Unquestionably, democracies should encourage citizens to put themselves forward as candidates for election to public office. Yet, voters are also entitled to an assurance that those who present themselves for election do so in a serious and responsible spirit. Furthermore, it is undesirable for voters to be presented with such a large number of candidates that it becomes almost impossible to make an informed choice among them.
For these reasons, it is necessary to introduce measures to deter some individuals who might wish to abuse the system of competitive elections. Several real examples illustrated the problem of trivial or irresponsible candidates.
Examples of Irresponsible Candidates
First, some people may wish to put their names forward as a joke. In Britain, candidates have regularly been nominated by 'The Monster Raving Loony Party'. One of the most constant of fringe candidates has been a former pop-musician called 'Screaming Lord Sutch'. Since all candidates in a British parliamentary election are entitled to appear before the television cameras when the election result is announced, and since every candidate's name must (by law) be mentioned whenever there is a report on television or radio about the election campaign in the constituency, joke candidates gain publicity. In Poland, a Beer Drinkers' Party was created and, in fact, gained a considerable number of votes. The Mad Hatter's Tea Party of New Zealand was not to be outdone in the humour league with the nomination in 1972 of M. Mouse.
Second, groups with extreme political opinions may present candidates who have no hope of winning, but who ensure that their party has the entitlement to a free party political broadcast that is given in Britain to any party with at least fifty candidates. Since the election deposit is £500 per candidate, the cost of fifty deposits (£25,000) gives a 'party' the right to broadcast its views -
a marvellous opportunity for groups which, for example, wish to present a piece of racialist propaganda at a bargain cost.
Third, the fact that individuals in Britain are permitted by law to change their names permits another form of 'joke' candidature. Someone may change his name so that it is exactly the same (or almost exactly the same) as that of a famous politician. The joke candidate may then stand for election in the same constituency as the famous politician. The voter will then find it hard to distinguish between the real Edward Heath (the former Conservative Prime Minister in Britain) and the one (or several) 'fake' Edward Heaths. This has happened in Britain, the United States, and, probably elsewhere.
Fourth, it was possible a few years ago in Britain for soldiers wishing to leave the armed forces to abuse a loophole in military regulations. Since it is undesirable to permit serving members of the armed forces to stand as candidates for the House of Commons, and since it is also desirable to allow soldiers to have full civil rights, special regulations allowed a soldier who wished to stand for Parliament to leave the army, even if his contract had a number of years to run. Suddenly, dozens of soldiers used the rule as an easy way to break their contracts.
These examples all illustrate the need to restrict 'fringe' candidates. This may be done in several ways. They include a requirement that candidates (apart from those representing established political parties) must obtain the signatures of a considerable number of voters in support of their nomination. The advantage of a system of signatures is that it may weed out fringe candidates without penalizing candidates who are merely poor and who may thus find it hard to raise a financial deposit. The disadvantage of a signature system is that it is hard to administer and open to abuse. It may not be possible for members of election commissions to check the accuracy of the signatures within the time available for nominations.
The alternative to signatures is a system of financial deposits.
Draft Only
