There’s a principle when studying Talmud: you can give a forced (i.e. weak or tentative) answer, but you can’t ask a forced question.
If you want to convince the Supreme court that the voting method used by basically all states for hundreds of years is unconstitutional, you’ll need an absolutely ironclad argument. The slightest opening for a response will be accepted.
Having your argument be “isn’t voting an expression of free speech, so I should be able to express my full opinions in my vote” just isn’t going to cut it.
There’s a principle when studying Talmud: you can give a forced (i.e. weak or tentative) answer, but you can’t ask a forced question.
If you want to convince the Supreme court that the voting method used by basically all states for hundreds of years is unconstitutional, you’ll need an absolutely ironclad argument. The slightest opening for a response will be accepted.
Having your argument be “isn’t voting an expression of free speech, so I should be able to express my full opinions in my vote” just isn’t going to cut it.