Ballot Stuffing Hugos Style [Updated]

One of the complaints that I have seen about the Hugo Awards from those who oppose the slate candidates is that the Sad and Rabid Puppy groups "stuffed the ballot." According to the theory being expressed by these individuals the fact that the slates pushed for their supports to vote a certain way was the very definition of stuffing the ballot. Not only is this a false understanding of the term, it's a willful corruption to serve a purpose - the delegitimization of the slate candidates and their supporters. This was not an accidental event but a concerted effort by many individuals to control the narrative of the event and to further frame it as a situation where the "good guys" were standing up against the "bad guys" (a tactic that was used equally by both sides throughout the controversy). Already we're seeing this term, "stuffing the ballot," being used in the same manner by slate supporters who are now trying to delegitimize the Hugo Awards for this year.

Let me make this explicitly clear for everyone: by this definition for ballot stuffing that being used in connection with the Hugo Awards every political party is guilty of ballot stuffing simply for asking you to vote for their candidates and platforms. What has been done in the Hugo Awards and their nominating process is not ballot stuffing; it's politics. This has been a fundamental misunderstanding throughout the entire process and increasingly annoying as many of the most ardent proponents of this corrupt definition take every opportunity to make grand political pronouncements on the shortcomings of their opponents.

Stop it, all of you. Amy is not a bad guy because she disagrees with you politically any more than is Ja'Micheal a good guy for agreeing with you.

[Edited 8/23/2015 3:54 PM] Okay, changed the name John to Amy in the last sentence of this post because people thought I was defending John C. Wright. That was not my intention as I was just using the name John for an example.