« Basil Has No Cabbage | Main | What Paul Stanley Did to House Republicans—And You And Me »
August 19, 2009
House 62: Chris Brown Is Constitution Party Candidate
For all we voters know, an "Independent" candidate in Tennessee could be a left-wing Green Party member, a right-wing Constitution Party member, a Libertarian, or a truly unaffiliated moderate. The Volunteer State has many things right, but there is still plenty of room for reform in our election laws, including those governing ballot access.
Thanks to the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, and the blogger at Independent Political Report who picked up the story, we learn that "independent" candidate Chris Brown, who is running in the October 13 election in the 62nd District of the House of Representatives, is a Constitution Party candidate.
I don't really know how many voters in the 62nd self-identify as Constitution Party members, but as it is a national party that has, according to Wikipedia, run candidates for the White House since 1992 (albeit starting with a different name), it could be a ballot-identified party if the barrier were lowered.
There has to be a reasonable limit, else ballots would become a mess. The Constitution Party of Tennessee no longer maintains a Web site (although they once did, as I had them linked on TennesseeTicket's old state parties page). Maybe Chris Brown isn't as good an example as the Green and Libertarian candidates that have and will run, but I don't want to make that judgement. And perhaps, if he were allowed to appear on the ballot—and, should he win, in the Legislature—as a Constitution Party member, wouldn't that in itself potentially strengthen the party? That is exactly the fear that drives the two major parties to keep others out.
Voters' choices are indefensibly limited when there are only two parties identified. And they are potentially misinformed when someone running on a well-defined platform is so ambiguously labeled.
Elections , State House Elections | By joe lance | 5:39 PM
Comments
Dear Tennessee Ticket,
One might argue that an independent candidate has a better chance of being elected than one representing the Constitution Party, despite its numerous virtues. We, the voters, tend to be distrustful of those we cannot easily classify. While the term independent is most assuredly vague, most voters, I contend, are less intimidated by that that a party they've never heard of.
With respect,
Oscar Brock
Posted by: Oscar Brock at August 20, 2009 9:32 PM
Oscar,
Thanks so much for posting your thoughts. I do see your point, to the extent that if a candidate showed up on a ballot as belonging to, say, "The Purple Party," that would likely cause suspicious aversion among the voters.
But on the other hand, and I guess where we respectfully disagree, is that a party ID can take some of the guesswork out of the process. The Constitution, Green, and Libertarian parties have distinctive enough platforms whereby a voter can be informed, using the party name as a basis, rather than having to start from scratch with nothing but the word "independent" to go on.
Then again, one should always do due diligence in checking out every candidate--or turn to robust journalism for assistance, which is another topic--because even those bearing the more familiar labels are not always that representative of the core values implied by said labels.
Posted by: joe lance at August 22, 2009 9:47 AM