“I’m not sure why you think that a “recommendation” is not “guidance”. If it makes you feel better, substitute “recommendation” where I use the word “guidance”.”
Guidance has an authoritative implication. This was not authoritative, it was a recommendation. The law states, 10K
“Since that was part of my post where I was trying to agree with your angst over the current rules, I cannot fathom why you chose to attack THAT part.”
Because “guidance” was an incorrect word to use and words have meanings.
“You still haven’t shown actual evidence that there were old and new “rules”, not that I ever said there was or wasn’t, just that the LAW itself has been in effect for a while now. You can keep shifting the argument around, but it doesn’t help to understand what you are arguing.”
I find you sophistry novice and without points. It is common knowledge tht there was no rule set forth to hit any other number than 10,000...until the most recent change. There is a widely viewed letter available. But, I’m sure you’ve seen it.
“The law states that you need 10,000 signatures. The VBE, not the RPV, issued a direction to all the campaigns back in MAY telling them they needed 10,000 signatures, and recommending they get 15,000 to 20,000.”
This passage in absolutely irrelevant as we are not discussing the Bd of Elections, they state 10,000 as their number and the VaGOP as practice used the 10,000 number with no review.
“Oddly, many here are arguing that the RPV should have accepted 10,000 signatures without checking them”
No that is not my argument. That is the odd practice of the VaGOP...for many elections up to and including this one, until very recently, when they changed it.
“If your argument is that the RPV failed to check signatures before, so it’s unfair to check them now, that is a stupid argument.”
The above is another example of you novice sophistry and inventing arguments that people, and I in this case, haven’t made.
"Common Knowledge" seems to be your euphemism for "I have no evidence, but everybody "knows" it. Since it was almost totally UNKNOWN to most people anything about Virginia's ballot process before Friday, the assertion of "common knowledge" is just lazy.
The "widely viewed letter" simply says how the RPV was going to meet it's requirements under the law. There was no "rule" about 15,000 vs 10,000 vs any other number; I guess I should argue that "rule" isn't the right word because it has a specific meaning, and the word that better applies here is "implementation".
The RPV has a duty under the law to verify the signatures are valid, meaning they are real signatures for registered voters, and that they are on the correct forms and there are enough of them from each congressional district. The VBE requirements which nobody protested when they were given to the campaigns in May say that addresses are required, so the RPV checked that addresses were filled out.
In doing their "verification", the RPV decided that if there were more than 15,000 signatures given, they would simply assume that no more than 5000 of those signatures would be found to be invalid, and if there were 600 for each district, that no more than 200 of them would be found to be improper. So rather than take the time to check every signature, they would simply waive the requirement.
But the RULE is the same -- 10,000 valid signatures, 400 from each district. The RPV could have instead decided to implement their verification by doing a random check of the first 100 signatures from each district, and if the average rejection projected to the total would yield 10,000/400, they would stop and accept the results.
Or they could have chosen to implement the rule by not checking anything at all, like you assert without evidence that they have done in the past. Again, I don't know they did check before, I only know it makes no sense NOT to check, but not knowing isn't the same as knowing they didn't, and I've seen no authoritative pronouncement from responsible people from 2008 that there was no checking.
I will note another part of their "implementation" was that they had a single volunteer for each petition. That again wasn't a "rule", it was just how they chose to implement the rule that they had to check the signatures. That was another bad implementation, but it would be absurd to say that having "one volunteer" meant they "changed the rules" since you believe in 2008 they had "zero volunteers".
Just as if they decided to have two volunteers working together, that also wouldn't "change the rule".
Now you can waste your time telling me why "rule" is the PERFECT word for what you wanted to say -- or you could address the actual point, which is that the law they were implementing this year is identical to the law they implemented in 2008, and Gingrich and Perry failed to meet the requirements of the law.
If you want to argue that they shouldn't have CHECKED, go ahead, but you claim you don't want to argue that. Your assertion that they "changed the rules" seems to precisely be an argument about not checking now because they didn't check before.
But OK, you aren't saying that. So you believe they SHOULD check the signatures, but that they should have checked ALL the signatures.
Gingrich and Perry are still out. They had their signatures checked, and failed to meet the legal requirement. So, is your entire argument that the RPV needs to check the Paul and Romney signatures, in the hopes one or both of them will be removed as well?
If so, I commend you. That is a rational, reasonable request. But that's not what anybody I see here at FR is arguing for. They want to change the law so Gingrich can be on the ballot. They want to throw Bill Bolling in prison for some reason. They want to claim that Romney filed his petitions in November, and then the RPV "changed the rules". I have shown that to be false two ways -- Romney gave his petitions last week, and the RPV never changed "the rules", and their implementation was known prior to Romney providing signatures.
And whether you like guidance or suggestion, the VBE made it clear that candidates should collect a LOT more signatures than necessary, because signatures get tossed all the time. Romney and Paul followed their "recommendations", went with the advice of the SBE, took the counsel of the organization that had historical knowledge. You want to object to the use of the word "adice" or "counsel"? I know they are synonyms to "guidance" and you really dislike that word.
Guidance has an authoritative implication
I suppose it could under specific usages, although it's definition doesn't assert that. "Legal Guidance" would be the term for authoritative statements about actions. Guidance is giving counseling, direction, or "something that provides direction or advice as to a decision or course of action".
I used it in it's "advise" meaning, you took it more as a "provides direction" meaning. Rather than assume something I was clearly not saying, you'd have been better to ask what meaning I was using, but you can make a big deal about anything you want, it's just not helpful.