Department of Federal Elections: Rpryor03, SOFE

[Torie]

How in any way were Hash and BRTD "campaigning"?

It's certainly open to interpretation.  It's clear that the Secretary benefits from his own interpretation.

That's why we have courts. Bear in mind, that if the votes count, it will open the door for voters to make all kinds of comments in the voting booth, and then the courts will need to have full time judges to handle all of the litigation. In fact, knowing this place, some voters will make a point of testing the limits, just for kicks. Bright line tests are best here. Just say nothing in the voting booth.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bear in mind, that if the votes count, it will open the door for voters to make all kinds of comments in the voting booth

I fail to see why this is a problem. Why is there a rule against this at all?

[Torie]

Bear in mind, that if the votes count, it will open the door for voters to make all kinds of comments in the voting booth

I fail to see why this is a problem. Why is there a rule against this at all?

It attempts to replicate the law out there in the other place, where electioneering around the polling places is banned. Perhaps you don't see a problem with that either. But most folks do. That is in the real world. 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. 

[Ebowed]

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.

[Torie]

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When we were drawing all these rules up back in the good old days we would NEVER have considered a sarcastic message added to a ballot (say as a write-in or whatever) to be an example of CAMPAIGNING IN THE VOTING BOOTH.

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.

I know you aren't particularly bright but I'll spell it out anyway: there is a fundamental difference between incorrect application of the law and all precedent.

[Torie]

When we were drawing all these rules up back in the good old days we would NEVER have considered a sarcastic message added to a ballot (say as a write-in or whatever) to be an example of CAMPAIGNING IN THE VOTING BOOTH.

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.

I know you aren't particularly bright but I'll spell it out anyway: there is a fundamental difference between incorrect application of the law and all precedent.

Who is "we?" Or are you using the term in the royal sense, you Brit you?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Making a statement critical of a member of a ticket though is by definition "negative campaigning".

How did I miss this first time? No, no it isn't. Negative campaigning is when you attack candidates that you oppose. Slagging off your own side is a lot of things, but that it is most certainly not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who is "we?"

The people who created the game during its early years.

[Torie]

Who is "we?"

The people who created the game during its early years.

That's grand. No doubt you will produce the written legislative history for the court, where it reveals the statutory intent that if you write on your ballot on a candidate line, that the candidate sucks (which is exactly what happened here), as long as it's meant as sarcastic (perhaps you will need to have an expert in mind reading as an expert witness to prove up such intent, unless you plan to take the perp's word for it), it is not electioneering. Or perhaps the line here, is that it is OK to trash a candidate, as long as you vote for the candidate (or the running mate of said suck candidate at least). Oh I see above that that is exactly your line of defense - electioneering is fine as long as it is against your own candidate. 

What is the law about voting for POTUS but not for the running mate? Or are the two tied at the hip, so voting for the VP is irrelevant? I notice that Badger just voted for "Blair," so perhaps voting for the VP is irrelevant, thereby opening up the line to comment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Plus, people have been making silly protest comments on their ballots since forever.  I did myself in the recent Northern elections here in protest of only two Assembly candidates bothering to declare.

Now while the comments I wrote might not be interpreted as an attack or an embrace of a certain poster, it was nonetheless me expressing dissatisfaction with the choices (or lack of choices) we had.

People frequently vote this way when somebody they dislike is on the ballot, too.  I could have written "an actual pile of dog feces" over the candidates for Senate.  Would that really be considered any less offensive or demeaning than what BRTD wrote?

[Torie]

Plus, people have been making silly protest comments on their ballots since forever.  I did myself in the recent Northern elections here in protest of only two Assembly candidates bothering to declare.

Now while the comments I wrote might not be interpreted as an attack or an embrace of a certain poster, it was nonetheless me expressing dissatisfaction with the choices (or lack of choices) we had.

People frequently vote this way when somebody they dislike is on the ballot, too.  I could have written "an actual pile of dog feces" over the candidates for Senate.  Would that really be considered any less offensive or demeaning than what BRTD wrote?

Not that it is legally dispositive (see my post above), but your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find a vote that included text trashing a candidate that drew no objection. No one has adduced any such post yet. Yours was just along the lines of idle doodling on your ballot. I might add, that in my state, any mark on the ballot whatsoever, other than your penciling in the circle, invalidates your ballot, but my state has its own laws, so on that I merely digress.

[Хahar 🤔]

It attempts to replicate the law out there in the other place, where electioneering around the polling places is banned. Perhaps you don't see a problem with that either. But most folks do. That is in the real world.

Oddly, in "the real world" we don't have elections where all ballots are publicly visible. But please, try to condescend more.

[Torie]

It attempts to replicate the law out there in the other place, where electioneering around the polling places is banned. Perhaps you don't see a problem with that either. But most folks do. That is in the real world.

Oddly, in "the real world" we don't have elections where all ballots are publicly visible. But please, try to condescend more.

I am well aware of that. That is why I said it was a mere digression (making extraneous markings on your ballot; even if your vote is public I don't think that it necessarily follows, that electioneering in the voting booth is therefore just ducky, so that is not a mere digression at all). I probably am condescending a bit. I apologize. It is just that I find the legal arguments here unpersuasive, and/or not supported by any written evidence. So that all drew out the lawyer in me, and the sharp knives.

You should thank me really. I am helping your side to discern, and have time to deal with, as best one can, the weaknesses in your case, and doing it all pro bono for you. Isn't that most generous of me?

[windjammer]

Guys
If you wish to talk about the Supreme Court cases, just to remind you there is a thread dedicated to it in the atlas government board.
Best regards,
WJ

[Torie]

Guys
If you wish to talk about the Supreme Court cases, just to remind you there is a thread dedicated to it in the atlas government board.
Best regards,
WJ

Very diplomatically put, Mr. President.   Or are you on the Supreme Court? I'm what you call a low information voter.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why don't you run along now and look at some mortgage documents or whatever it is you do and leave all this fantasyland election law stuff to people who actually understand it, hmm?

[Torie]

Why don't you run along now and look at some mortgage documents or whatever it is you do and leave all this fantasyland election law stuff to people who actually understand it, hmm?

I look forward to reading your amicus brief so that you can educate me on all of this. You know, for a socialist, or whatever you are out there on the Left, you certainly have managed to get the elitist act down pat. You put me to shame in that department Al. 

[Dereich]

Guys
If you wish to talk about the Supreme Court cases, just to remind you there is a thread dedicated to it in the atlas government board.
Best regards,
WJ

Very diplomatically put, Mr. President.   Or are you on the Supreme Court? I'm what you call a low information voter.

He is the chief justice. His title comes from a game being run by Lumine outside of Atlasia.

The thread that Windjammer was referring to is located here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104788

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Secretary,

Per the Motion to Call a Referendum on the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Atlasia, which I signed into law moments ago, a national referendum on the Atlasian British Common Market Agreement (ABCMA) is to be held from November 11 to 13, 2016.

Regards,
Harry S Truman
Interim President

[rpryor03]

Thank you, Mr. President

[rpryor03]

On the Referendum, the results are:

YES - 22
NO - 9

[windjammer]

A majority of the court sides with BaconKing, the votes of BRTD and hashemite must be counted.

A majority opinion  and a dissenting opinion will be written later.
Regards,
The Supreme Court

[Modernity has failed us]

A majority of the court sides with BaconKing, the votes of BRTD and hashemite must be counted.

A majority opinion  and a dissenting opinion will be written later.
Regards,
The Supreme Court

So this quite literally means that the runoff election ended in an exact tie?