In Russian, there's a phrase which can be literally translated as 'a technical candidate' that refers to people who are allowed to elections only to serve as, put bluntly, election props that create a false impression of multiple competing candidates when, in fact, it's only one pro-government candidate and a few no-names no-one ever heard of. Don't confuse it with the similar but different term 'spoiler candidates' who are allowed to the ballot to poach some votes from undesirable opposition candidates (for example, by having the same last name, or a similar party name, or by having a similar alleged ideology but no real electorate). I've also come across the term 'a stalking horse candidate', but I don't have a clear idea what it means and it doesn't seem it's what I'm looking for. What do you say instead of 'a technical candidate' in English?
Phrase Request – What to Call Election Candidates Creating an Illusion of Competition
phrase-requestword-request
Best Answer
Summary
Token opposition is the closest English idiom for one or more candidates who are on the ballot for mere superficial appearance. However, native speakers would be able to pick up the intended meaning behind calling someone a technical candidate.
Other related terms with varying shades of meaning are listed below in decreasing order of specificity or relevance to the scenario from your question. Read beyond the divider for further explanation of each.
Token Opposition
The adjective form of token means
so token opposition is present only to make the process look legitimate.
Opposition is a mass noun or uncountable noun, possibly a tricky case for students of English.
This means the following are ungrammatical.
Correct examples include
If you want to use it in count noun form, consider token opponent as in
Note that the definition of token includes
so referring to someone from a racial minority as a token candidate or even just a token (as opposed to a token opponent) may be perceived as bigoted or xenophobic.
Sham Candidate
The type of election you described in your question is called a sham election, so someone slated for election in the technical sense only could be called a sham candidate or sham opponent. Used as an adjective, sham applies broadly.
A sham election is sometimes referred to as a show election, but the meaning behind show candidate or show opponent may confuse your audience because a show pony looks pretty but is no good for hard work.
Nominal Candidate
The adjective nominal has a similar meaning to technical: in name only. The meaning of nominal candidate will likely be clear to your audience and is less cynical, for when you want to convey a neutral point of view.
Sacrificial Lamb
When the outcome is not rigged but the opponent still has almost zero likelihood of winning, the colorful metaphor sacrificial lamb applies. Given a longstanding and highly popular incumbent, for example, opposing parties may “fill the ballot” by nominating sacrificial lambs whom they do not expect to even be competitive. This way, the party in power must face some opposition rather than running unopposed. Wikipedia notes
Paper Candidate
A paper candidate is a similar term and also more matter-of-fact and less cynical.
The idea is that the candidate’s name is on the piece of paper only and is similar in meaning to paper tiger.
Phantom Candidate
A phantom is a ghost, and as an adjective it refers to anything illusory. Phantom candidate is similar in meaning to paper candidate but does not carry any connotation of a rigged election. Instead, a phantom candidate leaves little evidence of his existence. Whereas a paper candidate may have a website, print signs and stickers, distribute literature, and even have a staff, a phantom candidate is barely there at all.
Fringe Candidate
A fringe candidate is one who has little chance of winning because of positions that have little popular support. Fringe candidates may come from major or minor parties. Major-party candidates may contemptuously disparage each other’s “fringe” views in attempts to talk down their support. A major party’s establishment may knowingly put up a fringe candidate as a sacrificial lamb merely to fill the ballot or perhaps hoping for overwhelming defeat: for example, to stamp out a favorite issue of a noisy minority within the party by blaming the issue for lopsided defeat at the polls.
Because fringe is charged, using it may cause your audience to perceive bias against the candidate or at least the views.
Perennial Candidate
A perennial candidate is one who appears on the ballot regularly with no wins and almost no voteshare. The perennial candidate tends to have fringe views or other low likeability. The party tolerates the situation because it at least fills the ballot.
This term has a neutral point of view. If the same candidate shows up over and over in sham elections, referring to the token opposition from outside the electoral jurisdiction in question as a perennial candidate may be taken as evenhanded or as bitingly ironic.
Spoiler or Protest Candidate
Of the two, protest candidate is broader and more objective. A spoiler is someone who enters the race with the intention of causing another candidate to lose or who is judged after the fact to have been a cause of defeat, so the election is definitely competitive. A spoiler is a protest candidate but not necessarily the other way around.
A protest candidate and the major-party or mainstream candidate in jeopardy of being spoiled will perhaps surprisingly have many political positions in common. The protest candidate’s purpose is to give voters a way to show that the mainstream candidate is inauthentic or not bold enough in promoting their shared views. For example, Jill Stein was the Green Party nominee for U.S. President in 2016. The Greens are a far-left party, so Dr. Stein was widely viewed as a protest candidate against Hillary Clinton. In the coming 2020 U.S. election, Donald Trump is likely to face one or more protest candidates who will challenge him for the Republican nomination by asserting that Trump is not sufficiently conservative, either socially or fiscally, and thus not true enough to Republican values. Candidates from the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party are commonly seen as protest candidates against Republicans.
In 1992, billionaire Ross Perot ran for president as an independent, i.e., affiliated with no party. Important issues for him were balancing the federal budget and offshoring of American jobs. He entered the race with the intention of winning. In the end, he captured about 19% of the popular vote and continues to be blamed by Republicans for spoiling the re-election of George H. W. Bush in favor of Bill Clinton.
Window Dressing
Window dressing is a kitschy description that applies broadly to any surface-only appearance.
Paper candidates, sacrificial lambs, and the like are all forms of window dressing. The term does imply at least a level of deception, so it would be fair to call token opposition or sham candidates window dressing.