Rather than Replicating Efforts in Wisconsin, De La Fuente Files in Other States
29 Nov

Rather than Replicating Efforts in Wisconsin, De La Fuente Files in Other States

November 29, 2016 – Those who are paying attention to our political system know that I was the first presidential candidate to file a petition for recount in the State of Wisconsin last week. Since then, Jill Stein jumped on the bandwagon, raised millions of dollars by using Democratic donor lists, and attracted the support of the Clinton campaign. Due to those change of circumstances, I have elected to withdraw my petition for a recount in Wisconsin.

If you are wondering why, let me clarify it for you.

I have been championing election reform throughout the entire general election. I have experienced what it’s like to be denied ballot access, to have faced election manipulation, and even suffered election fraud. I know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud and do not conflate the two. I also know that we have to expose the system before we can pressure our elected officials to fix it. Wisconsin was a first step toward exposing the need for validation in our system.

One of the tactics the parties use throughout the process is the establishment of economic barriers. In the case of Wisconsin, had I proceeded alone, I would have been presented with a $3.5 million burden. Even with Jill entering into the equation, I would be facing a $1.75 million fee (not including attorney’s fees). While I have been blessed with above average success in the private sector, I cannot afford to pay those kinds of fees.

On the other hand, Jill’s team has been able to tap into Democratic donors who are disenchanted with the prospects of a Trump presidency to the tune of more than $6.2 million in just a few days. Therefore, she doesn’t need my support in Wisconsin.

Jill also has filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania; two other states in which the results were close. It is difficult to ignore that Hillary Clinton lost each of these states (including Wisconsin) and would become the President-elect if all three were to “flip” as the result of a recount. Obviously, that’s why the Clinton camp has now engaged in the recount process in contradiction to Hillary’s strong words against challenging the election results.

Conversely, my only interest is to create a nationwide awareness of the vulnerability of our election system and to do everything possible to assure that your vote counts for the candidate for whom it is cast.

As such, I will be redirecting my efforts to spot check two states: Florida, which President-elect Trump won, but which has a reputation for orchestrating tainted elections; and Nevada, which former-Secretary Clinton won after winning that state’s caucus during the Democratic primary in a way that should have raised eyebrows. Both states have “earned” the right to be audited, the limited recounts won’t be prohibitively expensive, and neither candidate will be unfairly favored.

Recounts at this level are a serious proposition. They need to be addressed in a non-partisan manner if their integrity is to be maintained. Auditing only states whose results would be advantageous to a particular candidate is not the way to do it.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

(Please feel free to express your opinion below. My only request is that you do so rationally rather than emotionally and in a civil manner that respects the rights of others to disagree.)

Comments are closed.