Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s quixotic independent bid for the presidency has spooked both major parties. It's not because either thinks Kennedy will win. It's because each believes his candidacy will tip the scales just enough to help the other major party candidate win.
Regardless of what one thinks of the Kennedy campaign, it is currently providing an essential public service in its fight to get on state ballots: unmasking how profoundly undemocratic the major parties are, and how exceptionally hypocritical they can be when an outsider threatens to stand between one of them and power.
Consider the news out of Hawaii, where Democrats used all manner of legal contortions to (unsuccessfully) keep Kennedy of the state's November ballot. The intricacies are too many and too many to excerpt here. The shorthand version: Hawaii Democrats alleged that leaders of Kennedy's new party (created to take advantage of more favorable signature requirements to get on the ballot), were really Democrats. That disqualified the party.
Election officials didn't buy it, and allowed Kennedy's party to stay on the ballot.
It will not be the last such effort to kick Kennedy – or any other third party or independent candidate – off the ballot. But in the Hawaii case, it does show that for all their chest beating about being the great defenders of democracy, Democrats will spare no effort to restrict voter choice.
And just in case that seems a bit harsh, roll the tape back to February of this year, when a group of ex-pols alleged that the No Labels group (which has since collapsed) and its ambitions to run an independent presidential ticket could push the nation into a “constitutional crisis.” Not because a No Labels candidate would win. But because such a candidate might actually get enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives.
As the ex-pols note in a letter to the No Labels group, such a thing has happened before. And – spoiler alter!—the system worked (though not without its share of shadiness and controversy).
Despite this, the one-time office occupants warned that should the modern House be forced to decide such an election, all hell would break loose. And as for the concept of giving voters more choices on the ballot…Yeah. Not a good idea:
We can sympathize with the desire to give voters more choices at the ballot in November 2024. In the abstract, that is a laudable goal. But our elections are not theoretical. They are bound by laws and rules, and frustration with the political status quo is no excuse for recklessly disregarding the consequences of one's electoral decisions. Because a successful No Labels presidential campaign would almost assuredly trigger a contingent election, we are hopeful you will divert your time, resources, and public standing to more constructive ends. [emphasis added]
Rarely have the major parties spoken more clearly, and honestly, about the contempt, and fear they have of democracy and voters.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
