Of course it does. Following that argument: It isn't illegal to run on the streets, it does not follow you have a legal right to run on the streets? Clearly absurd. The population's rights include all except what is expressly forbidden by the laws, and the government's rights include none except what is expressly enumerated in law.
> It isn't illegal to run on the streets, it does not follow you have a legal right to run on the streets?
It does NOT follow thaty ou have a legal right to run in the streets.
It some entity declared a street to be walking-only, then you could not claim "WAH! I HAVE A RIGHT TO RUN IN STREETS!"
Similarly, if an entity will only allow you to submit votes that are "correct" as per the definition of preferential voting, you can not claim "WAH! I HAVE A RIGHT TO SUBMIT INFORMAL VOTES!"
That means those legal rights exist until the authority decides otherwise. So for now according to the laws the government has passed informal votes are a legal right. It is a quirk of the software it isn't implemented. Imagine a sidewalk paved with a material you can't run on, it's perfectly reasonable to write a complaint to your local council about the quality of the road because everyone deserves to have a space to run, according to existing laws that have not prohibited running.
In Australia you have a legal right to vote informally. Perhaps other countries are different? Here you are legally required to submit a ballot paper but you are not required to fill it out.
What I'm saying is the government does not necessarily have to facilitate your ability to vote informally.
As in, a blind person has a 'right' to vote and vote anonymously, hence the government should have at least one way for them to do this.
But I'm saying it does not follow you have a 'right' to vote informally just because it's legal. It does not follow the government has to give you a way to do this.
If they do, you can do it since it's legal. But if they don't, you can't sue since it's not necessarily a 'right'.
