Here, well if moving matters towards the mosh pit is what posters find entertaining, be my guest. But the law will need to be changed. In the interim, presumably it should be enforced, unless following the rule of law is proving to be getting boring as well.
Torie, the law is being followed by the posters who had their ballots invalidated. Making a statement is not inherently a form of electioneering. If it were, ballots from every election in the past would have been invalidated. There is a long tradition of people writing in short statements. That doesn't mean they are advocating on behalf of a candidate, or against another. How is BRTD or Hashemite telling anybody what to do in their votes? Are they engaging in political persuasion of some kind? Some undue influence? It's absurd. The law is being selectively interpreted so as to produce a result that is favorable to the person doing the certification. That's plainly obvious and no amount of smugness from you is going to change that.
Well, you have adduced additional facts, and past practice matters, and should be taken into consideration. But it is hardly dispositive if that matter has not been litigated. I did not intend to come off as smug. I was giving my opinion. Anyway, I am not on the court, so I won't be involved in the decision. So Atlasia is "safe" from whatever my point of view might end up being, after fully understanding the law and the facts. Isn't that grand? 
Making a statement critical of a member of a ticket though is by definition "negative campaigning". This is not the same as voting for Fresh Homemade Waffles as Dibble and PiT did/do sometimes, or many other forms of weird statements. This was a direct attack on the not just the VP candidate, but the quality thereof.
It doesn't matter who are you voting for, you are still making a statement that influences the decision of other voters.
"Well if BRTD thinks Blair picked a bad VP, do I really want to vote for that ticket to be President?"
If past practice irregardless of the law carried weight, there would not have been a runoff and I would have been declared the President last weekend as the first preference vote winner. but of course that was a misinterpretation of the law in the previous instances it was done like that. Past non-enforcement is no justification for continued non-enforcement.
