Look what the court just did...

[Virginiá]

First, I think there are serious constitutional issues with throwing out votes due to anti-campaigning ban in general. Sure, it's a good idea, but not something the Atlasia constitution currently seems to permit unless you're interpreting the amendment so broad that it essentially allows the govt to deny votes for any reason it wants.

Second, at least from my perspective, insulting someone in the ballot hardly seems like campaigning. Are we saying that anyone stating any opinion of a candidate counts as campaigning? Basically anyone who weighs in on an election would be campaigning then, no? The voting booth should be for votes only and not side opinions or insults, but to call it campaigning is a bit of a stretch.

Third, isn't there a big conflict of interest here? Why is the sec. of federal elections allowed to supervise their own election? Everything else aside, that is crazy! Someone else should have at least been temporarily assigned duties for this particular election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Definitely something that is needed. The campaigning law needs to be clarified. The right to vote in the constitution needs to be made less ambiguous and there needs to be a way to avoid conflicts of interest like this situation as well.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What part of "ballots are for ballots" is so hard to understand?

Seriously? I'm speaking to the constitutionality of the law in general that allows him to throw out votes, not about what the statute says about "ballots are for ballots." Look, if you want to get an attitude here, that's fine I guess, it seems to be pretty common around this topic so far, but at least take a second to read what I said.

I'm saying that there is, imo, a strong case to be made that by the Atlasia constitution on who can be the denied the right to vote, that laws regulating things like this are not constitutional.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look, if you want to argue about the party affiliations of Supreme Court justices, that's one thing. But in this case we are talking about a election supervisor who is running in the election he is supervising. There is a direct conflict of interest that, if you were to rank it with the SC issue, would rank higher.

And your "whataboutism" doesn't make this issue moot. The election supervisor should not be managing his own election. Period.

-

Are you saying I'm not qualified? If so, not qualified for what? I'm just having a discussion here.

[Virginiá]

Spoiling your ballot is not the same thing as 'being denied the right to vote'. You had the right to vote, you just didn't do it properly. Follow directions like the other 75 people who successfully cast a ballot and you'll do just fine.

They used the write-in field to air their grievances. They didn't just pepper the post left and right with extras. Is there some sort of regulation that specifies the exact format, keyboard characters, spacing, etc for the write-in field? If not, then they used that space properly.

So by doing that they didn't spoil their ballot. Their ballots were thrown out for a separate activity that as I said, the constitution doesn't seem to give the govt the ability to regulate (even if the regulation is reasonable, as I believe it is)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dunno.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just got here. I'm a member of Labor but I do not represent the party's collective opinion on this, if there even is one, so you're just asking the wrong person that question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's my personal opinion. Such a setup sounds like a North Korean election to me.

(ftr I don't think pryor entered into this with the goal to game anything, just that this conflict of interest should have been mitigated beforehand)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? Are you saying "It's been going on for a while" makes a law constitutional?

[Virginiá]

That's not what the ballot box is for. They can make political comments in every other thread here on Atlasia, just not that one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh my god lol. You really don't get it. I'm going to say this one more time:

1. Atlasia has a constitution, which is a big part of a political game like this.
2. People have to obey the constitution, whether they like the provision or not and whether or not they think it fair, and if they don't think it is fair, they challenge it or try to change in permitted ways.
3. The right to vote in this constitution appears to be pretty strict and allows little room to enact any laws that throw out ballots. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or if you're mad your candidate lost or got a tie.

You don't even seem interested in debating the constitutionality anyway. Not once have you even mentioned the amendment in question. You just keep going back to irrelevant arguments like "it's been going on forever" and "there is a law against this," which completely ignores the point of this argument - that the law is moot because it's unconstitutional. The Constitution has rights enshrined in it to prevent legislators from easily trampling over them, and you're almost acting like there is no constitution and the lawmaker's statutes are sacrosanct.

There is no partisan angle from me here, Kenobi. I've read this forum for maybe a couple hours total since I joined last week. I have no stake right now in any party, despite my initial affiliation. I simply saw an argument about the constitutionality that made sense to me and was pertinent here, and you keep acting like I'm being partisan with my own agenda here. Just stop. If you don't give a hoot about the constitutionality, then leave me alone.

And stop being a fking jerk. Just chill out. You've been rampaging around huffing and puffing about this and quite frankly you need to take a breath and acknowledge that this is just a game and maybe you should be a little more respectful instead of looking at everyone who disagrees with you as some bullseye you have to hit.

I'm done with conversation as it is. Just going in circles with you about things not even related to what I was arguing is a waste of my time and yours.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, with that June 7 ruling, it should have been clear that any laws permitting the SoFE to invalidate ballots for any reasons other than the strict 168 hour limit and other post #-thresholds should have been invalid and thus not in effect for this election:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was defined already, and I think there was a failure of communication in letting pryor know this. Perhaps he should have been expected to digest the ruling himself, but it's not up to him to draw conclusions on which laws are affected or not, is it?

Shouldn't the Supreme Court evaluate relevant statutes and determine which are affected and thus no longer in effect, and then post a list so people are aware of the new rules?