‘The Court has accepted the case 'Force v. Bennisia' despite it clearly being related to internal party elections. This is ignorant of the Constitution and current laws that state clearly that the internal workings of political parties are independent and not answerable to regional law. It clearly shows a failure of the Court to act constitutionally; Had they actually obeyed the law the case 'Force vs. Bennisia' would not have been accepted. Please see 'Force vs. Sumeka' for further details.’
Let’s go through this, shall we:
>>> Article 3: Parties in regional elections
1. A candidate should clarify in their candidacy announcement for any office what party they are affiliated with, or if they are independent.
2. Parties may decide independently how they choose candidates for election.
You are technically correct, parties do choose independently. However, that is House Law, which constitutional law is technically above. So, let’s look at the constitution.
‘4. Voting Fraud
4.1. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election through the creation of multiple accounts.
4.2. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election, referendum, or vote of any other kind by bringing in nations to vote for one or more specific candidates or ideas.
4.3. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election by means of something other than that mentioned in §I.4.1 and §I.4.2.’
Your voter fraud falls into 4.3. It states nowhere parties are exempt, you are undermining the validity of an election in some fashion.
Constitutional law is above House Law. Therefore, you have no case.
Obviously I am not a court member and therefore exert no influence on the case, but I have the right to free speech.
