11/02/11: Mr. Phantom seeks your vote, sort of

This op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on the date shown.

THERE IS a candidate for the General Assembly who has been dubbed “the phantom candidate” because few have seen the guy. He hasn’t shown up to candidate forums or to newspaper interviews.

According to at least one report, though, he has shown up in TV advertisements and in mail sent to voters in the district. Like any other candidate, he wants to win; he just doesn’t appear to want to be bothered with the people he would be representing if elected.

In an earlier time, a candidate like this probably wouldn’t exist, because he would lack the resources to put ads on TV and mail in your mailbox. Who would donate to a candidate who refuses to meet with potential constituents?

And in an earlier time, the voters in the district would know that such a candidate had not shown up for this forum or that interview, because the newspaper would have reported it. Not just once, in an overview of the race, but probably every time it happened.

Unfortunately for the voters, we don’t live in an earlier time.

These days, contributions for candidates come from political parties, political action committees organized by the party’s leadership, and fellow elected officials of the party. Of the approximately $157,000 raised by Mr. Phantom — aka Republican Rick Morris — about $120,000 came from these sources. He is running against Del. Bill K. Barlow, a Democrat, in the 64th District.

These days, candidates don’t really run their own campaigns; instead, there is a coordinated effort by the party. That includes the sharing of volunteers and staff, as well as campaign themes. Over the past few weeks, I’ve sat through enough candidate forums that I could probably give you all the talking points.

These days, newspapers don’t have the staff to cover every debate, much less fact-check all the claims made by the candidates.

Too much money and too little coverage lead us to where the voters are not only disinterested in the elections but are poorly informed. If they bother to show up — and the majority won’t — their ballot ends up being cast for reasons other than who is the best person to represent us.

In truth, many people — even in earlier times — based their votes on other criteria. But it was a little harder to do so in the face of evidence that one candidate was a better choice than the other. Today, scant evidence exists, unless you count party talking points as evidence.

One article I read in another publication actually cited Mr. Phantom’s website as the source, since he refused repeated requests for an interview. If that’s not complete control over campaign messaging, I don’t know what is.

While I have often urged voters to check out candidates for themselves, each election cycle makes it harder and harder to do. Until we voters demand more from those who would represent us, we’ll be left to cast our ballots on increasingly imperfect information.

Mr. Phantom may be the first candidate who fails to engage the voters, but if elected, he won’t be the last. Success breeds imitation.