Look what the court just did...

[Wisconsin+17]

I'm all for banning all languages other than English. It's common sense legislation. Xahar's asshattery shouldn't make a hard job unnecessarily harder.

As for campaigning, most jurisdictions effectively ban campaigning within the poll booth itself. I think the only way to enforce it would be to invalidate the ballot of the one posting anything other than a ballot. We should be able to tighten it up a bit.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. It's not a discussion thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anything that's not a ballot doesn't belong in a ballot thread. Ballots that are spoiled are invalidated. If you write Dicks out for Harambe on your ballot, it's still spoiled and invalidated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see. You've appointed a Supreme Court Justice from a temporary president who just happens to be a laborite, pissed all over an election where the due winner North Carolina Yankee still hasn't been seated.

And you're complaining about partisanship? FFS.

Gass should be tossed toute de suite.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are you ramming through Gass as a supreme court nominee? If she's just goined the game a week ago she is not qualified.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you are talking about ballot regulations. That's the entire topic of the thread. Should there be campaigning in the voting booth? No. You've said you agree with the ban. Tossing out spoiled ballots is an appropriate consequence for spoiling your ballot.

Don't want your ballot spoiled? Don't spoil your ballot.

Everyone else managed to correctly cast a ballot without spoiling it. Obviously every other voter was well aware of the ban on campaigning on the thread. So ignorance is not a defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did the Labor party file a complaint about Rpryor prior to this election?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't rpryor's first rodeo. Clearly the Labor party was ok with him before. Why the change now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great. Then you can point out to the principle of the constitution that says that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was unclear as to whether Siren was referring to Gass, whom Labor is attempting to ram through, or yourself.

If you've been here a week, you have a lot of ground to cover. Invalidation for campaigning has been enforced all the time I've been here.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same. I'm not a Federalist either and I think that Truman should step down as Temporary president due to abuse of his office.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, then Labor should withdraw the allegations of a conflict of interest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labor's complaint is based on the conflict of interest - which as you've stated is based on a situation prior to the election being conducted. If Labor had issues with rpryor conducting this election, despite being a candidate, then they should have filed the case then. They did not.

I'm not aware of any constitutional issues barring folks from running in elections as SofE. It's not stated anywhere I can see. We already have a hard enough time filling these thankless tasks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the current situation is better? Tossing out election results you don't like sets a horrible precedent for future atlasian elections.

Yankee still hasn't been seated for an election he won over a month ago. The election is over, Labor lost. They need to move on and let Yankee serve the term he's earned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not just remove every single non-Laborite while you're at it? Frankly I trust rpryor much more than I do Labor, especially given how they've conducted themselves this election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the votes have been tossed out before. This is just an issue now because Labor lost because their voters couldn't follow the rules.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

If you believe the regulation is reasonable then you should obey the regulation when it's contrary to your own best interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, then. If there's nothing constitutionally against Rpryor doing so, then I can't see how you have a leg to stand on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely. Did Labor do so? Nope. They waited until after they lost the election to file the complaint. Apparently rpryor's impartiality only came into question after they lost, not before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which brings us back to my earlier point. There are plenty of ballot regulations. Are those unconstitutional too? Seems pretty important that if the vast, vast majority of people here know the rules of casting a ballot that those rules remain the same. Changing the rules when you lose isn't exactly cricket.

If, as you've stated, that the rules are the issues - seat Yankee and change the rules after.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given the attempt by Labor to pack the court, it's plain as day how they've responded ever since they lost the election.