Balanced against the potential for confusion is the intent expressed by at least 2,000 Minnesota registered voters that their candidates and presidential electors appear as representatives of the Reform Party. Those Minnesota voters indicated their desire to have Hagelin and Gold-haber on the ballot as representatives of the principles espoused by the Reform Party, and we do not lightly set aside their wishes. Instead we find a strong presumption in favor of giving effect to the wishes of those nominators. Indeed, this court has allowed the party name on the ballot to differ from that on the nominating petition in only two instances. In both instances the court acted to give effect to the party name protection act, however. See Lind v. Scott, 87 Minn. 316, 318, 92 N.W. 96, 97 (1902) (<HOLDING>); Davidson v. Hanson, 87 Minn. 211, 220, 92
holding petition nominating candidate under socialist party violated the act where socialist labor party was entitled to protection of party name protection act holding petition nominating candidate under social democratic party violated party name protection act holding that an oklahoma law placing democratic party candidates in the highest ballot positions violated the equal protection clause holding that a party to an administrative proceeding failed to effectively obtain judicial review where the party filed a response to another partys petition rather than a separate petition holding that in an armslength transaction there is no duty on either party to act for the benefit or protection of the other party