The Substantive Argument Raised by the Democratic-Republicans

The substantive argument is that the two major parties have conspired to keep any valid third party candidate off the ballot for years, especially here in NJ. We were initially blocked from using "Democratic-Republican" as our party name and ballot slogan under a statute that is known to be unconstitutional.  We have a right to assemble, and a right to call our party whatever we wish  ("First Amendment"), as long as it is not EXACTLY that of another major party.

The "Democratic-Republican" party already exists in history, and predates the "Democratic Party", the name adopted by supporters of Andrew Jackson during his first (unsuccessful) campaign for President, in which he opposed John Quincy Adams, a Democratic Republican.  Both of these predate the founding of the modern "Republican" party, which was formed in the 1850's.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to wrap themselves in Jefferson's mantle, but neither are really aligned with the principles of the "Democratic-Republican" party he founded, which favors strict interpretation of the Constitution, strong protections for States' and individual rights, and an abhorrence of Hamilton's Central Banking platform.  

We are promoting the tenets of the "Democratic-Republican" party in our collective candidacy.As the research in preserving our right to the "Democratic-Republican" name expanded, we further discovered that the statute which determines preferred ballot position and major party status in New Jersey is also Constitutionally flawed.  Under the statute, a voter in a primary may cast a ballot for a President and Vice President, a Senator, a Congressman, Freeholders, a Mayor, a Sheriff and Council Persons, or any combination of the above, and these votes are counted as individual ballots for the purpose of "polling" - meeting the required 10% threshold by which a major party retains it's status as such.  

The 10% figure I refer to here is calculated as 10% of the total votes cast for the NJ Assembly in the prior year's State election.  Under this present system, one person walking into a voting booth during the primary may be counted as one vote, or two, or five, or even nine.  They are a single voter, but this absurd language has been interpreted to allow both the Democrats and Republicans to report sufficient primary election turn-out to retain preferred ballot position, a State-funded Primary, and other benefits, which, under a strict interpretation of "one voter = one ballot", both parties have often failed to achieve. (Both parties were, in fact,"decertified" by Judge Fisher in " v ", which was overturned by an extraordinary appellate decision, which we are also seeking to overturn).

It is a fact that, in the primary this past June, over 50,000 too few votes were cast for Mr.Kyrillos and the other Republican primary candidates hoping to represent the Republican Party in the race for the US Senate, which means that, if we were to follow a strict, logical, and Constitutionally conforming method of calculation, the Republican Party loses it's"Major Party" status for this Fall's election - in all offices. It was also not entitled to a primary election held at taxpayer expense, and further does not qualify for preferred position on the ballot.

Where should the NJ Taxpayers go to get their money back? I am certain that, at the very least, the Democratic citizens of New Jersey will demand nothing less. We used the tally for Mr. Kyrillos in calculating the compliance with the 10% threshold, because this office is voted for in every district in NJ, and because there is only one Senate seat open in this election. The history of the shenanigans with respect to the selection of first or second column is well known in political circles, and is described in the lawsuit our party has filed. This is the level of honesty and ethical behavior that we have sadly come to expect from both sides of the "mythical" aisle.

The two parties have entered into a "detente" of sorts, cooperating when necessary to eliminate any competition from a third-party movement. This unlikely partnering to protect the financial interests behind both parties has existed for decades before I was even born, but, if we have our way, and the Constitution has hers, that collusion will be brought to a screeching halt, at least for now.