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.
