Mocking the electoral process

Those old enough to have been of voting age in the 1960s would no doubt remember a perennial losing candidate whose platform included banning typhoons and shielding Filipinos from the searing tropical heat by airconditioning the entire country. We cannot remember if he got any votes except from himself or his immediate family, but  we're sure that voters could immediately recognize a crackpot when they saw or heard one.

      

Today, nuisance candidates are still with us, so much so that some senators are pushing for amendments to the Omnibus Election Code to keep them at bay.

Senate Bill 2930 defines nuisance candidates as those who mock the election process. It seeks to slap with election offense candidates who cause confusion among voters by the similarity of names of registered bets as well as those who filed their certificates of candidacy in a bid to obtain money, profit or some other consideration.

      

It also considers as an election offense circumstances or acts that clearly demonstrate the candidate has no genuine intention to run for public office.

      

Our democracy provides for a system of free elections. That means anyone who meets the basic requirements—a certain age, a natural-born citizen, able to read and write, a registered voter, and must have lived in the country for a certain period of time—can run for public office at any level from the local to the national. Unfortunately, the Constitution is silent on whether candidates should also pass a sanity test administered by the National Center for Mental Health. 

      

Be that as it may, we urge voters to go beyond the basic qualifications of candidates and instead  scrutinize their academic background, training and experience in public service, and platform of governance. If a candidate can offer none of these, then he's certain to be nuisance candidate, and deserves to  be roundly repudiated come Election Day. –End-

Image by: www.ftaa.com