How is it not justice considering as she referenced there is precedent for doing so. What you tried to do was circumvent the law by moving and then deleting/editing the evidence before anyone could see it. Only mob guys would consider that to be just.
Then why did I put Alaska rather than, say, Kentucky?
It's obvious what happened is that I copy-pasted off Fhtagn's post right above, to save time and then didn't catch my error. When I did catch it I immediately changed it to Texas, which is what I should have done in the first place, all within 20 minutes.
You are letting your emotions cloud your judgement here.
What possible motivation would I have to try to circumvent the law? I haven't voted in quite some time, and I've missed Southern elections for which I was eligible to vote. There's no advantage to me being registered in Fremont from a tactical standpoint, and certainly not as a member of a minor party. Tactically, me being in Fremont is worse, rather than better.
We have move restrictions to cut down on strategic registration, which is very harmful to the regions and to regional interests.
Agreed. I have no issue with move restrictions. I just see a cool-down period as the appropriate means to accommodate situations like this. I'm surely not going to be the only one who gets tripped up by them. We have had them in the past and the current law should have this too.
Now I would agree the addendum at the end could cloud ones interpretation of the action taken, but that doesn't change the circumstances regarding the action itself. A conservative should oppose arbitrary law and a federalist conservative cares about the impacts on the regions.
I don't see how ruling based on the intent of the action constitutes arbitrary law. Intent is important.
