Now that Trump is out and we’ve #settledforbiden2020 with much celebration, the absurd course of the election feels like a long ago fever dream. Unless you’re Nevada. Anywho. With a newfound jubilance, we liberal Londoners are free to chortle at the most ridiculous candidates from the US and the UK, presented to you here:
- Lord Buckethead in the 2017 general election. One of his manifesto promises was that full facial coverings should be kept legal, so he may well be less Islamophobic than the current Tory party. Also, good foresight of the current Covid times
- Victoria Woodhall in the 1872 presidential election. Was all about legalising prostitution, birth control and free love. Bonus: retired psychic. Overall, bit of a queenie.
- Benjamin Spock in the 1972 presidential election. 100 years later comes along another impressive CV- Spock wrote the most influential parenting book of the first half of the 20th century, was an Olympic gold medallist in rowing (so if he is still alive will doubtless be our next external speaker). He was anti-Vietnam war and pro-marijuana, which in the 70s really was the acceptable way around.
- The Monster Raving Loony Party. In general. I couldn’t possibly summarise them here, but they manage admirably with both the name and the website. It’s exactly what you think.
- Harambe in the 2016 presidential election. Did not garner the 11,000 votes that twitter thought he did but truly, this was ridiculous.
- We’re not going to talk about Kanye West, it’s still too soon.
Here is a note in all seriousness on stunt candidacy. It is fine if voters pick a stunt candidate as an alternative to spoiling their ballots. If you didn’t know, spoiling the ballot is an option in Britain if you truly can’t bring yourself to vote for any listed candidate, but still want to show up on principle to do your bit for western democracy. Spoiling the ballot increases turnout, which would mean the winner has a less convincing mandate because of all the votes against them. It’s still not that useful, since the British system works with pluralities: MPs don’t need 50% of the constituent’s votes, they just need more than the other guy. Across the pond in the US, spoiling the ballot is still an option. But the existence of write-in candidates means that voters can feel they are participating in the election in voting for an actual person… when what they are effectively doing is spoiling their ballot. This is especially dangerous when the voter has been diverted away from a plausible candidate and essentially throws away their vote to the negligible cause of mildly discrediting the winner’s mandate, or just having a laugh.
