My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania • Hacker News Board

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#311

Post by nemothekid » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #309

This account expresses the idea that voter fraud would be very difficult to carry out in Pennsylvania - at least with respect to in-person election day voting (it doesn't seem relevant to claims of fraud with mail-in voting). However, this link describes a guilty plea of someone convicted of doing just that: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/us-attorney-william-m-m... So it would be interesting to reconcile this.…

I think it’s incredibly difficult to design a system what’s 100% immune to voter fraud. Despite it being difficult, I think voter fraud is still very hard to do on a systemic scale that would swing an election.

Prior studies have only shown minor instances of voter fraud, I think something like 1000 documented instances of voter fraud amount 10s of millions of votes cast. With all the available information I have, I think it would be very difficult to fradulently product ballots on the order of 10s of thousands to actually swing an election.

Secondly, I think if we did have a widespread voter fraud problem I think it would also call into question past elections as well.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#312

Post by paradox242 » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

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…

I am pretty left- leaning and this also struck me as weird. Like the author, I too have a pretty good sense for the political affiliation that this sort of clothing represents (especially on a police officer) but it's not explicitly endorsing a political party and seems to only include the text of an oath made by all U.S. soldiers.

It seems similar to someone wearing clothing that contained text of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Yes, we know the right wing loves this stuff but I really don't think it rises to the level of 'electioneering'.

In fact, the guy was probably thinking 'Here's another lefty that hates the United States and the military'. It really does seem like there was some (unconscious?) bias at play here.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#313

Post by vharuck » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #232

jcrawfordor wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some jurisdictions --- I don't know how common this is, but it's the case in mine --- uniformed police officers are prohibited from the polling place unless requested by election judges because of the potential that it will create a voter intimidation situation (keep in mind that these law enforcement officers are under the command of one of the people on the ballot). So I would conjecture that some areas may ask…

I don't think that is the case in PA. In fact, constables are required to be at the polls.

Overseeing elections is their primary duty. They also serve the courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Constables

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#314

Post by aw1621107 » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #309

This account expresses the idea that voter fraud would be very difficult to carry out in Pennsylvania - at least with respect to in-person election day voting (it doesn't seem relevant to claims of fraud with mail-in voting). However, this link describes a guilty plea of someone convicted of doing just that: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/us-attorney-william-m-m... So it would be interesting to reconcile this.…

> One possibility is that procedures vary across the state, as some other comments here might indicate. Another is that the system the author participated in isn't actually as immune to fraud as he thinks.

Some other possibilities might be that primary elections use a different process and/or undergo less scrutiny than general elections, or that procedures have changed since 2016.

As you said, it'd be an interesting exercise to go through exactly what DeMuro did and figure out whether what happened then would or would not work now.

Incidentally, it seems the author might have had to deal with a similar situation:

> The other event came when a discrepancy developed between the number of votes recorded by the machine and the number of voters tallied in the books: one vote was recorded in the books that was not recorded by the machines. We ultimately concluded that someone had just walked out of the polling place after they were handed their ballot, never casting their vote on the machine. Other possibilities which we ultimately ruled out were election board error, or that the voter voted in the wrong division after receiving their ballot. The redundant records — the index card, the registration book, the list of voters — helped to narrow down the possible causes. In the end, there was nothing we could do about it.

So there's an argument to be made that what DeMuro did (ringing up votes on the machine) could have been caught.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#315

Post by jeffbezos982134 » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

g00gler wrote: post #14

juanbyrge wrote: post #4

While reading this I got a sense that all of these anachronistic processes would not exist if voting would be moved online. So many of the contentious issues we see here (mail-in ballots arriving late, machines not printing receipts, etc..) would simply not exist. Online voting seems like such a simpler approach.

In Pennsylvania there was a web tool via the department of state to check if your mail in ballot was counted. I can picture several ways to do a hybrid (mail + online) election like getting a code in the mail, voting online, then being able to ensure your ballot was counted correctly by using your code. It seems to make a lot more sense than having states count for a week.

I second that. People could still count for weeks afterwards to make sure everything comes out on the up and up.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#316

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #195

maxerickson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the flag, it's a stylized flag blended with the oath. Which is much more political than a plain flag. A simpler example might be a flag with 52 stars. It's blatantly political, even though it would likely be harder to notice than the hoodie I looked up. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/119415827607659191/ (whether that's the exact same hoodie, who knows, but it matches the description close enough)

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.

[deleted]

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#317

Post by bumbledraven » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

I was also a poll watcher in PA this year, and my conclusions were similar to OP's: The in-person voting process in PA seems largely OK. However, that doesn't mean the 2020 PA general elction was fine; significant irregularities have been reported in PA this year regarding the processing of mail-in ballots.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#318

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

thedream wrote: post #308

jakelazaroff wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clarification and examples do not make an inherently qualitative thing quantifiable.

Indeed. So when a poll worker deviates from the stated rules, it necessitates investigating why that happened (and deciding if such a deviation was proper). What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases! If you believe (ab)using language to conflate "political party" with "political entity"…

They didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities.

There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#319

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #207

throwaway377383 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You caught me! I was actually employed by George Soros and Hillary Clinton to infiltrate the election process, send Trump voters home, and win the whole thing for Biden. 1. We're all volunteers. And human. 2. I've asked precisely zero people wearing MAGA hats to remove them. So much for your crack legal theory about violations of California election law. 3. The one time I've asked someone to remove campaign material…

[deleted]

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#320

Post by thedream » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #318

thedream wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. So when a poll worker deviates from the stated rules, it necessitates investigating why that happened (and deciding if such a deviation was proper). What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases! If you believe (ab)using language to conflate "political party" with "political entity"…

They didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities. There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.

> they interpreted them to the best of their abilities

Oh wow that settles it, then! Case closed.

By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.