Pros and cons of Dvorkovich will always remain a matter of opinion, the 157-16 landslide victory suggests that cons didn't matter to many delegates. BTW various sources (including Dvorkovich himself) say that he will resign if he ends upon a sanction list, then Anand will probably officially take over and there will be new elections within 6 months. Dvorkovich also said that he won't run for a third term, but this statement may have an expiration date.
We might also look at the alternative that remained in the end, after two tickets were withdrawn. Baryshpolets sold his total lack of political experience and being Ukrainian (having Ukrainian roots) as an asset. But in an ACP debate (https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-presidential-candidates-acp-round-table-discussion) he acted like an American (country where he lives) - "He also noted a personal idea that he wants to push: that FIDE will be sponsoring scholarships for U.S. youth champions."
The designated vice president Peter Heine Nielsen had done most of the campaigning, and may have been widely and plausibly considered the one who would be in charge - with Baryshpolets just a cover ("reputation laundering" may be too strong). Nielsen's obvious ties with Carlsen may be considered a pro by some, and a con by others. It could have had implications for the future of the world championship cycle - drastic changes either to get Carlsen back in, or to devalue the title in order to add credibility to a "world #1 is all that matters" narrative. In the ACP debate, both Kouatly (who later withdrew his candidature) and Baryshpolets had called Carlsen's refusal to defend his title a "failure of FIDE" (not a failure of Carlsen). Kouatly: "find a championship format that can suit the modern trend", Baryshpolets: "FIDE just cannot keep up with the times.".
There may have been more in the mind of the delegates than "fighting Russian influence", main focus of the Baryshpolets-Nielsen campaign. Chess24, part of Play Magnus group/Carlsen business empire, may not be an objective-neutral source.
Pros and cons of Dvorkovich will always remain a matter of opinion, the 157-16 landslide victory suggests that cons didn't matter to many delegates. BTW various sources (including Dvorkovich himself) say that he will resign if he ends upon a sanction list, then Anand will probably officially take over and there will be new elections within 6 months. Dvorkovich also said that he won't run for a third term, but this statement may have an expiration date.
We might also look at the alternative that remained in the end, after two tickets were withdrawn. Baryshpolets sold his total lack of political experience and being Ukrainian (having Ukrainian roots) as an asset. But in an ACP debate (https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-presidential-candidates-acp-round-table-discussion) he acted like an American (country where he lives) - "He also noted a personal idea that he wants to push: that FIDE will be sponsoring scholarships for U.S. youth champions."
The designated vice president Peter Heine Nielsen had done most of the campaigning, and may have been widely and plausibly considered the one who would be in charge - with Baryshpolets just a cover ("reputation laundering" may be too strong). Nielsen's obvious ties with Carlsen may be considered a pro by some, and a con by others. It could have had implications for the future of the world championship cycle - drastic changes either to get Carlsen back in, or to devalue the title in order to add credibility to a "world #1 is all that matters" narrative. In the ACP debate, both Kouatly (who later withdrew his candidature) and Baryshpolets had called Carlsen's refusal to defend his title a "failure of FIDE" (not a failure of Carlsen). Kouatly: "find a championship format that can suit the modern trend", Baryshpolets: "FIDE just cannot keep up with the times.".
There may have been more in the mind of the delegates than "fighting Russian influence", main focus of the Baryshpolets-Nielsen campaign. Chess24, part of Play Magnus group/Carlsen business empire, may not be an objective-neutral source.