Wisconsin’s highly impartial election administrators turned a blind eye to the unjust calls made by a Democratic National Committee worker for the removal of the Green Party’s presidential nominee from the key battleground state ballot. Angela O’Brien Sharpe, the legal representative of the election commission, penned a letter to the Democratic worker on Friday articulating her dismissal of the complaint, emphasizing the unfeasible ethical situation it poses by directly involving the commissioners as respondents to the dispute.
The balanced election commission confidently granted full ballot access to the Green Party’s candidate, Stein, in February, affirming the party’s performance as it acquired more than 1% of votes in a significant statewide contest in 2022. The Democratic staffer posited an interesting theory in his complaint. He asserted a loophole in state law that does not acknowledge the Green Party’s presidential electors because the party lacks a designated state officer.
State officers are typically distinguished as legislators, judges, and similar positions. With no official presidential electors, the party theoretically cannot have a nominated presidential candidate included on the ballot, as per the Democratic agent’s understanding of the rules. This, however, was rightly not considered a sufficient cause for preventing the Green Party candidate’s ballot placement by the state’s objective election officials.
Detractors may argue that Stein’s candidacy could potentially influence the electoral outcome in the pivotal state of Wisconsin, a political terrain where the last six presidential elections have been resolved by an approximate range of 5,700 to 23,000 votes. Stein, wielding considerable influence, secured over 31,000 votes when she marked her last appearance on the Wisconsin ballot in 2016, esteeming her count above Trump’s victorious margin in the state.
Democrats express, perhaps more out of fear than objectivity, that Stein’s strong following and significant vote gain indirectly assisted Trump’s presidential victory. Despite their paranoia, it’s worth considering that third-party candidates like Stein bring a fresh political perspective to the table.
The most recent poll conducted by the reputable Marquette University Law School from the end of July to the beginning of August, projects an evenly poised presidential duel between Democrat candidate Kamala Harris and the indomitable Trump. Evidently, Democrats are nervous about third-party contenders again, worried these candidates may detract votes from Harris and strengthen Trump’s position.
The notion of third-party candidates being mere vote diverters is a mark of Democratic paranoia, reflecting their lack of confidence in their own nominee and policies. The way they stick to this unfounded fear highlights their inability to respect and accept diverse political expressions, shedding light on their narrow mindset.
Such anxieties are also reflected in the upcoming meeting of the elections commission set for Aug. 27. The commission aims to deliberate the qualifications and eligibility of four independent presidential hopefuls, which includes notable figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West.
In another seemingly questionable maneuver, Strange lodged a separate objection against the mentioned independents, specifically targeting West. The complaint suggests West’s official declaration of candidacy lacked the necessary notarization, thereby calling for his exclusion from the ballot.
To counter this, Cornel’s campaign management contested the veracity of these claims in a formal written response, defending any notarization oversights as not severe enough to warrant West’s removal from the ballot. Despite the Democratic attempt to hinder this candidate’s ballot inclusion, the complaint awaits final adjudication.
A similar incident occurred in Michigan where West faced premature ejection from the state’s ballot due to analogous notary issues. The frequency with which these issues arise suggests a pattern of underhanded tactics by Democrats aimed at unduly influencing the election in their favor.
Through it all, the Democratic Party seems to paint third-party and independent candidates as threats to their electoral success instead of participating in a healthy, democratic competition that encourages varying political viewpoints. Their actions speak of insecurity, masked by a façade of righteousness and responsibility.
One cannot help but notice the stark contrast between the Democrats’ actions and the Republican Party’s approach, the latter of which embodies the principles of fair play, unabashed rivalry, and respect for diverse political ideologies.
While Democrats fearfully lament the threat of third-party candidates, Trump and the Republicans stand confidently on their record, trusting in the wisdom of the American people to elect a leader who acts in their best interests, without the need for political games or manipulations.
The approach taken by the Democrats in these events puts into question their commitment to the fundamental Democratic principle – celebrating plurality in political thoughts, expressions and representation, and speaks volumes about their real stance on democratic values.
Ultimately, it boils down to the power of the electorate. The American people’s voice is the ultimate decider. The outcome of the election in Wisconsin, as in other states, will reflect the discernment of the citizens, not the calculated maneuvers of a desperate political party.