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

281–290 of 358 posts

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#281

Post by juped »

throwaway377383 wrote: post #196
ddevault wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. The military is a political entity, and different voters have different opinions on. It's better to err on the side of caution when acting in an official capacity for the election, especially when your organization (the police) are the subject of ballot measures this year. A tap on the shoulder and a polite comment seem well justified to me, and another poll worker agreed.

You just publicly admitted to breaking Philadelphia election code. >Author here. The military is a political entity, and different voters have different opinions on. The USA is a political entity that different voters have different opinions on. The city, state, school district, utility district, sanitst district, etc. are all political entities that different voters have different opinions on. The specific guideline…

Would you rather they not admit to it?

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#282

Post by dingaling »

eat_veggies wrote: post #280
visarga wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole system looks reasonable except for how easy it can be for poll workers to know what you voted for. I was struck when the article said they were asking party affiliation before voting. >> The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. The party affiliation is used as a signal that something fishy might be going on if the ratio of R to D is very different from the votes record…

Typically you are already registered with a specific party affiliation (so you can participate in primaries) and this information is often available online. It's not a big deal.

> It's not a big deal.

It is a big deal in that it psychologically reinforces the mindset that you should be aligned with a party. Instead of voting for a candidate on the basis of their policies and merit.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#283

Post by [deleted] »

ddevault wrote: post #69
dx87 wrote: post #15

This part seems incorrect: > There are strict laws regulating police and poll workers while the polls are open. Police are not allowed within 100 feet of the polling location, unless they're actively voting or there on official business at the request of the election board. Additionally, anyone working at the polls in an official capacity is not allowed to wear any clothing with political messaging. One of the office…

Author here. The military is a political entity, and different voters have different opinions on. It's better to err on the side of caution when acting in an official capacity for the election, especially when your organization (the police) are the subject of ballot measures this year. A tap on the shoulder and a polite comment seem well justified to me, and another poll worker agreed.

[deleted]

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#284

Post by jakelazaroff »

thedream wrote: post #206
raisedbyninjas wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. It cannot be quantified. That's the point of having written rules. Expecting that poll workers will read and adhere to The Rules as stated isn't some wild fantasy. It's literally what they signed up to do. It's foundational to the idea of an election having any legitimacy at all. It does not require taking a position on "the ban on electionee…

> "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. It cannot be quantified. That's the point of having written rules.

The intention is important because not all rules can be quantified. Language is subjective and words are often ambiguous.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#285

Post by scollet »

specialist wrote: post #273
scollet wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME the physical issues I've seen are entirely operator/technician error. I've really not seen any issues inside my wheelhouse. I feel for the devs having to codify abberant voting procedures.

I'm not entirely certain that you're defending the gear. Or blaming the users. In case you are, I'll share two of my personal experiences. I hot fixed the VVPAT for my poll site's touchscreen. The cheap bent metal got warped, preventing correct operation. Imagine you had to change the thermal paper for a cash register made by lowest bid contractor designed by grifters who've never seen a cash register. These units we…

Sorry, to answer your first statement, I am not blaming users as people interacting with the UI. I am not blaming the engineers either. I am more curious why some machines operate inefficiently under the circumstances I experienced.

This was power balancing combined(?) with minor reader issues.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#286

Post by throwaway377383 »

throwaway377383 wrote: post #175
stouset wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You just publicly admitted to breaking California state election code. The California Secretary of State specifically outlined that MAGA slogans and clothing were acceptable at polling places.[0] [0] https://abc7.com/politics/ca-rules-allow-maga-hats-but-no-me...

If you turn showdead on, you can see stouset's childish, obviously triggered response.

These are the people who volunteered to run our elections. Childish, immature, fragile snowflakes that can't handle being called out like adults.

Sad state of affairs.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#287

Post by WalterBright »

lscharen wrote: post #216
nostromo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was still wrong though. The ban isn't on anything that might seem vaguely political... gay pride flag, blue line flag, trans flag, UAW hat, etc. They just can't support a candidate or political party.

It depends. In Minnesota, wearing any of the items you listed would be considered electioneering if that was a major issue of the campaign. So if one candidate has made gay rights a major plank of their platform, then wearing a shirt with a gay pride flag would run afoul of the rules. But that same shirt would be allowed in the absence of that specific issue being promoted by a candidate’s campaign.

That means the rule would be wide open to interpretation. After all, who decides what a major issue is?

It would seem far easier, and straightforward, and not a burden on anyone is simply wearing a plain shirt.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#288

Post by PeterStuer »

The one thing I do not understand about the US voting protocol is how you can possibly be comfortable with the undeniable huge potential for coercion in the case of voting by mail in such a contested election where both sides see voting for the other candidate as not just wrong bur evil.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#289

Post by Shihan »

dingaling wrote: post #282
eat_veggies wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically you are already registered with a specific party affiliation (so you can participate in primaries) and this information is often available online. It's not a big deal.

> It's not a big deal. It is a big deal in that it psychologically reinforces the mindset that you should be aligned with a party. Instead of voting for a candidate on the basis of their policies and merit.

yes, that's also what surpised me and I have my concerns with it. They don't have to know my affiliation (if I have any), it's none of their business.
Post reply on HN