True Democrat v The Department of Forum Affairs

[True Democrat]

Just to let the court know, once the results of this election have been certified, I will be bringing this up in court:

The vote of True Democrat in the Senate Election

Here's my vote again:

District 5
1. Mr. Hobbes
2.Gabu

This was a tough choice, and I like Gabu, but I just think we should give someone else a chance.

has been invalidated for campaigning since he is explaining why he voted.

One question though, can the court make a ruling before the results are certified?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I certainly have no objection if the court rules before the vote is certified.

[TomC]

Possibly, though we need to discuss if we will officially hear this and rule on it.

True Democrat, we ruled recently on:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Independent_Liberal_Party_v._Department_of_Forum_Affairs

which has a similar principle. Now, in the above case we were asked to void a ballot that the plaintiff felt was campaigning in the thread and the SoFA had counted. Here, the vote was voided and we're being asked by the plaintiff to count it (I assume). My question to you is, why should we depart from the precedent we set that upheld the law that campaigning in the booth invalidates a ballot? How is this case different?

I have notified the other Justices of your request.

[Gabu]

This is goofy.  Simply explaining one's vote is in no way "campaigning", in that it does not encourage other people to act likewise.

[True Democrat]

I will make my defense when I get home from school, so proabably at about 4:00PM.

[minionofmidas]

We've had very many ballots with comments similar to True's over which noone ever complained. It's not really anything like Sam's so it's not that powerful a precedent.
Although I can sort of see the point of Ernest's argument... "we should give someone else a chance" certainly can be interpreted as campaigning.
However, we've often had ballots with write-in votes such as "damn, can't make up my mind between these two sh!ty / excellent candidates" followed by the voter making up his mind - ie, he's actually praising the candidate he's not voting for (as True is also doing, sort of, in the first part of his statement.) And then there's the voters who begin they're ballots "sorry, x" before voting for y over x.
If the court rules in such a way as to make it possible to rule all such ballots invalid, I would find that highly, highly infortunate.

[Alcon]

I do think this constitutes campaigning.  On the other hand, I do not think that campaigning of this type should be illegal.  Perhaps we should change the law to only affect cases where the voter is telling others who to vote for directly, or is smearing the opponent.

I do not see any reason to object to "campaigning" of this type.

[TomC]

I hear what you guys are saying, but here's my concern on this (and this should not be taken as a ruling, I'm still listening to arguments:

It's not simply a matter of the court deciding if this ballot contains campaigning, although that's a part. It is a matter of our overturning a decision of the Secretary, who by law has the authority to conduct elections. So, to me, the plaintiff's burden is to prove not that the ballot can be interpreted one way, but that the SoFA made an error in interpreting it the way he did- that it wasn't a reasonable interpretation.

In ILP v DoFA, Sam's vote may well have been more egregiously campaigning in the thread, but the SoFA, Q, made ZERO defense of his decision, and told us basically, to interpret it.

Again, we aren't just being asked to interpret the vote and the statement, but to declare the SoFA has made an error in law or interpretation.

[True Democrat]

I'm really sorry to the Supreme Court, but I'm actually leaving now for the weekend.  Would you mind if I just made my case when I come back on Sunday?

[Q]

In ILP v DoFA, Sam's vote may well have been more egregiously campaigning in the thread, but the SoFA, Q, made ZERO defense of his decision, and told us basically, to interpret it.

I thought that making normative statements about any of the candidates constituted campaigning, and because it seemed so obvious to me, I decided to let the Court decide the definition of campaigning for itself.  I'm not sure that the Court has yet defined what constitutes "campaigning" -- I hope that it will in this case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just for the record, I am taking as campaigning anything that states a reason to vote for or vote against one or more candidates.  If True Democrat had confined himself to "This was a tough choice."  I would not have considered it as campaigning, but he continued on to give a reason to vote against Gabu with "I just think we should give someone else a chance." and thus crossed the threshold into the realm of what constitutes campaigning in my opinion.

[jerusalemcar5]

Just for the record, I am taking as campaigning anything that states a reason to vote for or vote against one or more candidates.  If True Democrat had confined himself to "This was a tough choice."  I would not have considered it as campaigning, but he continued on to give a reason to vote against Gabu with "I just think we should give someone else a chance." and thus crossed the threshold into the realm of what constitutes campaigning in my opinion.

I agree that it is campaigning, but I also believe his vote shouldn't have been invalidated before the vote was certified.

[True Democrat]

I think I'm going to withdraw this case.  I can't find anyone to represent me, and the last time, when I represented myself, it was a complete failure.  If anyone wants to be my lawyer, let me know.

[Emsworth]

I think I'm going to withdraw this case.  I can't find anyone to represent me, and the last time, when I represented myself, it was a complete failure.  If anyone wants to be my lawyer, let me know.

Since others have already made arguments on your behalf (see Lewis Trondheim's post above, for example), you might as well leave this case with us. I think that it is important that the definition of "campaigning" be settled once and for all.

[TomC]

I think I'm going to withdraw this case.  I can't find anyone to represent me, and the last time, when I represented myself, it was a complete failure.  If anyone wants to be my lawyer, let me know.

Since others have already made arguments on your behalf (see Lewis Trondheim's post above, for example), you might as well leave this case with us. I think that it is important that the definition of "campaigning" be settled once and for all.

I agree.

[Colin]

I think I'm going to withdraw this case.  I can't find anyone to represent me, and the last time, when I represented myself, it was a complete failure.  If anyone wants to be my lawyer, let me know.

Since others have already made arguments on your behalf (see Lewis Trondheim's post above, for example), you might as well leave this case with us. I think that it is important that the definition of "campaigning" be settled once and for all.

I agree.

I agree as well.

[True Democrat]

I think I'll just do what the justices suggested, but I'd like to say one thing.

My intention in voting was in no way to influence other people's votes.  I simply wanted to show both candidates my high level of respect, and I just wanted to explain my actions.  That comment at the end was really only intended for me, Gabu, and Mr. Hobbes, but I felt my vote was the best place to put it.  Thank you, and I'm sure you'll decide wisely, like always.

[Peter]

If it may please the Court, I wish to make a brief submission:

In ILP v. DoFA, this Court decided a similar incident regarding campaigning in the voting booth.

In your opinion, I believe you announced a constitutional standard that can be easily applied here (and future cases on the matter), namely you described the vote in that case as containing "analytical and persuasive remarks", and this appears to have been your reasoning for ordering the vote discounted. It is my opinion that you should once again apply that standard and judge whether the vote contains "analytical and persuasive remarks" to determine whether it is campaigning in the voting booth.