Yes, I think that is how Trump got elected.

I see your points, which mainly focus around you believing that I (or "someone?") could make a mistake for which they are not held accountable. - That is a noble idea, but your suggestions do not assure it. Your suggestions have been tested and have failed... I don't know if my method has been tested, but if new it might work.

But if it would make you feel better, and to show how fiercely I believe this must be the case, I will keep my own name, putting my own family in harms way, merely so that your fear is negated.  I will keep my own name (after I change it legally to ceneezer) just so that the families of our other MP's do not put their own families in harms way.  For I love them all as though they were my own.

There are a laundry list of reasons Trump got elected and almost all of them fall at the feet of Clinton herself and the Democratic Party. His fame had little to do with it.

My points are based around looking into the future of Asgardia, even if you could guarantee to me the virtue of every MP Candidate for the next 50 Parliaments, what happens at 51, or 60, or 100? I've offered little in the way of specific on how to neutralize moral hazard because that hasn't been the thrust of this conversation, rather I'm providing counter argument to your proposal in order to keep this thread focused. If you'd like to discuss establishing rules and laws to prevent corruption more generally, I'm happy to do so, though for the sake of our fellow Asgardians I think the subject is best done in a new thread titled appropriately. As to the idea, its actually a very old one, in that its a variation on Regnal names.

As to your final point, I think you misunderstand, I don't quite see this as any kind of noble stand and it isn't rooted in fear. Its rooted in knowledge of humanity and more specifically, in the case of the pros and cons I mentioned, which you agreed were accurate, I value the pros and cons that impact Asgardia as a whole far more highly than those that impact only a select few individuals. As such, I cannot in good conscious provide any sort of support for the use of pseudonyms or I suppose if it were to be the case "Parlonyms".

Also, as a side note on the oath itself, most oaths of office don't exist to curtail corruption, but rather to provide a legal framework under which to prosecute corruption. For this reason they need to be specific and concise about what behaviors are prohibited or cannot be neglected as well as having clear legal frameworks for what happens if the oath is violated.

Lila has hit it pretty much on the head.

I have no problem if an oath were to be instituted, although it will most likely take place as merely a checkbox somewhere which says that we have read it and accept it.

The only case where an Parlonym, as Lila termed it, may be appropriate (perhaps taking place as an alternative full name) where a person is from a place or family which is highly volitile or oppressive, like a radical Islamist state and the candidate's platform would run against their country's laws and may get them the death penalty, etc. There also may be cases for where a candidate may be from a fundamentalist Christian family, but yet advocates for liberal social sexual policy (gay marriage, etc) where doing such may cause them great harm in their personal life. Having Asgardia online gives people a level of freedom to promote values that they may not have the freedoms to do in their IRL lives. That is kind of the great power of the internet. 

Lila, I do not seem to be able to friend you for some reason.
Website!! ARRGHHH!!!

I have a very strong NO to the codenames for many of the reasons that mentioned above and because I feel that it degrades what we are trying to do. We are more pioneers than leaders and pioneers are taking risks. I am grateful that I can participate in any way.