I’m not sure that’s something we get to vote on.

On the margin, you can let anything influence your voting decision.

File under "technically true but not particularly useful"

Well, it's not like voting is particularly useful in the first place.

I don't think the parent post is complaining that academics are writing proposals (e.g as opposed to people with common sense). Instead, it seems to me that he is complaining that academics are writing proposals and papers to impress funding committees and journal editors, and to some extend to increase their own clout among their peers. Instead of writing to communicate clearly and honestly to their peers, or occasionally to laymen.

And this critique is likely not aimed at academics so much as the systems and incentives of academia. This is partially on the parties managing grants (caring much more about impact and visibility than actually moving science forwards, which means everyone is scrounging for or lying about low hanging fruit). It is partially on those who set (or rather maintain) the culture at academic institutions of gathering clout by getting 'impactful' publications. And those who manage journals also share blame, by trying to defend their moat, very much hamming up "high impact", and aggressively rent-seeking.

Yes, thank you, exactly. It’s a culture and systems issue. Thank you for clarifying a post I wrote in the early morning while waiting for my baby to fall back to sleep!

and hope for a president that can do both

We have this already. It's called an abstract. Some do it better than others.

Perhaps we need to revisit the concept and have a narrow abstract and a lay abstract, given how niche science has become.