolic succession without lay voting in the final synodal decision.^[81] Hindu priests (pujaris) are often selected from Brahmin lineages trained in Vedic rituals and temple service, with roles assigned based on hereditary knowledge transmission rather than competitive election.^[82] Gurus achieve leadership through personal spiritual attainment, scriptural mastery, and disciple following, without formalized selection bodies, emphasizing self-realized wisdom over institutional vetting.^[82] In Buddhist monastic traditions, abbots are elected by senior monks from among professed members, prioritizing seniority, ethical discipline, and administrative capability, often for fixed terms to guide communal practice.^[83]

Psychological Screening Protocols

Psychological screening protocols for candidates in religious vocations, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church, emerged as a formalized practice in response to concerns over clerical suitability following widespread abuse revelations in the early 2000s. The Congregation for Catholic Education issued guidelines in 2008 specifying that psychological evaluations should be employed judiciously to assess candidates' human maturity, affective stability, and capacity for celibate life, rather than as a routine mandate for all applicants.^[84] These protocols aim to identify "grave immaturity" or personality imbalances that could impair priestly ministry, emphasizing the Church's right to verify suitability through scientific means without substituting psychological judgment for spiritual discernment.^[84] Standard components of these assessments, as outlined by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), include a comprehensive clinical interview, review of personal history, mental status examination, and administration of psychometric instruments such as personality inventories and measures of emotional functioning.^[85] Evaluators, typically licensed psychologists with expertise in religious vocations, produce reports detailing the candidate's strengths, potential risks, and recommendations for formation, which inform seminary admissions decisions.^[86] For instance, assessments often probe relational capacities, impulse control, and psychosexual development to ensure alignment with vows of celibacy and obedience, with findings shared confidentially among formation directors while respecting applicant privacy.^[87] Empirical surveys of U.S. Catholic seminaries indicate that by 2010, over 90% required psychological evaluations prior to admission, incorporating tools like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Rorschach tests for detecting psychopathology or defensive response styles.^[88] A 2023 review of assessment practices highlighted variability in tool selection but consistency in focusing on predictors of long-term vocational stability, such as emotional resilience and interpersonal skills, though longitudinal outcome data remains limited due to confidentiality constraints.^[89] In non-Catholic contexts, such as certain Protestant denominations or Orthodox traditions, analogous screenings exist but lack Vatican-level standardization; for example, some evangelical seminaries employ similar interviews and testing to screen for leadership aptitude and moral character, often guided by denominational bylaws rather than centralized norms.^[90] Critics within ecclesiastical circles have noted risks of over-reliance on secular psychological frameworks, which may undervalue spiritual motivations, yet proponents argue that rigorous screening mitigates liabilities like those exposed in abuse investigations, with evaluators trained to integrate faith-based criteria.^[91] Ongoing refinements, such as the Saint Luke Institute's Candidate Assessment Protocol, align evaluations with USCCB standards to enhance predictive validity for ministerial success.^[92]

Other Professional and Institutional Uses

Employment and Vocational Candidacy

In employment contexts, a candidate refers to an individual who applies for or is considered for a specific job vacancy, undergoing a structured evaluation to assess fit based on qualifications, skills, and experience. The selection process generally begins with application submission via resumes or online portals, followed by initial screening to narrow applicants—often automated or manual—before advancing to interviews, assessments, and reference checks. Empirical studies indicate that effective selection relies on job analysis to identify core requirements, with structured methods outperforming unstructured ones in predicting performance; for instance, validity coefficients for structured interviews range from 0.51 to 0.63, compared to 0.38 for unstructured formats.^[93]^[94] Competition in job candidacy is intense, with U.S. employers receiving an average of 180 applications per hire as of 2024, varying by industry from under 100 in niche fields to over 300 for entry-level roles. Job seekers typically submit 100 to 200 applications to secure one offer, with only about 3% of applicants advancing to interviews per posting. Vocational candidacy, focused on trades or practical occupations such as plumbing, welding, or healthcare assistance, emphasizes demonstrable skills acquired through training programs; selection often incorporates certifications, aptitude tests, or apprenticeships rather than solely academic credentials, aligning with labor market demands for hands-on proficiency.^[95]^[96]^[97]^[98] Key predictors of success include behavioral evidence from past performance, assessed via methods like the STAR framework (Situation, Task, Action, Result), which correlates with future outcomes by evaluating concrete examples over hypothetical responses. Personality traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability, measured through validated assessments, contribute to validity, though general mental ability tests often yield higher predictive power (validity around 0.51) than interviews alone. Challenges persist, including evaluator biases and the limited reliability of vocal cues or disfluency rates in predicting hires, underscoring the need for multiple data points in decisions.^[99]^[100]^[101]

Awards, Honors, and Academic Positions

In the context of awards and honors, the term "candidate" refers to an individual who is nominated, qualified, or under consideration as a prospective recipient of recognition. This usage encompasses those aspiring to or formally proposed for accolades, such as literary prizes or professional distinctions, where initial pools of candidates are narrowed through evaluation processes.^[1] While often interchangeable with "nominee," which implies a more formal selection by a nominating body, "candidate" can denote a broader stage of contention prior to final selection.^[21] For example, award committees may deliberate among candidates based on criteria like achievement, impact, and peer endorsements before designating winners.^[102] In academic hiring for positions such as faculty roles, "candidate" describes applicants who have advanced beyond initial screening to interviews or site visits conducted by search committees. These candidates are evaluated on research output, teaching potential, and fit with institutional needs, with decisions informed by metrics like publication records and reference assessments.^[103] The process prioritizes merit-based selection, though departmental dynamics and resource constraints influence outcomes.^[104] A specialized usage in graduate education distinguishes "doctoral candidate" or "PhD candidate" from earlier-stage students: it applies to those who have completed required coursework, passed comprehensive or qualifying examinations, and been formally advanced to candidacy, shifting focus to dissertation research.^[105]^[106] This milestone, typically achieved after 1-3 years depending on the program, signals readiness for independent scholarship and is a prerequisite for degree conferral in most U.S. and similar systems.^[107] Failure to progress can result in termination, underscoring the rigor of this status.^[108]

Psychological and Sociological Dimensions

Key Traits and Cognitive Factors

Empirical research demonstrates that political candidates and elected leaders are positively selected on cognitive abilities, with higher general intelligence (g) facilitating entry into and success within competitive electoral processes. A study of Danish municipal elections found that candidates score above average on cognitive tests, and this selection intensifies for elected positions, independent of education levels.^[65] Cognitive demands of leadership, including strategic decision-making and problem-solving under uncertainty, align with meta-analytic evidence linking higher cognitive skills—such as verbal reasoning and abstract thinking—to superior leader performance across organizational contexts.^[109] Among non-cognitive traits, the Big Five personality dimensions reveal patterns favoring extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (low neuroticism) in successful candidates. Extraversion, characterized by assertiveness and energy, predicts greater political participation and candidacy emergence, as individuals high in this trait are more likely to seek public roles requiring social engagement.^[110] Conscientiousness, involving diligence and self-discipline, correlates with voter preferences for politicians perceived as reliable and competent, contributing to electoral outcomes.^[111] Emotional stability enables resilience against campaign stressors and scrutiny, with meta-analyses confirming its role in leadership emergence over time.^[112] Openness to experience shows mixed associations, sometimes aiding innovative policy appeals but less consistently predicting votes compared to stability-oriented traits.^[113] Leadership motivation, while driving candidacy entry, exhibits a nuanced relationship with election success; some evidence suggests over-motivated individuals may underperform due to risk-taking excesses, though this requires further replication.^[65] Dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) can enhance short-term charisma and dominance displays, boosting initial voter impressions, but often undermine long-term governance efficacy, as voters prioritize perceived honesty and agreeableness in sustained evaluations.^[114] These factors interact with selector biases, yet causal realism underscores that trait-driven performance in office—rather than mere selection—validates their predictive value, with cognitive baselines enabling adaptation to institutional demands.^[115]

Voter and Selector Biases

Voters exhibit systematic biases that influence candidate preferences, often prioritizing superficial or heuristic cues over policy substance. Incumbency advantage, driven by name recognition and familiarity, significantly boosts reelection probabilities; in U.S. House elections, incumbents have achieved reelection rates exceeding 90% in most cycles since the 1990s, with 98% success in 2022, attributable to voters' tendency to default to known figures amid information overload.^[116] Similarly, physical attractiveness confers an electoral premium, as experimental and observational studies across democracies show that candidates rated higher on facial competence or appeal receive 1-2% more votes on average, with effects stronger in low-information races where voters rely on visual heuristics.^[117] ^[118] Partisan bias further distorts voter choice, with affective ties to parties overriding issue-based evaluation; empirical analyses of U.S. election data indicate that partisan identity now predicts vote choice more strongly than in prior decades, correlating at levels above 0.8 in recent cycles, as voters exhibit motivated reasoning to favor in-group candidates regardless of performance.^[119] ^[120] Cognitive shortcuts like the bandwagon effect amplify this, where perceptions of momentum lead to herding behavior, evidenced in ballot order studies showing first-listed candidates gaining 1-5% vote shares due to primacy bias in sequential decision-making.^[121] Selector biases in party nominations and internal processes favor insiders and ideological conformity over broader merit. Party elites often discriminate against ethnic minority aspirants due to stereotypes associating them with lower electability, as conjoint experiments reveal selectors penalizing non-native backgrounds by 10-15% in ranking preferences, even controlling for qualifications.^[122] In trade-off scenarios, selectors prioritize winnability and party loyalty over policy expertise, with surveys of European party delegates showing a 20-30% preference shift toward candidates perceived as vote-maximizers, contributing to the rise of career politicians and working-class underrepresentation, where manual laborers hold fewer than 5% of legislative seats in advanced democracies despite comprising 20-30% of electorates.^[123] ^[124] These biases persist across contexts, with empirical models estimating that selector preferences in closed systems amplify incumbency-like effects, reducing candidate diversity; for instance, German party delegate experiments found elites weighting personal networks and conformity 15-25% higher than voter appeal in list placements.^[125] Such patterns underscore causal mechanisms rooted in bounded rationality, where selectors, like voters, default to familiarity and risk aversion, empirically linked to lower innovation in candidate pools.^[126]

Controversies and Debates

Meritocracy vs. Identity-Based Selection

Meritocracy in candidate selection emphasizes evaluating individuals based on demonstrated competence, skills, and achievements relevant to the role, irrespective of demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or gender. This approach posits that prioritizing ability maximizes organizational or institutional effectiveness, as evidenced by systematic reviews of civil service practices showing that meritocratic appointments correlate with improved public service delivery and reduced corruption.^[127] In contrast, identity-based selection incorporates criteria like diversity quotas or affirmative action to address historical disparities, often aiming to enhance representation of underrepresented groups. Proponents argue it fosters broader perspectives, but empirical scrutiny reveals methodological weaknesses in supporting studies; for instance, McKinsey's reports linking executive diversity to profitability have been critiqued for reverse causality, omitted variables, and failure to establish causation, with reanalyses finding no robust positive effects.^[128] ^[129] Peer-reviewed research indicates that identity-based mechanisms, such as quotas, can undermine merit by introducing distortions in evaluation processes. A study on affirmative action in academic promotions found that quota beneficiaries receive significantly less favorable peer reviews than equally performing non-beneficiaries, leading to stigma and reduced perceived legitimacy.^[130] Similarly, quota systems in hiring or selection have been shown to decrease the overall representation of the most qualified candidates, as they prioritize group attributes over individual merit, potentially exacerbating mismatches between role demands and capabilities.^[131] Over three decades of research on workplace diversity yields mixed results, with effects often neutral or negative on performance due to increased task conflict and integration challenges, rather than consistent gains.^[132] Merit-based alternatives, however, demonstrate positive impacts, as seen in empirical evidence from public sector recruitment where competence-focused processes enhance employee performance and organizational outcomes.^[133] The debate intensifies in high-stakes candidacy contexts like corporate leadership or public office, where identity prioritization risks suboptimal decision-making. Recent corporate retreats from DEI initiatives—evident in firms like IBM scaling back policies citing inherent tensions between diversity goals and merit—reflect growing recognition that such approaches may not deliver promised benefits and can invite legal scrutiny under anti-discrimination laws.^[134] ^[135] Sources advocating identity-based selection often emanate from academia and consulting firms with incentives to promote such frameworks, potentially overlooking causal realities like ability disparities across groups. From a first-principles standpoint, candidate selection detached from verifiable competence invites inefficiencies, as outcomes depend on causal links between traits and role success, not demographic proxies. Empirical patterns, including quota-induced backlash and neutral-to-negative performance correlations, substantiate meritocracy's superiority for truth-aligned selection.^[130] ^[131]

Media Distortions and Gatekeeping Failures

Mainstream media coverage of candidates often exhibits distortions through disproportionate negativity toward conservative or non-establishment figures, as evidenced by content analyses showing higher volumes of unfavorable stories for Republican candidates compared to Democrats in multiple election cycles. A study of newspaper coverage during congressional party switches found that media emphasized scandals and negatives more for switchers aligning with Republicans, suggesting partisan filtering in narrative construction.^[136] This aligns with broader empirical reviews indicating ideological biases in tone and emphasis, where left-leaning outlets amplify policy critiques of right-leaning candidates while downplaying similar issues for preferred ones.^[137] Gatekeeping failures manifest in the media's role as arbiters of visibility, where editorial decisions limit exposure for candidates outside dominant narratives, such as third-party or independent contenders who receive minimal airtime despite meeting ballot thresholds. In the 2016 U.S. election, horse-race framing dominated coverage, prioritizing polls over substantive vetting and sidelining issue-based scrutiny of frontrunners' records.^[138] Such practices contributed to public perceptions of unfairness, with 79% of Americans in 2020 attributing biased presentation of political issues to news organizations favoring one side.^[139] Systemic left-leaning bias among journalists—where only 15% identified as conservative or Republican-leaning in 1996 newsrooms, down from 22% earlier—exacerbates these distortions by influencing story selection and framing against conservative candidates, as conservative audiences perceive and empirically detect higher skepticism toward their preferred outlets.^[140] Gatekeeping lapses were stark in the 2024 U.S. election, where mainstream outlets underestimated support for Donald Trump, missing key voter shifts on economic and immigration issues due to echo-chamber reliance on urban elite sources over rural or working-class signals.^[142] Efforts to deplatform or marginalize Trump post-2020 via coordinated blackouts failed, as alternative platforms like podcasts and social media bypassed traditional gatekeepers, allowing direct candidate-voter engagement.^[143] In non-electoral candidacies, such as academic or corporate selections, media distortions amplify identity-based narratives over meritocratic evaluations, often uncritically promoting diversity quotas while gatekeeping scrutiny of affirmative action's empirical underperformance in predicting competence. These patterns underscore causal failures in journalistic accountability, where institutional incentives prioritize sensationalism and ideological alignment over balanced empirical assessment of candidate qualifications.^[144]

Ethical Challenges in Eligibility

Eligibility criteria for political candidacy, such as age, citizenship, residency, and criminal history, aim to ensure candidates possess the maturity, loyalty, and integrity necessary for public office, yet these standards provoke ethical debates over exclusionary effects and proportionality. Minimum age requirements, enshrined in documents like the U.S. Constitution (35 years for president, 30 for senators), reflect a consensus that younger individuals may lack sufficient life experience to govern effectively, supported by developmental psychology indicating slower maturation of executive function into the mid-20s. However, the absence of upper age limits raises concerns about cognitive decline in older candidates, as average life expectancy has risen to 79 years in developed nations, potentially allowing diminished capacity in leadership roles without mandatory assessments. In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, public scrutiny intensified over candidates aged 78 and 81, with polls showing 73% of voters favoring maximum age limits for presidents, highlighting tensions between individual merit and blanket chronological cutoffs that could discriminate against capable seniors.^[145] Criminal convictions present a core ethical tension: barring felons from office safeguards democratic institutions by mitigating risks of recidivism or corruption, as empirical studies link prior offenses to elevated dishonesty in public roles. In the U.S., while the Constitution imposes no felony bar for federal executive office, 37 states restrict felons from certain positions, with 11 imposing lifetime bans absent pardon or restoration—measures upheld by courts as rational exercises of state police power to preserve electoral integrity.^[146] Proponents argue this prevents unfit leaders, citing cases like former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's corruption conviction after attempting to sell a Senate seat in 2008, which eroded public trust. Critics, often from advocacy groups like the Brennan Center for Justice, claim such restrictions disproportionately disenfranchise racial minorities—felony convictions affect Black Americans at rates five times higher than whites—perpetuating underrepresentation and conflicting with rehabilitation principles, though these arguments overlook causal links between criminal history and governance risks.^[147] Citizenship and residency mandates further complicate ethics, prioritizing national allegiance to avert foreign influence, as in the U.S. "natural-born citizen" clause for presidents, rooted in founders' fears of divided loyalties post-Revolutionary War. Challenges arise in globalized contexts, where dual citizens or long-term expatriates may be excluded despite expertise, raising fairness questions; for instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger's ineligibility for U.S. presidency due to Austrian birth fueled 2003 ballot initiatives for amendment, underscoring debates on whether birth-based rules unduly limit talent pools without evidence of disloyalty. Ethically, overly permissive eligibility risks subversion, as historical precedents like Benedict Arnold's treason illustrate, while rigid criteria may stifle merit-based selection in diverse electorates. These challenges underscore a broader dilemma: eligibility rules must empirically correlate with competent governance to justify exclusions, yet subjective enforcement—such as partisan challenges to opponents' qualifications—can undermine impartiality, as seen in post-2020 U.S. election disputes where 60+ lawsuits contested candidate or voter eligibility on fraud grounds, many dismissed for lack of evidence but eroding institutional faith. Balancing empirical risk assessment with inclusive ideals requires transparent, evidence-based criteria, prioritizing causal predictors of fitness over ideological preferences.

References

[1]
CANDIDATE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of CANDIDATE is one that aspires to or is nominated or qualified for an office, membership, or award. How to use candidate in a sentence.
[2]
What is a Political Candidate - POLYAS Election Glossary
A candidate is ultimately an applicant for a position. The term most commonly refers to candidates standing for election for political offices.
[3]
Candidate Information | New York State Board of Elections
A candidate is any individual who seeks to be nominated or elected to public office or party position, whether they ultimately appear on the ballot or not.
[4]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=26-USC-508663171-1672666373
[5]
Political Candidate - (AP US Government) - Fiveable
Candidates may face challenges such as negative campaigning or misinformation, which can impact public perception and polling results. Campaign finance laws ...
[6]
Candidate - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
"person who seeks or is put forward for an office by election or appointment," c. 1600, from Latin candidatus "one aspiring to office," originally "white-robed ...
[7]
In a Word: A Candidate as White as Snow | The Saturday Evening Post
Oct 18, 2018 · Our word 'candidate' comes directly from political campaigns of ancient Rome, describing not a politician's candor, but his clothes.
[8]
Etymology Corner - Election 'Candidates'
May 1, 2015 · The history of the word 'candidate' goes back to ancient Rome, where people who stood for political office would wear specially whitened togas while ...
[9]
Candidatus | Oxford Classical Dictionary
Dec 22, 2015 · A candidate for a Roman magistracy. Officially named petitor (his rivals were therefore styled competitores), he was called candidatus because he wore a ...
[10]
https://www.reformedjournal.com/2004/11/16/candidate-and-senate/
[11]
Candidate - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
or anyone being considered for a position or opportunity of some sort.
[12]
CANDIDATE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
CANDIDATE meaning: 1. a person who is competing to get a job or elected position: 2. a person or thing considered…. Learn more.Missing: across | Show results with:across
[13]
11 CFR § 100.3 - Candidate (52 U.S.C. 30101(2)). - Law.Cornell.Edu
(a) Definition. Candidate means an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to federal office. An individual becomes a candidate for ...
[14]
Candidate Qualifications - (AP US Government) - Fiveable
Candidate qualifications refer to the set of requirements and standards that individuals must meet to be eligible to run for political office.<|separator|>
[15]
What is Candidate | Meaning & Definition | HR Glossary - Darwinbox
A candidate is an individual who applies for a job, position, or role in an organization or seeks election to a political office.
[16]
candidate noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes
. a person who is trying to be elected or is applying for a job · . (British English) a person taking an exam · candidate (for something) a person or group ...
[17]
CANDIDATE Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
verb (used without object). candidated, candidating. to become a candidate for service as a new minister of a church; preach before a ...<|separator|>
[18]
Applicants and Candidates Aren't the Same Thing - Datapeople
Applicants are job seekers who apply to a specific position at your company. Candidates are applicants in your talent pipeline who may apply to more than one ...
[19]
Difference between applicant & candidate? - peopleHum
Applicants are job searchers who have "applied" for your job opening. They have either sent a resume to you or finished an application.
[20]
How to tell the difference between applicant and candidate - Pipehire
An applicant is someone who has applied for a job but has yet to go through the screening process. An applicant's resume may or may not be reviewed.
[21]
What is the difference between nominee and candidate - HiNative
Nov 14, 2016 · Candidate is a person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job while nominee is a person named, or designated, by another, to ...
[22]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=26-USC-508663171-1672666373&term_occur=999&term_src=
[23]
ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 172. PRIMARY ELECTIONS
A political party's nominees in the general election for offices of state and county government and the United States Congress must be nominated by primary ...
[24]
Candidate vs. Applicant: What's the difference? - Artisan Talent - Blog
Aug 13, 2024 · Candidates have 1) the advantage of prior vetting and 2) are people who have already made advancements through the hiring process. So, how does ...
[25]
Candidate vs Applicant: Understanding the Difference - Manatal.com
The primary difference between candidates and applicants is that candidates have been deemed qualified for the job and are further along in the hiring process.
[26]
candidate, nominee and applicant | WordReference Forums
Jun 1, 2011 · An applicant usually refers to someone applying for a job. They have chosen to do it for themselves, and are not representing anyone else.
[27]
How to Win an Election in the Roman Republic | History Hit
Nov 2, 2020 · If you want to have any chance of being elected to a position of power in today's political climate, you'd better make sure you run a...Missing: practices | Show results with:practices
[28]
[PDF] Competition in the Roman Empire
Scholars have long ascribed to Roman aristocrats, especially in the republican period, the habit of competing with one another for political, social, ...
[29]
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections - Medievalists.net
Mar 11, 2013 · We discuss various voting rules and electoral procedures used in the Middle Ages in both ecclesiastical and secular context, highlighting some protocols with ...
[30]
Elections in the Middle Ages - Index of Medieval Art
Nov 8, 2016 · The governing offices of medieval church and state – such as emperor, king, pope, archbishop, abbot, mayor, and so on – were often filled by ...
[31]
The Early History of Approval Voting - The Center for Election Science
Jul 1, 2024 · At the start of the 13th century, Venice stood out in Europe as a republic in a sea of absolute kings and emperors. The people of Venice ...
[32]
A brief history of presidential primaries | Constitution Center
Mar 1, 2024 · On Tuesday, March 5, voters in 15 states will play a major role in selecting the two major party candidates in this year's presidential ...
[33]
Nominating Candidates | Presidential Elections and Voting in U.S. ...
However, the Constitution says nothing about how to nominate a candidate to run for president. Currently, candidates go through a series of state primary ...The Modern Era, 1968 and... · The Nineteenth Century · The Founding Era
[34]
[PDF] Choosing Presidential Candidates - Brookings Institution
They include the alteration of rules governing who is eligible to participate in caucuses and primaries, changes in how votes are translated into delegates, the ...
[35]
John Aldrich traces the history of the presidential nomination process
Feb 2, 2016 · Original source: Duke Today Perhaps the most fundamental action political parties take is to choose their nominees for political office.Missing: modern era
[36]
https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-625
[37]
How did we get here: Primaries, polarization, and party control
Oct 12, 2023 · We examine the existing evidence on party primaries and political polarization and find that primary elections are not strongly related to ...
[38]
[PDF] An Experiment in Candidate Selection
We partnered with both major political parties in Sierra Leone to experimentally vary how much say voters have in selecting. Parliamentary candidates. Estimates ...
[39]
[PDF] Candidate nomination procedures and political selection - STICERD
The empirical strategy exploits a novel panel data of Latin American parties with information on the procedures to nominate presidential candidates, electoral ...
[40]
1 What is Candidate Selection and Why is it Important for ...
Abstract. The definition of candidate selection methods is the predominantly nonstandardized and unregimented mechanisms by which political parties choose their ...
[41]
Candidate Selection: The Choice Before the Choice
Gideon Rahat is a lecturer in political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He studies democratic institutions, political parties, and the politics ...
[42]
Mandate for Reform | Teaching American History
The McGovern-Fraser Commission created the process by which we nominate presidential candidates today.
[43]
The U.S. Presidential Nominating Process
Jan 13, 2020 · Every four years, U.S. presidential candidates compete in a series of state contests to gain their party's nomination. The political process ...
[44]
[PDF] Primary Elections - Moritz College of Law
Dec 9, 2024 · Nevertheless, certain reforms of direct primaries—such as the introduction of ranked-choice voting (RCV), open primaries, or nonpar- tisan ...
[45]
Conservative and Labour party selection of UK parliamentary ...
Nov 3, 2023 · Before a general election, political parties must select a candidate to stand in every seat they plan to contest. While candidates can stand ...
[46]
[PDF] Procedural-Guidelines-for-the-Selection-of-Westminster ...
Choosing a candidate for the Westminster Parliament is one of the most important tasks a CLP will undertake. It is important for the constituency in.
[47]
Political parties and candidates - The Federal Returning Officer
A total of 4,506 candidates are running in the Bundestag election on 23 February 2025, among them are 1,422 women. 806 candidates are running in a constituency ...
[48]
Candidate nomination under time pressure? - IParl
Apr 14, 2025 · from Anastasia Pyschny, Maura Kratz and Sebastian Unsicker. DOI: 10.36206/BP2025.02. The nomination of candidates for the German Bundestag ...
[49]
Independent Candidates — - ACE Electoral Knowledge Network
In countries such as Britain, all candidates submit nominations on an individual basis. The rules for candidates nominated by political parties are no ...<|separator|>
[50]
How MPs are elected - UK Parliament
The UK is divided into 650 areas called constituencies. During an election everyone eligible to cast a vote in a constituency selects one candidate to be their ...
[51]
The Effect of Electoral System on Parties and Candidates - ACE
There are several elements of electoral systems that may influence political parties in their magnitude, organisation, and campaigning.
[52]
Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting
What kind of voting system should countries have? This policy brief discusses the two main electoral systems in modern political democracies.
[53]
Types of Voting System - Electoral Reform Society
Different voting systems have a variety of different features, ranging from how proportional they are (whether seats in parliament reflect votes cast),
[54]
Electoral Systems and Candidate Selection | Acta Politica
Jun 20, 2006 · Electoral systems at the national level and candidate selection methods at the party level are connected, maybe not causally but they do ...
[55]
Institutional personalism and personalised behaviour: Electoral ...
In this study, we investigate how two crucial political institutions – the electoral system and the intraparty candidate selection method – incentivise elite ...
[56]
Electoral systems (BP-334E) - à www.publications.gc.ca
In majoritarian electoral systems, winning candidates are those having attracted the most votes in a given electoral district. Majoritarian systems differ ...
[57]
The Electoral Advantage to Incumbency and Voters' Valuation of ...
Aug 1, 2001 · Candidates who just barely won an election (barely became the incumbent) ... election should represent a true incumbency advantage. The ...Missing: fundraising polling
[58]
How 538's 2024 Senate election forecast works - ABC News
Oct 23, 2024 · Due to fundraising networks, name recognition and local political and business connections, incumbent senators tend to outperform the ...
[59]
The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and Consequences
Aug 7, 2025 · In both settings, incumbency causes approximately a 20-25 percentage-point increase in the share of donations flowing to the incumbent's party.
[60]
[PDF] Incumbency Advantage in an Electoral Contest - FIU Digital Commons
Oct 15, 2013 · In a campaign spending contest model, this paper investigates whether the sources of incumbency advantage are able to generate the observed ...Missing: polling | Show results with:polling
[61]
[PDF] Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So ...
As most political scientists know, the outcome of the American presidential election can be predicted within a few percentage points (in the popular vote), ...
[62]
Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face ... - PNAS
Nov 13, 2007 · Here we show that rapid judgments of competence based solely on the facial appearance of candidates predicted the outcomes of gubernatorial elections.
[63]
[PDF] Predicting Election Outcomes from Positive and Negative Trait ...
Conventional wisdom, and a growing body of behavioral research, suggests that the nonverbal image of a candidate influences voter decision making.
[64]
[PDF] Predicting Elections from Biographic Information about Candidates
We used as many as 60 biographical variables to create an index model for forecasting U.S. Presidential Elections. For each candidate, we simply counted the ...
[65]
Personality Traits and Cognitive Ability in Political Selection
We document that both electoral candidates and elected politicians are positively selected on a number of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. This is our ...<|separator|>
[66]
How the House Forecast Works — Race to the WH
Incumbent's Margin of Victory in the Last Election. Experience Winning Elections. Fundraising. Polling Average. National Political Environment. Margin from the ...
[67]
Researchers come up with a better way to forecast election results
Mar 28, 2023 · Forecasting elections is “often fun but rarely a major scientific issue,” noted King, a political scientist and statistician. Major issues for ...
[68]
Admission to Candidacy: Explained | Vocation Blog - WordPress.com
Jan 15, 2013 · In the simple ceremony, the man aspiring to the priesthood or permanent diaconate, states his intention to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders ...
[69]
[PDF] Scrutinies regarding the Suitability of Candidates for Orders - usccb
Nov 28, 1997 · The letter emphasizes the need for "scrutinies" to ensure candidates' suitability for orders, based on moral certitude, and at four stages of ...
[70]
Code of Canon Law - Function of the Church Liber (Cann. 998-1165)
1039 All candidates for any order are to make a spiritual retreat for at least five days in a place and manner determined by the ordinary. Before the bishop ...
[71]
Ten Frequently Asked Questions About the Reservation of Priestly ...
Ordination to the ministerial priesthood is reserved to men because the Church is bound to follow the example of the Lord, who chose only men as his Apostles.
[72]
Steps to the Priesthood - Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph
Becoming a priest doesn't happen overnight. There are four major stages along the journey. 1: Internal Discernment This part may involve many years.
[73]
How Is a New Pope Chosen? | USCCB
The cardinals vote by secret ballot, processing one by one up to Michelangelo's fresco of the Last Judgment, saying a prayer and dropping the twice-folded ...
[74]
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Papal Elections - New Advent
According to this constitution, the cardinal bishops are first to meet and discuss the candidates for the papacy, and select the names of the most worthy. They ...
[75]
Protestantism - Leadership - Patheos
Many Protestant churches elect elders to administer the Church in cooperation with the ministers. These are lay leaders in the church chosen to serve as ...
[76]
How We Choose Our Elders - Christian Standard
Aug 26, 2013 · The entire process lasts about six months. It begins with a 30-day period in which people in our congregation may nominate individuals for consideration as ...
[77]
How is the imam of a mosque chosen? - Islamiqate
Jul 3, 2018 · In other cases, the imam may be elected by the members of the mosque's congregation or selected through a hiring process. In general, the ...
[78]
Rabbinic Ordination (Semikha) - Jewish Virtual Library
The document gives rabbis the authority to answer questions of Jewish law and become religious community leaders. Most of those who receive semikha do so from ...
[79]
How is a rabbi chosen? - Quora
Feb 16, 2022 · Basically the Synagogue's Board of Directors appoints a small committee of congregants, usually led by one Board member, as the “Search Committee”.
[80]
The Selection of Hierarchy - Orthodox Christian Laity
There it is stated that the candidate bishop must be irreproachable in all respects with superior merits, elected by all the people. During a Sunday gathering ...
[81]
Forms of Addresses and Salutations for Orthodoxy Clergy
Bishops are usually chosen from the ranks of the Archimandrites. An Orthodox bishop, depending on his jurisdiction and rank, may be called Bishop (usually ...
[82]
Hinduism - Leadership - Patheos
Most religious leaders in Hinduism are Brahmins. Gurus, who are usually Brahmins, attain their status through their knowledge of sacred texts and rituals.
[83]
Abbot - Sera Jey Monastery
Khenpo (Abbot) is the Chief Priest and Chairman of the Monastery. He is appointed for a term of seven years, by a particular system prevailing in the Monastic ...
[84]
Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation ...
Jun 29, 2008 · Hence, the Church has the right to verify the suitability of future priests, including by means of recourse to medical and psychological science ...
[85]
Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions - usccb
The following guidelines for bishops, major superiors, and seminary rectors, when developing policies on the use of psychological evaluations in seminary ...
[86]
Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions - PMC
It is meant to be used by bishops, major superiors, and seminary rectors when developing policies on the use of psychological evaluations in seminary admission.
[87]
Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions - usccb
The Purposes of a Psychological Evaluation for Seminary Admissions; Suggested Components of a Psychological Assessment and Report for Admissions; Desired ...
[88]
A survey study of psychological assessment practices in the ...
The purpose of this survey study was to investigate the policies and procedures concerning the psychological assessment of candidates to the Catholic ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[89]
Reviewing the use of psychological assessment tools in the ...
The aim of the present study is to provide an analytic review of psychological tests used in the admission process of candidates to the Catholic priesthood ...
[90]
The Psychological Evaluation of Religious Professionals
Oct 9, 2025 · The evaluation of candidates for religious vocations is a unique endeavor in which psychologists have been engaged for more than 50 years.
[91]
The Psychological Assessment of Clerics - PMC - NIH
Jul 14, 2017 · Psychological assessment of clerics includes background review, interviews, mental status exam, psychometric measures, and possibly a polygraph.
[92]
Candidate Assessment - Saint Luke Institute
The SLI Candidate Assessment Protocol (SLI-CAP) is based on best practices in psychological and spiritual assessment and is aligned with the United States ...
[93]
[PDF] The Validity of Employment Interviews: A Comprehensive Review ...
Aug 9, 2011 · Interview validity depends on content, structure, and criterion. Structured interviews have higher validity than unstructured. Validity is ...
[94]
Employee Selection | Research Starters - EBSCO
All selection procedures should be based on a systematic, thorough, empirically based job analysis that is used to determine the actual requirements of the job.
[95]
2025 Recruiting Metrics Report: Benchmark Data & by Industry
Apr 3, 2025 · Applicant-to-hire ratio ... In 2024, employers received an average of 180 applicants for every hire they made. However, this figure varied widely ...
[96]
How Many Applications It Takes to Get Hired in 2025 (According to ...
Jul 3, 2025 · According to data compiled by LifeShack and various industry sources, job seekers typically need 100-200+ applications to secure a single offer.
[97]
How Many Applications Does It Take to Get One Interview in 2025 ...
Aug 12, 2025 · Only 3% of applicants get interviewed for any given position · The average job posting receives 250 applications · Job seekers applying for 21-80 ...
[98]
Vocational Training: Definition and Different Types | Indeed.com
Jun 6, 2025 · Vocational training refers to instructional programs or courses that focus on the skills required for a particular job function or trade.
[99]
[PDF] Behavioral Interviewing Guide - Albright College
Behavioral interviewing uses past performance to predict future behavior. Use the STAR method (Situation, Action, Result) to give specific, detailed answers.
[100]
Skip the Job Interview - Haas News
Traditional job interviews are poor at predicting job performance. Intelligence tests are a less biased, more accurate alternative.
[101]
How to Um Get a Job: Disfluency Rates as Predictors of Interview ...
Jun 19, 2025 · We believe that the fluency used in language can affect the success of a candidate in a job interview.
[102]
Awards Nomination Process - Judgify
Aug 31, 2018 · The process of nominating is selecting candidates for an award or bestowing a specific award. Through multiple tasks and responsibilities, the process covers ...<|separator|>
[103]
Applying for an academic position in the US: the basics explained
Jan 19, 2022 · 1. The search committee guides the selection procedure, but it does not make the final decision · 2. Each shortlisted candidate is interviewed ...
[104]
The Hiring Process from the Other Side - Career Engagement
Once you have witnessed it from the inside, any illusions that the academic job search is a wholly rational process designed to yield the best candidate for the ...
[105]
PhD Student vs. PhD Candidate - MIT Office of Graduate Education
Do you know the difference between a PhD student and a Ph.D. candidate? A candidate is someone who has fulfilled all the requirements for the degree ...
[106]
PhD Candidate vs. Student | GCU Blog
Jun 12, 2024 · A doctoral student has been accepted into the program and is currently working through their coursework. In contrast, a PhD candidate has completed their ...
[107]
What is a Doctoral Candidate vs. Doctoral Student
Jan 2, 2024 · A doctoral candidate leaves behind the structured learning schedule of a student. No longer does the candidate attend regular classes or take ...
[108]
PhD candidate vs PhD student - Academia Stack Exchange
Jul 5, 2013 · Here in the U.S., a “Ph.D. Candidate” is a student who has completed all of the academic requirements for their degree, except their ...titles - When can a DPhil student or EU PhD refer to themselves as ...PhD Student/Candidate distinction - European/French universitiesMore results from academia.stackexchange.com
[109]
Cognitive skills and leadership performance: The nine critical skills
Over the years, a growing body of evidence indicates that certain cognitive skills are a critical determinant of leader performance.
[110]
Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes - jstor
Our results indicate that people high on Extraversion (a trait associated with asser- tiveness and enthusiasm) and Emotional Stability. (associated with low ...<|separator|>
[111]
Desired personality traits in politicians: Similar to me but more of a ...
Provides insights into citizens' personality trait preferences for politicians. •. Ideal politician is more stable, extravert, conscientious, open, honest than ...
[112]
Personality Goes a Long Way (for Some). An Experimental ...
Mar 14, 2021 · An Experimental Investigation Into Candidate Personality Traits, Voters' Profile, and Perceived Likeability. Alessandro Nai1* Jürgen Maier2 Jug ...
[113]
What personality traits do citizens want politicians to have ...
Jun 3, 2025 · Politicians' personality is believed to play a central role in their electoral success. It is unclear, however, how important different ...
[114]
The Electoral Success of Angels and Demons: Big Five, Dark Triad ...
The article tests whether the personality of candidates – in terms of their Big Five (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, ...
[115]
Cognitive and noncognitive predictors of success - PMC
Nov 4, 2019 · Cognitive ability emerged as the strongest predictor of academic and military grades, but noncognitive attributes were more prognostic of other achievement ...
[116]
Reelection Rates Over the Years - OpenSecrets
Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name ...
[117]
How do candidates' looks affect their election chances?
Political candidates who look more attractive or competent have been shown to have an electoral advantage across the world.
[118]
The influence of political candidates' facial appearance on older and ...
Younger adults (YA) judgments of political candidates' competence from facial appearance accurately predict electoral success.
[119]
Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in ...
Moreover, the relation between party identification (or liberal-conservative political ideology) and voting behavior has reached its highest level in the last ...
[120]
[PDF] Partisanship as Social Identity; Implications for the Study of Party ...
Using data from the. American National Election Study, as well as implicit attitude tests, we argue that. Americans' partisan identity has become highly salient ...
[121]
Ballot order effects | MIT Election Lab
Apr 20, 2022 · If the order in which candidates appear on the ballot influences election outcomes, then these laws will advantage some candidates over others.Missing: recognition | Show results with:recognition
[122]
Biased expectations? An experimental test of which party selectors ...
This study examines a potential source of party selector discrimination against ethnic minority aspirants: stereotypes.
[123]
The why of candidate selection: How party selectors handle trade ...
May 17, 2023 · When candidates score lower on one goal, do selectors favour candidates following the party line, skill for politics or ability to garner votes?
[124]
Careerism and working-class decline: The role of party selectorates ...
Recent decades have seen a growing underrepresentation of working-class legislators and the parallel rise of professionalized “career politicians”, ...
[125]
Party Elites' Preferences in Candidates: Evidence from a Conjoint ...
Oct 9, 2020 · This paper presents results from a conjoint experiment carried out with party delegates chosen to select the candidates for five German parties.
[126]
[PDF] An Experiment in Candidate Selection
We partnered with both major political parties in Sierra Leone to experimentally vary how much say voters have in selecting Parliamentary candidates. Estimates ...
[127]
What does the evidence tell us about merit principles and ...
Jun 13, 2023 · This systematic review summarizes what empirical research tells us about effects of civil service practices, such as meritocratic appointments, meritocratic ...
[128]
McKinsey's Diversity Fog - City Journal
Apr 5, 2024 · ... errors. The paper, written by accounting professors Jeremiah Green, of Texas A&M, and John R. M. Hand, of the University of North Carolina ...
[129]
[PDF] McKinsey's Diversity Matters/Delivers/Wins Results Revisited
This feature notwithstanding, McKinsey's HNNI inverse normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman definition of executive racial/ethnic diversity has three weaknesses.
[130]
Negative side effects of affirmative action: How quotas lead to ...
We find that quotas lead to distorted peer-reviews, where affirmed individuals receive significantly less favorable reviews than non-affirmed peers with ...
[131]
Quota-based debiasing can decrease representation of the most ...
Sep 22, 2021 · In particular, we show that quota-based debiasing could worsen the representation of already under-represented groups and decrease the overall ...Missing: merit- | Show results with:merit-
[132]
The Effectiveness of Diversity in Companies – Between Myths and ...
Nov 7, 2024 · More than 30 years of research show that diversity does not necessarily lead to higher performance – often, the effects are neutral or even ...
[133]
Merit-based recruitment and its impact on employees' performance
May 29, 2023 · PDF | This study broadly explains the importance of merit-based recruitment and its impact on employees' performances.Missing: outcomes peer-
[134]
Here Are All The Companies Rolling Back DEI Programs - Forbes
Apr 11, 2025 · Tech company IBM and beer brewer Constellation Brands are reportedly among the latest in a wave of corporations retreating from diversity, equity and inclusion ...
[135]
Why Diversity Programs Fail - Harvard Business Review
Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions.<|separator|>
[136]
[PDF] objective evidence on media bias: newspaper coverage of ...
By studying news- paper articles on congressional party switchers (members who have left their political party in mid-term), this research compares coverage.
[137]
Empirical Studies of Media Bias - ScienceDirect.com
In this chapter we survey the empirical literature on media bias, with a focus on partisan and ideological biases.
[138]
The consequences of horse race reporting: What the research says
Oct 23, 2023 · ... election that Patterson examines in his December 2016 working paper, “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the ...
[139]
Americans blame news organizations for unfair coverage, not ...
Oct 28, 2020 · About eight-in-ten Americans (79%) say news organizations tend to favor one side when presenting the news on political and social issues.
[140]
Are the US media biased against conservatism? : r/AskSocialScience
Apr 22, 2022 · "According to ASNE: 'In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 ...
[141]
[PDF] A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS1 - Columbia University
Since the same surveys also show that conservatives tend to see a bias more than liberals do, this is evidence of a liberal bias. Lott and Hassett [2004] ...
[142]
What the Media Missed - Time Magazine
Nov 9, 2024 · And you don't need a poll or a pile of data to measure the most important journalistic fail of the election: the mainstream media missed one of ...
[143]
Why the attempt to deplatform Trump failed so utterly - Vox
Nov 13, 2024 · The 2024 election has conclusively proven something that we really should have known since 2016: America's gatekeepers have failed.
[144]
There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political ...
Apr 1, 2020 · Is the media biased against conservatives? Although a dominant majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats and many Americans and ...
[145]
There's no age limit for politicians − as people live longer, should ...
Aug 28, 2023 · While there are minimum age requirements for people who want to hold political office in the US, there are no limits on when someone must ...
[146]
[PDF] Felon Disenfranchisement as a Legitimate State Regulation
Courts have upheld state disenfranchisement statutes that prohibit convicted felons from voting in any election and make it a felony for any person to register ...
[147]
Disenfranchisement Laws | Brennan Center for Justice
These laws strip voting rights from people with past criminal convictions, and they vary widely between states.