[The review below was delivered via correspondence. The author, Mr. Lundswud, is not an employee of the Daily Prophet and his views do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the paper.]

Mr. Jude Wright has the distinction of being the only candidate who was campaigning long before the Ministerial election was announced; his declaration of candidacy marks a shift only from campaigning for political reform writ large to championing himself as the spearhead of that reform. As a result, Wright avoids the problem we have encountered with many candidates so far of having obscured opinions on the issues; Wright is, if anything, infamous for his political opinions.

Where his campaign most frequently falls short is in depth of opinion, not in breadth. Often Wright can be heard making remarks that scandalize more traditionalist voters, and he usually defends these salacious policies through opposition to the current system. As an example, let us consider his words from the first Ministerial debate regarding Wizengamot appointments: "I do not believe, as it stands, that the Wizengamot is fit for purpose as our sole legislative body." He cited problems of stagnation and briefly referenced three tactics by which it might be improved, but not with the degree of depth that would convince those who respect the Wizengamot and its membership that he has really thought this through.

To his credit Wright does seem to have nuanced policy stances behind each of these bold comments; he has been for some years an active participant and sometimes leader of working class political salons in London where these ideas are discussed and debated soundly and often. The voting public writ large, however, can hardly be expected to crowd into a London pub in order to determine whether they agree with what Wright is arguing for, not only what he is arguing against.

There are examples around the world of varying forms of magical government which might suit Wright more than our current system, and in this analyst's opinion Wright would do well to incorporate some in to his upcoming speeches. Doing so could accomplish many tasks at once: reassuring voters who are understandably nervous about such significant changes as Wright proposes that he has thought it through; give them a clearer idea of exactly how his proposed new system might work; reassure them that this type of change would not make us unique in all the world; and that these systems can and do work elsewhere. Does he propose, as in Venezuela, that each office including that of the Wizengamot come with term limits? Long term limits (say, a decade or more) might curb the issues Wright sees with the Wizengamot without materially changing the flow of legislation in our government. Does he propose, as in Muggle England, to add an elected House of Commons to govern on equal footing with our "House of Lords" Wizengamot? Does he propose, as in the Emirate of Dhala, that issue-specific legislation are passed by small committees formed specifically for the matter, composed of a handful of experts in the subject and disbanded once the issue has been considered?

As mentioned previously, Wright does appear to have answers to these questions, just not ones he has made widely known outside of his London circles. Perhaps the sounder criticism of his campaign is that in attempting to appeal to those groups and populations traditional politicians ignore, he has instead ignored too many of the spaces in which most voters gather. One can hardly claim to be a voice for all citizens if one only speaks to those who have no voice of their own — and indeed, one cannot expect to be elected if the majority of conversations take place with those who cannot currently vote.

More candidate reviews to follow.
— J. L.