Frankly I agree with Brion. You might argue with the way he has put his points, but the essence is right. There are some candidates who, just like ruaway trains, do not try to make their statements short. Such a candidate is also likely to waste a lot of committee time, which costs money. There is no harm in limiting the length of the statement, as a longer version can appear on the candidate's user page as you said.
Shortness does not mean conciseness, of course, that is an additional, but essential requirement. If it is easily understood it will be correctly translated.
I don't think it is fair for translators to decide for themselves which candidate they fancy to win an election and to choose accordingly. I am a fan of Erik, in spite of the fact that he did not answer my enquiry sent to him directly in an e-mail last year. However, I did not translate his enormous statement thereby punishing the other candidates by neglecting them. I have also found that some candidates cannot stop detailing at length all the good that they have done to Wikimedia.
I agree that some short statements are only short, because the candidate does not have many good ideas. This will be transparent, and the translation will also show it.
Summing it all: well done Brion. It is the first time that somebody has tried to reduce the blab.
We have copies of Brion's statement and of all the comments on this subject now, so I shall wipe them from my response. The title speaks for itself.
Kind regards to all, Louis
Errare humanum, et in errore perseverare stultum est