Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

portal.drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 358 posts

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#151

Post by ElijahLynn »

m0zg wrote: post #140
tgb wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was literally predicted ahead of time based off the known demographics of the regions and the time it would take to count the ballots in different counties and the expected differences between in-person and mail-in ballots. It's absolutely misinformation to pretend that this is suspicious and should be investigated. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-...

Why is this not happening in non-swing states other than Virginia? And why does Biden's luck improve over time when _only_ mail in ballots are counted?

Because Trump told all his base to NOT vote by mail.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#152

Post by commandlinefan »

DeRock wrote: post #137
m0zg wrote: post #125

Biden only gets lucky in PA a full day after that if you look at vote share per batch, well after in-person votes are counted, and the later you go, the luckier he gets. The pattern is the same in every swing state except Arizona, and in Virginia as well. If you plot out Edison data that has vote count updates, in "normal" states (both Biden and Trump dominant), things are chaotic initially (when in-person votes are…

Its not "lucky" at all, this was an orchestrated outcome. Theres 2 components to this: 1. Mail in ballots were heavily partisan. The president made a point to instruct Republican voters to vote in person, and not by mail. And many other correlated factors (eg. COVID and social distancing has also been heavily politicized, influencing whether a voter would vote in person vs mail in). 2. Mail in ballots were delayed. T…

Why just those states, though? Other states show more-or-less similar distributions of in-person to mail-in ballots. It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#153

Post by pluto9 »

mmastrac wrote: post #34
dx87 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "thin blue line" flag also doesn't fit any of the banned criteria. You guys are basically saying that supporting police and military is only done by republicans.

It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another, being worn by someone who is presumably armed and in a position of authority. If you cannot see why this is a problem, I don't think I can explain it any more.

> It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another

I doubt the regulations around polling places consider that relevant. I'd guess one party wears cowboy hats more often than the other, but that doesn't make them a political statement.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#154

Post by DeRock »

commandlinefan wrote: post #152
DeRock wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not "lucky" at all, this was an orchestrated outcome. Theres 2 components to this: 1. Mail in ballots were heavily partisan. The president made a point to instruct Republican voters to vote in person, and not by mail. And many other correlated factors (eg. COVID and social distancing has also been heavily politicized, influencing whether a voter would vote in person vs mail in). 2. Mail in ballots were delayed. T…

Why just those states, though? Other states show more-or-less similar distributions of in-person to mail-in ballots. It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.

What are you using for your source for vote totals by vote method to make that determination?

Again, there was a time component here, where battleground states were strategically targeted to delay when votes would be counted. Feel free to read the source I posted above, or look at other state by state summaries here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/battleground-states-process-...

You will see some difference in ratios by voting method regardless, however. For example, in Arizona, the fact that voting by mail has been common for years, makes it much less partisan.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#155

Post by listenallyall »

stouset wrote: post #64
tych0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a poll worker in Denver, and the way it was explained to me was: you can't wear anything referencing stuff on the ballot. So for example you can wear a shirt that says "{Black|Blue} Lives Matter" because there's nothing about whose lives matter on the ballot. Same with a MAGA hat. But you can't wear a shirt that says "Vote no on 2A", or "Trump 2020", because those people/issues are on the ballot. Denver != Penn…

MAGA hats wouldn’t be allowed (in California) since they’re official campaign merchandise and part of that campaign’s branding. Source: am an SF election inspector. That said, it’s all up to the specifics of state law.

Just curious, but how much is up to personal discretion? What if the hat was red and said "Make USA Great Again"? or simply "Make America Great"? These wouldn't be "official" merchandise, and to be honest, I have no idea how a random pollworker or inspector decides what is "official".

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#156

Post by raisedbyninjas »

thedream wrote: post #97
Spivak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then imagine the group of programmers arguing with them trying rule-lawyer "keep the polls civil and don't sport inflammatory clothing or accessories." It's not a good look when the best you can make is something isn't technically forbidden. Like it doesn't make you clever trying to argue that your "cry more snowflake" shirt isn't political -- you're just an asshole.

Doing a thing that's "not a good look (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Being perceived as "an asshole (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly ;]

What's clear from this thread is that there are a hundred ways to clearly support a candidate that don't break the rules. If you agree with the intention behind the rules don't try to undermine them. If you don't support the ban on electioneering, then be open about it and try to change the policy.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#157

Post by RandallBrown »

ddevault wrote: post #72
lc9er wrote: post #70

> The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. I’ve voted in PA for 20 years and have never once been asked my party affiliation. This is all in Philadelphia, so maybe other counties are different? This seems sketchy. Even more so than the cop, who likely didn’t expect anyone to challenge him.

Your party affiliation is a matter of public record, and you're not required to vote for your party. Not really a big deal IMO. Any attempt by the election workers to suppress your vote based on your answer would be trivially detected by a number of security checks.

What if you don't have a party affiliation?

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#158

Post by chipotle_coyote »

zimmern wrote: post #121
sk5t wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously suggesting the "thin blue line" or "back the blue" flags are not political messaging? Lots of folks with different backgrounds and beliefs "support police and military"; however, the bootlick flags are closely tied to just one party.

>>bootlick flags lol, trump has made lefties lose their damn mind.

It's arguably made them blunter and more strident, but I don't think "righties" are on particularly solid ground if they want accuse the left of being uniquely mean and insulting.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#159

Post by grecy »

ddevault wrote: post #72
lc9er wrote: post #70

> The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. I’ve voted in PA for 20 years and have never once been asked my party affiliation. This is all in Philadelphia, so maybe other counties are different? This seems sketchy. Even more so than the cop, who likely didn’t expect anyone to challenge him.

Your party affiliation is a matter of public record, and you're not required to vote for your party. Not really a big deal IMO. Any attempt by the election workers to suppress your vote based on your answer would be trivially detected by a number of security checks.

> Your party affiliation is a matter of public record, and you're not required to vote for your party. Not really a big deal IMO

Can I have affiliation for 'no party' ?

Or better yet, never answer the question so the answer is NULL ?

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#160

Post by dragonwriter »

commandlinefan wrote: post #152
DeRock wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not "lucky" at all, this was an orchestrated outcome. Theres 2 components to this: 1. Mail in ballots were heavily partisan. The president made a point to instruct Republican voters to vote in person, and not by mail. And many other correlated factors (eg. COVID and social distancing has also been heavily politicized, influencing whether a voter would vote in person vs mail in). 2. Mail in ballots were delayed. T…

Why just those states, though? Other states show more-or-less similar distributions of in-person to mail-in ballots. It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.

> It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.

No, its not.

Its only those states that got a lot of attention to their count because they were swing states; the states that were easy to project very early on, no one outside of the media decision desks making the call cared about the details. And lots of them didn't have rules separating and delaying the count of mail-in ballots, anyway, which meant that differences in mail-in ballot patterns (which there almost certainly were because of partisan differences in who voted mail-in, entirely predictable given partisan differences in advocacy for and against mail voting) wouldn't show up clearly in the count timing the way it does in places where the process delayed starting counting mail-in ballots.

Post reply on HN