Post #2697
December 11, 2013, 07:56:35 AM
Nay. My specific reasons are as follows:
Section 2d doesn't make sense. By the use of the word "either" in the first sentence, I'm assuming there was meant to be more after "information" that was either never added or removed without modifying the rest of the sentence. I'm assuming it's also meant to be "party's", not "parties". Also, I don't like the use of the word "illegal" in 2f, as it gives the impression that there's something already defining legal and illegal interference and voter registration. Is the proposal declaring them illegal here as part of voter fraud or referencing something else that would already make them illegal? A better definition of what voter fraud is would probably be helpful.
Also, just nitpicking, but in 2e, "resolutions", not "resolution's"
One other thing...in 3a, what kind of banishment are we talking about? Permanent or temporary? If it's temporary, how long would the ban hold?
Really, the Underhusen should have reviewed this Act more thoroughly before it was sent to the Overhusen, in my opinion. Somebody should have at least caught the spelling and grammar errors. More importantly, there are some ambiguities that would make this Act difficult to implement. =/