Department of Justice – Attorney General Truman

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Department of Justice


Office of the Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Nyman, D.C.


Image Credit: Own work.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Rpryor03 is named Deputy Attorney General without portfolio.

The following is prescribed as the Seal of the Department of Justice: a balanced pair of scales, encircled by the style of the department, and three stars beneath to signify the three regions of the republic.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

[Former President tack50]

It might be a good idea to have Atlasia's criminal code posted in the DoJ's office. As controversial as AZ's tenure was, that was one thing where he was right.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Department of Justice
Re: S.19.3-6, the "Economic Freedom Zones Act"

The Southern Chamber of Delegates have in recent weeks taken up consideration of S.19.3-6, otherwise known as the "Economic Freedom Zones Act." Included in this legislation is §3.iii(2), which reads as follows.

(2)   Suspend and nullify all federal regulations in areas designated as Economic Freedom Zones

(1)

Article II§3(i) of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia reserves to the regions "the powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions." (2) The authority to alter or annul regulations set in place by the executive government of Atlasia is reserved by Article III§6(xiv) of the same to the Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled, which bestows on them full power "to make laws necessary for the enforcement of the Constitution and federal law." (3) Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority to amend or nullify executive regulations since ratification of the Fourth Constitution. As executive regulations pertain to the manner in which federal law is to be enforced and carried out, the power to either create or destroy them is properly a federal power. As such, the regions have no right by the Constitution to amend or annul regulations set in place by the executive government of Atlasia, in whole or in part, in any part of their territory. S.19.3-6 is, accordingly, an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Department of Justice
Re: Memorandum Concerning Order 48-006 by the President of Atlasia, for Official Use

As of the 20th instant, the president has issued, in his capacity as head of the executive government of Atlasia, an order, containing the following, to wit:

The office, powers and portfolio of the Secretary of Internal Affairs is hereby consolidated into the office of Attorney General, which shall retain its current appointment (Harry S Truman).

(1)

It is the opinion of this office, that the language concerning those powers formerly of the Secretary of Internal Affairs now being under the administration of the Attorney General, namely "the office, powers, and portfolio of the Secretary of Internal Affairs," refers to the assignment given that office in consequence of Orders No. 42-001 and 42-003 by the President of Atlasia (2)(3); and that therefore the Attorney General is now the proper administrative head of those departments formerly organized as the Department of Internal Affairs.

And whereas, the aforementioned order of the 20th instant does not disestablish the Department of Internal Affairs, but merely names the Attorney General the head of it: it shall be hereafter understood that the Attorney General serves dually as the head of the Department of Justice and of the Department of Internal Affairs, which remain distinctly organized in their various branches and offices, in all respects coequal, but under the administration of a single officer.


Appendix A.

[Former President tack50]

Uh, I think this is somewhat different from say, the Peebs scenario (where she is both RG and SoFE, but the 2 offices are separate and she could easily be fired from one and kept in the other)

I think now there is only a single office, the office of Attorney General, which also absorbs all the powers of the office of SoIA?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Uh, I think this is somewhat different from say, the Peebs scenario (where she is both RG and SoFE, but the 2 offices are separate and she could easily be fired from one and kept in the other)

I think now there is only a single office, the office of Attorney General, which also absorbs all the powers of the office of SoIA?

Correct. However, the office of the Attorney General is and has always been separate from the Justice Department. When we refer to the Attorney General, we invoke three distinct yet mutually involved persons: the position within the cabinet created by Order 42-002, the current occupant of that position, and the administrative unit which exists to carry out the functions assigned to the Attorney General in the aforementioned order. (In much the same way, we could refer to the incumbent president, the presidency, and the West Wing as the three persons constituting the "Office of the President.") The third of these—the capital "Office of the Attorney General"—is itself a piece within the executive branch overseeing the larger Department of Justice, and now the departments formerly led by the Secretary of Internal Affairs as well.

The situation is indeed very different from the one Peebs finds herself in, because she has been appointed to two distinct offices (Registrar General and Secretary of Federal Elections) which overlap only in the sense that the same person occupies both. In that situation, there may still be conflict between the administrative function of the former versus the latter. This is not the case with the Attorney General, because he (I) is a single officer, and not two offices occupied by the same person. In practice, however, we assume that the Attorney General does not personally perform every menial task of executive government: there are, presumably, legions of NPC bureaucrats who continue to exist, and those bureaucrats are still organized as distinct departments (Justice, Treasury, Commerce, and so on). The only difference is that while the DoJ and the DoT prior to August 20 reported to different principal officers, they now report to the same officer—the Attorney General.

TL;DR—the positions of AG and SoIA have indeed been consolidated; however, we must assume the departments they oversaw continue to exist (as opposed to all ten being consolidated as one mega-department), otherwise you'd have NPS rangers running the Philadelphia Mint and public defenders setting education policy.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Department of Internal Affairs
Re: Confirmed cases of novel coranovavirus in Everett and Newark

Hours ago, we received confirmation that two Atlasian nationals have been hospitalized with novel coronavirus in Everett, Washington and Newark, New Jersey. Current information suggests they contracted the virus while traveling in China and began presenting symptoms shortly after their return to Atlasia four days ago. Acting through the Subdepartment of Health and Human Services, in accordance with the powers vested in this office by Order No. 48-006, the following measures will take effect immediately.

• A Level Three travel advisory is now in effect for Wuhan City, China.
• A Level One travel advisory is now in effect for all of mainland China outside Wuhan.
• Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington and Beth Israel hospital in Newark, New Jersey are placed under quarantine.
• Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Newark Liberty International Airport, and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport will cooperate fully with the SdHHS to identify passengers and crew who may have been exposed to the virus so that they may be tested.

A list of symptoms is available at the CDC website. Any person recently arrived from China, or who was present in Newark Liberty International Airport or Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, or believes they may otherwise have been exposed to the virus is strongly encouraged to report to the CDC for testing. We urge the public to remain calm as we continue to monitor this situation.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Department of Internal Affairs
Re: Amtrak

In accordance with the provisions of 2 49 A.C. 24308(c), Amtrak shall be given priority over frieght when running over private railroads.

[cinyc]

Department of Internal Affairs
Re: Amtrak

In accordance with the provisions of 2 49 A.C. 24308(c), Amtrak shall be given priority over frieght when running over private railroads.

Is the government of Atlasia going to compensate the privately-run railroads for this taking of their property without compensation?

[Poirot]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

[OBD]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

This is legal - the khuzifenq/cookiedamage controversy last election resolved this.

[Sirius_]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

This is legal - the khuzifenq/cookiedamage controversy last election resolved this.

Was it actually decided by the court, or was it "resolved" as in people stopped arguing about it for a while?

[OBD]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

This is legal - the khuzifenq/cookiedamage controversy last election resolved this.

Was it actually decided by the court, or was it "resolved" as in people stopped arguing about it for a while?

I mean, I think there was gonna be some kind of legal challenge as the election was tied and this thing decided it, but then the challengers decided not to bring the case to court. I'm assuming this was because they realized there was no legal basis for challenging those votes, and as an involved party I'm sure this situation is similarly legally unimpeachable.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

This is legal - the khuzifenq/cookiedamage controversy last election resolved this.

Was it actually decided by the court, or was it "resolved" as in people stopped arguing about it for a while?

Was really just people stopped arguing, no case was ever brought to the court. However, IIRC there was a similar case a few years back (I don't recall the users involved), where the Court wasn't necessarily pleased with anyone's actions but declined to convict or sanction anyone.

[Former President tack50]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

[Sirius_]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

Well, in the real world sending people flyers for the election, probably the closest thing to PMing, is most definitely not fraud, but telling somebody to go back into the booth and vote for the "correct candidate" certainly would be illegal. I don't see why people consider it acceptable regardless of legality anyway, if people vote a way that you don't like you should honestly just deal with it and this whole PMing people afterwards thing is a total abuse of the grace period which was only intended for mistakes, not post-vote campaigning. I'd like to see a system where people's posts in the booth are anonymous until after the election ends but I have no idea if the forum is even capable of that.

[OBD]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

Well, in the real world sending people flyers for the election, probably the closest thing to PMing, is most definitely not fraud, but telling somebody to go back into the booth and vote for the "correct candidate" certainly would be illegal. I don't see why people consider it acceptable regardless of legality anyway, if people vote a way that you don't like you should honestly just deal with it and this whole PMing people afterwards thing is a total abuse of the grace period which was only intended for mistakes, not post-vote campaigning. I'd like to see a system where people's posts in the booth are anonymous until after the election ends but I have no idea if the forum is even capable of that.

The bolded idea would be a nightmare for everyone - first off, Virginia would have to put in a ton of work to make it happen, and as literally no one would know the results until later the entire election night vibe will be ruined. It's fair that you hold these opinions, but Atlasia is district from real life - the letter of the law is clear in this case, and at least in my purview it is not unacceptable to operate for your party and ideals within the boundaries of the legal system.

[Sirius_]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

Well, in the real world sending people flyers for the election, probably the closest thing to PMing, is most definitely not fraud, but telling somebody to go back into the booth and vote for the "correct candidate" certainly would be illegal. I don't see why people consider it acceptable regardless of legality anyway, if people vote a way that you don't like you should honestly just deal with it and this whole PMing people afterwards thing is a total abuse of the grace period which was only intended for mistakes, not post-vote campaigning. I'd like to see a system where people's posts in the booth are anonymous until after the election ends but I have no idea if the forum is even capable of that.

The bolded idea would be a nightmare for everyone - first off, Virginia would have to put in a ton of work to make it happen, and as literally no one would know the results until later the entire election night vibe will be ruined. It's fair that you hold these opinions, but Atlasia is district from real life - the letter of the law is clear in this case, and at least in my purview it is not unacceptable to operate for your party and ideals within the boundaries of the legal system.

People in Atlasia have a right to vote for any candidate that they want, regardless of party. If someone in my party doesn't vote for my party's candidate I don't try to change it because I respect their right to vote for any candidate they want to. It would seem that Labor does not respect this and tries desperately to change people's votes if they don't vote the way that they wanted them. There is a campaigning time and then there is election time. If you've failed to get somebody's vote before the vote then you've failed to truly win their vote. Maybe if you have a defection problem you should try to address the reason why you got defections and try harder next time instead of having a fit every single time on of your members votes for someone else.

[OBD]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

Well, in the real world sending people flyers for the election, probably the closest thing to PMing, is most definitely not fraud, but telling somebody to go back into the booth and vote for the "correct candidate" certainly would be illegal. I don't see why people consider it acceptable regardless of legality anyway, if people vote a way that you don't like you should honestly just deal with it and this whole PMing people afterwards thing is a total abuse of the grace period which was only intended for mistakes, not post-vote campaigning. I'd like to see a system where people's posts in the booth are anonymous until after the election ends but I have no idea if the forum is even capable of that.

The bolded idea would be a nightmare for everyone - first off, Virginia would have to put in a ton of work to make it happen, and as literally no one would know the results until later the entire election night vibe will be ruined. It's fair that you hold these opinions, but Atlasia is district from real life - the letter of the law is clear in this case, and at least in my purview it is not unacceptable to operate for your party and ideals within the boundaries of the legal system.

People in Atlasia have a right to vote for any candidate that they want, regardless of party. If someone in my party doesn't vote for my party's candidate I don't try to change it because I respect their right to vote for any candidate they want to. It would seem that Labor does not respect this and tries desperately to change people's votes if they don't vote the way that they wanted them. There is a campaigning time and then there is election time. If you've failed to get somebody's vote before the vote then you've failed to truly win their vote. Maybe if you have a defection problem you should try to address the reason why you got defections and try harder next time instead of having a fit every single time on of your members votes for someone else.

I would reveal our PMs if it wasn't a despicable violation of privacy, but Labor respects our voters - we never coerce or threaten voters in PMs - otherwise, why would they switch their votes to us? And frankly, you're only complaining about this since, apparently, you've insufficiently won over your voters to a level where a short PM with voting instructions can flip them in less than 20 minutes. Sorry not sorry.

[Sestak]

If someone in my party doesn't vote for my party's candidate I don't try to change it because I respect their right to vote for any candidate they want to. It would seem that Labor does not respect this and tries desperately to change people's votes if they don't vote the way that they wanted them. There is a campaigning time and then there is election time. If you've failed to get somebody's vote before the vote then you've failed to truly win their vote. Maybe if you have a defection problem you should try to address the reason why you got defections and try harder next time instead of having a fit every single time on of your members votes for someone else.

Bro your running mate is literally the originator of this technique. Glass houses etc.

[Continential]

If someone in my party doesn't vote for my party's candidate I don't try to change it because I respect their right to vote for any candidate they want to. It would seem that Labor does not respect this and tries desperately to change people's votes if they don't vote the way that they wanted them. There is a campaigning time and then there is election time. If you've failed to get somebody's vote before the vote then you've failed to truly win their vote. Maybe if you have a defection problem you should try to address the reason why you got defections and try harder next time instead of having a fit every single time on of your members votes for someone else.

Bro your running mate is literally the originator of this technique. Glass houses etc.

I HAD TWO VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR POIROT IN THE HOUSE AND ONE IN THE SENATE INVALIDATED BECAUSE OF THIS.

[Sirius_]

If this is the place to ask the Attorney General a question about election law. Is it legal to contact a voter after they posted a ballot to ask them to edit a ballot, to change the preferences or to add office they didn't fill on the ballot.

Not the attorney general but here is my guess.

Currently, the Federal Electoral Act and the constitution specify the reasons why a ballot can be invalidated (among those, editing after 20 minutes or posting twice are included). However they say nothing about asking people to edit; so I don't think there is a good argument for a civil case.

As for a criminal case, back in the pre-reset days the law was a bit stricter on this regard and there was sort of a precedent involving LeBron Fitzgerald. However our current laws are a bit more relaxed. The relevant crime in Atlasia for something like this would be Electoral Intimidation:

(f) Electoral Intimidation. This offence shall be defined as the placing of undue pressure on a citizen of the Republic to cast a ballot in a particular way, to not cast a ballot at all, or to invalidate a ballot already cast via direct threats of revenge, blackmail, or retribution. In those cases in which undue pressure has been applied in the form of credible threats to disclose personal information, the offence shall be known as Grievous Electoral Intimidation.

So in other words, unless you can prove that a certain voter was blackmailed or intimidated, it seems to be legal.

There is however another crime that could be argued to have happened, that being Election Fraud:

(d) Electoral Fraud. This offence shall be defined as the manipulation of of the republic's electoral procedures and practices with the aim of fraudulently altering the results of a specific electoral contest.

You can argue that PMing someone to invalidate their vote is a manipulation of electoral practices; but that is not the greatest of interpretations. In fact under a very loose interpretation you could even argue that PMing people about the election at all should be illegal!

So I wonder what that crime is meant to prevent but whatever.

TL;DR: I am like 95% sure that PMing someone like that is legal

Well, in the real world sending people flyers for the election, probably the closest thing to PMing, is most definitely not fraud, but telling somebody to go back into the booth and vote for the "correct candidate" certainly would be illegal. I don't see why people consider it acceptable regardless of legality anyway, if people vote a way that you don't like you should honestly just deal with it and this whole PMing people afterwards thing is a total abuse of the grace period which was only intended for mistakes, not post-vote campaigning. I'd like to see a system where people's posts in the booth are anonymous until after the election ends but I have no idea if the forum is even capable of that.

The bolded idea would be a nightmare for everyone - first off, Virginia would have to put in a ton of work to make it happen, and as literally no one would know the results until later the entire election night vibe will be ruined. It's fair that you hold these opinions, but Atlasia is district from real life - the letter of the law is clear in this case, and at least in my purview it is not unacceptable to operate for your party and ideals within the boundaries of the legal system.

People in Atlasia have a right to vote for any candidate that they want, regardless of party. If someone in my party doesn't vote for my party's candidate I don't try to change it because I respect their right to vote for any candidate they want to. It would seem that Labor does not respect this and tries desperately to change people's votes if they don't vote the way that they wanted them. There is a campaigning time and then there is election time. If you've failed to get somebody's vote before the vote then you've failed to truly win their vote. Maybe if you have a defection problem you should try to address the reason why you got defections and try harder next time instead of having a fit every single time on of your members votes for someone else.

I would reveal our PMs if it wasn't a despicable violation of privacy, but Labor respects our voters - we never coerce or threaten voters in PMs - otherwise, why would they switch their votes to us? And frankly, you're only complaining about this since, apparently, you've insufficiently won over your voters to a level where a short PM with voting instructions can flip them in less than 20 minutes. Sorry not sorry.

If PMs are all sent beforehand then logically the voters wouldn't switch, as they've seen all the PMs and would have made up their minds when they voted. A small handful might make mistakes, but other than that there would be no reason to change. That obviously isn't what happens, especially considering the long time frames resulting in invalidation that have occurred several times.

[OBD]

NP

NICE JOB OBD.

Kindly refrain from revealing my PMs to the public. I did not give permission, and I expect an immediate retraction and apology for this blatant privacy violation.

[Continential]

NP

NICE JOB OBD.

Kindly refrain from revealing my PMs to the public. I did not give permission, and I expect an immediate retraction and apology for this blatant privacy violation.

You and your party don't care about privacy. Your party tried to get spies in the DA to leak our strategy.