My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania(portal.drewdevault.com)
portal.drewdevault.com
My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania
https://portal.drewdevault.com/2020/11/10/2020-Election-worker.gmi
349 comments
I volunteered as an election judge in a neighboring county (Hello from DuPage County) and can affirm much of tptacek's post. Having the experience of an election judge, I'm not worried about anyone trying to steal the election, there's just too much paperwork involved at every level.
Likewise in regards to the police: we had DuPage sheriffs wander in occasionally to look around and chat - they were reasonably friendly with some random chitchat. I don't think they were looking for anything in particular, just trying to deter any mischief by being seen openly.
One thing that surprised me is how hard election judges worked: I started by 6:30 AM and only ended at 8:30 PM, with maybe a 15 min break for lunch. All the other time I was handing out ballots, doing paperwork, giving directions, etc. In DuPage election judges get $100 for the whole day - I would be in favor of doubling that plus some money for lunch + dinner.
Likewise in regards to the police: we had DuPage sheriffs wander in occasionally to look around and chat - they were reasonably friendly with some random chitchat. I don't think they were looking for anything in particular, just trying to deter any mischief by being seen openly.
One thing that surprised me is how hard election judges worked: I started by 6:30 AM and only ended at 8:30 PM, with maybe a 15 min break for lunch. All the other time I was handing out ballots, doing paperwork, giving directions, etc. In DuPage election judges get $100 for the whole day - I would be in favor of doubling that plus some money for lunch + dinner.
I remember as an election judge in IIRC 2000, while in high school, having to enforce the electioneering thing against someone in the facility. Some things never change.
I also came away from it thinking "Oh goodness it is amazing democracy survives, but kinda cool that it survives in an extremely participatory matter."
Edited: Would have been for the primary, not the general, so I was still in high school, and the youngest judge by 50 years or so for our polling place.
I also came away from it thinking "Oh goodness it is amazing democracy survives, but kinda cool that it survives in an extremely participatory matter."
Edited: Would have been for the primary, not the general, so I was still in high school, and the youngest judge by 50 years or so for our polling place.
In my country we have a simple rule to prevent electioneering on election day: electioneering on election day is forbidden. Not 100ft, not 100m, simply nowhere.
Same in my country. Elections are always on Sundays and the campaign stops from Friday night to the results reveal at 8 pm the day of the election. Spreading polls results or estimates is also forbidden during this period, even though in recent years it has been hard to enforce especially from foreign sources.
Not sure if that is what you are referring to but this is what happens in France with Swiss and Belgian websites being overloaded on French election days.
It was indeed what I was referring to.
In my country election campaigning has to stop 72 hours before the polls. No ads, no speeches, no nothing.
> Most pollworkers in my experience are there for the money (I've never bothered cashing the check) and the threat that they won't get paid if they count doesn't match is extremely powerful.
That's it, you just don't get paid? I'd expect it to involve a criminal investigation.
That's it, you just don't get paid? I'd expect it to involve a criminal investigation.
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 officers who showed up earlier in the day was wearing a hoodie with the American flag on it, and the US armed forces oath of enlistment printed in place of the white stripes. As they were leaving, I pulled the officer aside and asked him to remove the hoodie before making his next stop, politely explaining the law.
The linked PDF of rules says that the following isn't allowed:
> Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)
The American flag with the military oath of enlistment isn't any of those. I'd probably get upset as well if some poll worker tried to tell me I'm not allowed to wear the American flag on my clothes.
> 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 officers who showed up earlier in the day was wearing a hoodie with the American flag on it, and the US armed forces oath of enlistment printed in place of the white stripes. As they were leaving, I pulled the officer aside and asked him to remove the hoodie before making his next stop, politely explaining the law.
The linked PDF of rules says that the following isn't allowed:
> Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)
The American flag with the military oath of enlistment isn't any of those. I'd probably get upset as well if some poll worker tried to tell me I'm not allowed to wear the American flag on my clothes.
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)
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.
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.
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.
It would seem far easier, and straightforward, and not a burden on anyone is simply wearing a plain shirt.
I'm fine drawing a line for an officer carrying out election duties that goes further than for other people.
They just shouldn't wear anything that puts the election workers in a position where they have to evaluate the political message. I guess that can be tricky if a uniform somehow became partisan though.
They just shouldn't wear anything that puts the election workers in a position where they have to evaluate the political message. I guess that can be tricky if a uniform somehow became partisan though.
Being a policeman is becoming a partisan issue in itself, I guess
That framing is very generous to the status quo.
There likely is a moderately sized group of people who are opposed to having police, but the real partisan divide is over what sort of policing is acceptable, not over policing itself.
And even that is not really a sufficient explanation of the differences in opinion, it's too simplistic. People disagree about whether police are biased and things like that.
There likely is a moderately sized group of people who are opposed to having police, but the real partisan divide is over what sort of policing is acceptable, not over policing itself.
And even that is not really a sufficient explanation of the differences in opinion, it's too simplistic. People disagree about whether police are biased and things like that.
[deleted]
> I'd probably get upset as well if some poll worker tried to tell me I'm not allowed to wear the American flag on my clothes
The flag of the United States is not adulterated with text or anything else in place of its stripes, stars, and field.
The flag of the United States is not adulterated with text or anything else in place of its stripes, stars, and field.
I think you may be referencing the US flag code, which yes, has a handful of explicit and implicit prohibitions against wearing the flag on clothing.
Whenever discussing the US flag code it's important to mention that the statute is unconstitutional as determined in United States v. Eichman.
What the flag code says about clothing is as irrelevant as any other hot take on the issue.
What the flag code says about clothing is as irrelevant as any other hot take on the issue.
I believe United States v. Eichman invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 700 -- which is the Flag Protection Act.
The "Flag Code" normally refers to 4 U.S.C. § 1 -- which I don't think ever had any penalties for violation. It's simply advisory. The purpose is primarily to define the way the flag is used in an official capacity.
The "Flag Code" normally refers to 4 U.S.C. § 1 -- which I don't think ever had any penalties for violation. It's simply advisory. The purpose is primarily to define the way the flag is used in an official capacity.
[deleted]
i don’t think you need to reference much of anything but the flag itself to firmly establish that the flag doesn’t have text on it.
> The flag of the United States is not adulterated with text or anything else in place of its stripes, stars, and field.
I could give you a billion examples where it is. Just do a Google image search.
I could give you a billion examples where it is. Just do a Google image search.
Then it is not the flag of the United States.
How would you describe what it is then?
Similar to the flag of the United States but with extraneous junk on it
Art
Speaking of not being allowed to enter a polling place wearing curtain clothes:
"Since Tuesday, she has become known as the “Topless Voter.”
The woman, who ripped off her T-shirt after objections that it was too political to wear inside the Exeter polls, said she has no regrets.
“I said, ‘Well then, can I vote naked?’ He turned to me and said, ‘If you want to.’ So I took off my shirt,” she said.
She said she kept on her mask because removing it would have been “unhealthy.”"
https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/topless-vot...
"Since Tuesday, she has become known as the “Topless Voter.”
The woman, who ripped off her T-shirt after objections that it was too political to wear inside the Exeter polls, said she has no regrets.
“I said, ‘Well then, can I vote naked?’ He turned to me and said, ‘If you want to.’ So I took off my shirt,” she said.
She said she kept on her mask because removing it would have been “unhealthy.”"
https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/topless-vot...
Depressing how uncivilized and obnoxious people can be. We may want to reevaluate why we used to tech our children shame. It’s about mutual respect. Without that, we continue a downward spiral.
Because God forbid a women be topless... So disrespectful. We need to start shaming people who comment online again, remove all anonymity so we can publicly shame them for saying something stupid like a women voting topless should be shamed.
In this particular case it is. You can’t wear political clothing in a polling place. This law applies to everyone. To indignantly take your shirt off is disrespectful to the people there. It would be the same if it were a man taking his shirt off.
The fact you instantly made it into some sort of anti-feminist or sexist screed sounds paranoid. Are we really this suspicious of each other?
Do you honestly think “no shirt, no shoes, no service” makes for a worse society?
The fact you instantly made it into some sort of anti-feminist or sexist screed sounds paranoid. Are we really this suspicious of each other?
Do you honestly think “no shirt, no shoes, no service” makes for a worse society?
"The woman said she has always been supportive of efforts like New Hampshire’s “Free the Nipple” campaign, though she doesn’t actively participate in such movements."
Aha! Even more electioneering - where does it end with this woman? :)
Aha! Even more electioneering - where does it end with this woman? :)
The real question is, what department allows their on-duty officers to wear non-uniform clothing articles for routine public assignments?
I also worked polls in Philadelphia and we were also visited by non-uniform cops at the end of the day to do the (critical!) step of picking up the paper ballots. We got their badge numbers and names of course, but it was a little sketchy. The one who came by midday was uniformed, though.
Here in Boston our officers were in uniform all day but they told us they drop off all the ballots out of uniform in their own personal vehicles, he surmised to be less obvious a target. I thought it was an interesting approach, perhaps not super effective but interesting.
Uh... you should report that.
Very interesting. Is it possible they were constables? They are very hit or miss, on uniforms and other aspects. Not sure if Philly has constables or not.
I recall that the word "constable" was used in the big voter rights posters we had to put up, but frankly don't know any more than that.
Part of the constable's duties is to open and close the polls. I'm not sure if they're required to be there the whole time or not. Our's is usually there. Sometimes he is in uniform, and sometimes not.
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 police to appear in plainclothes, although here police are simply not present at all unless requested---the county did hire a private security firm to keep an eye on some locations though due to problems during early voting. This is basically because the right to eject someone from the polling place rests with the election judge, not police or security, but they're temporary employees and not trained in deescalation.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Constables
It doesn't seem much different than a "thin blue line" flag. I'd feel the same way as Drew in this situation. If you want to wear a flag, wear a flag.
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.
For some reason I can't imagine many people utilizing that sort of logic with the transgender flag on a hat.
Since it is less incendiary to discuss, what if someone was wearing a Rastafarian style hat in places marijuana bills were on the ballot, is this a conflict?
To avoid the religion argument, let's switch it to a shirt with a big marijuana leaf on it.
In that case, yes. Unless the person is a voter in the act of voting.
In that case, yes. Unless the person is a voter in the act of voting.
I didn't think voters were allowed to have political clothing either? I've heard of some voters asked to turn masks and shirts inside out while they're at the polls.
The PDF linked from the post clarifies the rule for PA: "Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)"
(Other jurisdictions may have other rules, of course)
(Other jurisdictions may have other rules, of course)
If the colors/hat had become a signalling mechanism by the political movement and were being used to make a political statement, I would say wearing them would be in bad taste. Especially if a member of law enforcement or the military was doing it.
More directly, if the Rastafarian style hat was a prominent display in several recent political rallies for a single party, I think it should be absolutely called into equal question.
Rastafarianism is a religion. I assume religious attire is not restricted.
> 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.
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.
There is a difference between being in bad taste and being illegal.
> There is a difference between being in bad taste and being illegal.
It's called "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law",
Purposely violating the principle of the law by abusing loopholes, and proceeding to claim that technically violating the spirit of the law is not illegal because you came up with a loophole that you believe is not incompatible with the letter of the law just goes to show the level of dedication that you have to break the law without being punished for your transgression.
It's called "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law",
Purposely violating the principle of the law by abusing loopholes, and proceeding to claim that technically violating the spirit of the law is not illegal because you came up with a loophole that you believe is not incompatible with the letter of the law just goes to show the level of dedication that you have to break the law without being punished for your transgression.
??? do you really not get it?
If I wear a shirt with MEDICARE FOR ALL, GREEN NEW DEAL (or SUPPORT ACA and REJOIN PARIS ACCORDS) on it, that's clear partisan support. That's illegal. Thin blue line flags and "support our troops" are out of place and it's two-faced to pretend it isn't just a signal of partisan support. These are some of the major party issues.
Bad taste has nothing to do with it. If someone wears a SUPPORT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT shirt, that's support of Trump, not endorsement of the concept of government or something nonpartisan.
If I wear a shirt with MEDICARE FOR ALL, GREEN NEW DEAL (or SUPPORT ACA and REJOIN PARIS ACCORDS) on it, that's clear partisan support. That's illegal. Thin blue line flags and "support our troops" are out of place and it's two-faced to pretend it isn't just a signal of partisan support. These are some of the major party issues.
Bad taste has nothing to do with it. If someone wears a SUPPORT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT shirt, that's support of Trump, not endorsement of the concept of government or something nonpartisan.
I agree that things like 'thin blue line' and 'support our troops' have a political element that would be out of bounds in states with these laws, but its not clear to me that the example cited in the story approaches this level of explicit political meaning.
If it is what he says, then it was simply a copy of text that all soldiers swear to when they enlist. The U.S. Army is not a political organization and contains people from all backgrounds.
What really seems to have happened here is that the author was able to reasonably infer this police officers political affiliation from his clothing and that is not what is prohibited in these laws.
If it is what he says, then it was simply a copy of text that all soldiers swear to when they enlist. The U.S. Army is not a political organization and contains people from all backgrounds.
What really seems to have happened here is that the author was able to reasonably infer this police officers political affiliation from his clothing and that is not what is prohibited in these laws.
>It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another
As long as you'll admit that BLM falls under this same logic, and should similarly be banned, then you're being consistent.
If not, you're being hypocritical.
As long as you'll admit that BLM falls under this same logic, and should similarly be banned, then you're being consistent.
If not, you're being hypocritical.
Of course! Unlike the other imaginary hypocrisy in this thread, I actually saw someone on reddit say this exactly. They were just there to vote, and they were asked to turn their BLM mask inside out while they were there.
It's a symbol of political groups like "Blue Lives Matter"[1] and it has specific connotations in the US[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lives_Matter
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line#Symbols_and_var...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lives_Matter
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line#Symbols_and_var...
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.
Lots of folks with different backgrounds and beliefs "support police and military"; however, the bootlick flags are closely tied to just one party.
The people wearing it made it political. You see them exclusively at trump rallies.
For similar reason wearing a red hat now became a political statement. In Poland for example now wearing something with a thunderbolt or 8 asterisks is sign that you support current protests. In France wearing yellow vests. Those things constantly change and at specific time it can be political. It's all about context and if you're voting you can't claim to be oblivious to it.
For similar reason wearing a red hat now became a political statement. In Poland for example now wearing something with a thunderbolt or 8 asterisks is sign that you support current protests. In France wearing yellow vests. Those things constantly change and at specific time it can be political. It's all about context and if you're voting you can't claim to be oblivious to it.
The people wearing it made it political
I think the message that police are all that keeps society from descending into violent chaos is inherently political.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-frau...
I think the message that police are all that keeps society from descending into violent chaos is inherently political.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-frau...
zimmern(2)
What makes a "bootlick" flag, in your opinion?
Imagine a group of programmers unable to tell the difference between "violates the rules" and "hurts my political feelings"... yikes.
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.
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 ;]
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.
"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 electioneering", just a position against poll worker vigilantism (virtue-lantism?).
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 electioneering", just a position against poll worker vigilantism (virtue-lantism?).
> "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.
The intention is important because not all rules can be quantified. Language is subjective and words are often ambiguous.
It's almost as if someone anticipated this phenomenon and created a section in the guidelines to further clarify and provide examples of disallowed behavior...
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" is proper, does that belief extend to the other 51 cases of "political party" found in the guidelines? Or just the single case that aligns with your biases?
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" is proper, does that belief extend to the other 51 cases of "political party" found in the guidelines? Or just the single case that aligns with your biases?
> "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination.
No, it's pretty straight-forward. There's no healthy democracy that believes that a blatantly partial and biased individual counting the votes generates confidence in the elections being fair and democratic. The whole idea that you can violate such a fundamental principle in such a blatant way is something that goes totally against basic democratic principles.
No, it's pretty straight-forward. There's no healthy democracy that believes that a blatantly partial and biased individual counting the votes generates confidence in the elections being fair and democratic. The whole idea that you can violate such a fundamental principle in such a blatant way is something that goes totally against basic democratic principles.
> No, it's pretty straight-forward.
Great! If it's so straight-forward, can you please quantify the intention behind the document entitled "Guide for Election Board Officials in Philadelphia County"[1] for me? ... I'll wait.
In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about how impossible it is for "blatantly partial and biased" poll workers to effect the perceived fairness of an election. Would you have confidence in an election where each poll worker made up their own version of the rules?
[1] https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...
Great! If it's so straight-forward, can you please quantify the intention behind the document entitled "Guide for Election Board Officials in Philadelphia County"[1] for me? ... I'll wait.
In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about how impossible it is for "blatantly partial and biased" poll workers to effect the perceived fairness of an election. Would you have confidence in an election where each poll worker made up their own version of the rules?
[1] https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...
No, but if you're working at the polls, you shouldn't be trying to push that line absolutely as hard as you can, and then arguing that what you're doing doesn't technically cross it. That isn't the point. The point is, in your official capacity, you're supposed to be neutral. Not "not biased enough to be against the rules". Neutral.
The scenario you described didn't happen.
What did happen was that a poll worker made up their own version of the election guidelines and injected their personal biases related to "specific ballot measures" and the "police organization" into their conduct.
Does that sound neutral?
What did happen was that a poll worker made up their own version of the election guidelines and injected their personal biases related to "specific ballot measures" and the "police organization" into their conduct.
Does that sound neutral?
They just need to check whether the flag is on the whitelist or the blacklist
Lol have you read the Contributor Covenant or postmeritocracy.org ?
Good lord. At least the signatories have made themselves easy to identify.
not a masochist
BLM isn’t only supported by Democrats, but wearing it to the polls should absolutely not be allowed.
Thankfully though, in America, it's not up to you or Drew to decide what others can or cannot wear. That is subject only to law, which says you can wear slogans and insignia, but not names of candidates.
Where I live slogans like MAGA hats weren't allowed at polling places
Given the other responses, consider it a gray area at best. And for something fundamental to the integrity of elections, I'd say it's best to err on the side of not having any possible appearance of impropriety.
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.
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.
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 != Pennsylvania, obviously, but perhaps it's a federal law? I don't really know where the rule comes from.
Anyway, overall takeaways working were: 1. everyone was super friendly and it was a great experience and 2. Denver+Colorado really have their shit together when it comes to elections. It's easy to vote, there's a paper trail for everything, and the default is by mail. Everyone should do it like we do.
Denver != Pennsylvania, obviously, but perhaps it's a federal law? I don't really know where the rule comes from.
Anyway, overall takeaways working were: 1. everyone was super friendly and it was a great experience and 2. Denver+Colorado really have their shit together when it comes to elections. It's easy to vote, there's a paper trail for everything, and the default is by mail. Everyone should do it like we do.
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.
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".
If a pollworker or election inspector deemed something to be electioneering, they would first let the person know and ask them to remedy the situation. 99% of cases are handled this way without incident. Of course, any citizen can do the same if a pollworker is unwilling to do so.
In the event that the person refuses to cooperate, you can call the election center to get confirmation that they're electioneering and—if so—you can simply call the police and have them deal with it if it's egregious enough.
Realistically, the situation you're asking about just doesn't happen often enough to be of concern. Most of the time, people aren't "trying" to electioneer. They're just excited about their candidate, and when told about the law and asked to take down a sign or remove a hat, they'll do so even if begrudgingly. The people who actually want to electioneer aren't shy about it and step way over the line. For anything in the middle, simply make a judgment call and go with it.
In the event that the person refuses to cooperate, you can call the election center to get confirmation that they're electioneering and—if so—you can simply call the police and have them deal with it if it's egregious enough.
Realistically, the situation you're asking about just doesn't happen often enough to be of concern. Most of the time, people aren't "trying" to electioneer. They're just excited about their candidate, and when told about the law and asked to take down a sign or remove a hat, they'll do so even if begrudgingly. The people who actually want to electioneer aren't shy about it and step way over the line. For anything in the middle, simply make a judgment call and go with it.
[deleted]
MAGA hats were allowed in the general election in California: https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/september/20...
They were considered "campaign slogans or political movement slogans".
They were considered "campaign slogans or political movement slogans".
You had me until MAGA hat... It is specifically sold by and strongly associated with a campaign. How is that allowed?
No idea, but these are all examples they gave us during our training.
Yeah, MAGA and Keep America Great are both literally trademarks of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the official campaign.
Say there's a vote on decriminalizing marihuana (from what I understood this happened in some states). Are you then allowed to walk around with a weed leaf t-shirt? What if its a band logo called The Amazing Cannabis with a bunch of happy leaves smoking a joint? What if its a flag in colours red/green/yellow with a black weed logo on it?
"The American flag with the military oath of enlistment" is not "the American flag", but rather an attempt to make some kind of statement. At best it's political support of the military, at worst it's a possible dog whistle.
A dog whistle for what? There's an awful lot of cagey presumption going on in every reiteration of this claim.
> A dog whistle for what? There's an awful lot of cagey presumption going on in every reiteration of this claim.
I'm not a US citizen nor I ever set foot in the US, and even from afar the quasi-fanarical displays of support for the US armed forces is a hallmark of supporters of the Republican party.
I'm not a US citizen nor I ever set foot in the US, and even from afar the quasi-fanarical displays of support for the US armed forces is a hallmark of supporters of the Republican party.
As an American, American politics genuinely feels like a game of dodge ball where each team captain takes turns picking virtues that the other side has to be against.
The left picked immigration so the right has to hate immigration, the right picked the military so the left has to hate the military. It's like our politics have to be polar opposites on everything, and it's exhausting.
The left picked immigration so the right has to hate immigration, the right picked the military so the left has to hate the military. It's like our politics have to be polar opposites on everything, and it's exhausting.
I get you. And plenty of Republicans support the military but did not support Bush's invasion of Iraq / false hunt for WMDs and agree on limiting the size of our military.
This book had some great comments on military size and concomitant decline of power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
This book had some great comments on military size and concomitant decline of power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
That's quite the display of mental gymnastics.
That is not what the Thin Blue Line represents.
That's probably what the "oath of enlistment" represents though.
No, the "military oath of enlistment" is LITERALLY the oath of enlistment for the military. As in the US military.
As in the oath that enlisted soliders/marines/sailors say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oat...
Anything else or other associations are in your head, not reality.
As in the oath that enlisted soliders/marines/sailors say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oat...
Anything else or other associations are in your head, not reality.
Probably, eh? Well then sure, let's have election workers make judgment calls based on "probably".
Worked great for Pregnant Chad.
So which of "candidate, campaign, or political party" is it? The Biden and Trump campaigns openly supported the military.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's a "campaign" on its own, but possibly all of those depending on context. I don't know what that exact context is, but it's not on me or the poll workers to know every political meme going around. A bastardized American flag is not just an American flag as you've asserted, but rather an overt political statement.
Wait, a dog whistle? For what? Fellow soldiers that have dog tags?
It's also possible that the officer in question purchased that hoodie because hoodies are warm and he likes its design, and that he happened to wear said hoodie on election day because it was cold. I don't really think it makes sense to speculate either way.
The US military is not a partisan tool nor a domestic political estate, so that message is not overtly supportive of one candidate or the other.
The US military is not a partisan tool nor a domestic political estate, so that message is not overtly supportive of one candidate or the other.
Glad to see this at the top. Indeed the officer did not violate the law. I believe some state even issued guidance that said slogans like Black Lives Matter or Make America Great Again, were okay. You simply cannot say "Vote Biden" or 'Vote Trump'.
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.
A tap on the shoulder and a polite comment seem well justified to me, and another poll worker agreed.
> The military is a political entity
Veteran here, served during the contentious 2000 election. The US military very strongly prides itself on being an apolitical entity.
There's an important distinction between the electorate having differing opinions about the role and size of the military and the scope of its missions, and the military itself being a political entity.
Veteran here, served during the contentious 2000 election. The US military very strongly prides itself on being an apolitical entity.
There's an important distinction between the electorate having differing opinions about the role and size of the military and the scope of its missions, and the military itself being a political entity.
I agree, and think that not wearing that kind of thing at the polls is appropriate to keep it apolitical.
With every election cycle, my CO has constantly reminded people that they cannot wear their uniform to political rallies, post on the internet without a disclaimer; the military is not political in any sense.
This is not a universally held belief.
Perhaps those with a contrary belief should review the UMJC, which restricts political statements/actions for military members, even off duty.
Sadly those lines are increasingly blurry. Isn’t there an issue right now with the new Secretary of Defence, for example, who technically has not been out of Green Berets long enough to be appointed...?
With any laws, some of the lines can be blurry. I'm not familiar with that specific situation. I just mention this because there are laws restricting military personnel pretty heavily from many political things, even just criticizing the president. The institution itself is absolutely forbidden from being involved in politics to prevent coups.
You're talking about the Hatch Act I presume. The UCMJ doesn't get into that that I'm aware of.
The earth being round is not universally held, either, but it is true. The military is patriotic, yes, as are its members (it is difficult to imagine how they could be effective were they not), but the military tries very, very hard to be apolitical. Yes, individuals in the military have strong political opinions, just like many other individual Americans.
It seems to me that any country at a point where the combination of its flag together with an oath of office, oath of enlistment or commissioning oath is seen as political rather than patriotic cannot be in a good place. It is not too far from that to one where calling for fair and unbiased administration of elections is considered political rather than patriotic.
Thank you for assisting in the election, and thank you for your excellent software projects, but in this case I think that you were incorrect.
It seems to me that any country at a point where the combination of its flag together with an oath of office, oath of enlistment or commissioning oath is seen as political rather than patriotic cannot be in a good place. It is not too far from that to one where calling for fair and unbiased administration of elections is considered political rather than patriotic.
Thank you for assisting in the election, and thank you for your excellent software projects, but in this case I think that you were incorrect.
> political rather than patriotic
Unfortunately patriotism itself is highly political; the ultimate question of "my country, right or wrong" results in some people noticing that it is in fact wrong in some cases.
Do they not teach Clausewitz in the US military? "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Every shot fired in anger is a political act. Not the politics of the person firing it, but those directing the fire.
It is possible to try to be non-partisan, but an apolitical military is an oxymoron.
The US military is the guarantor of a host of political lines across the world; supporting South Korea or Taiwan or Israel or Germany or Bosnia is a political act.
You can't sign up and then disclaim responsibility for the political results of following orders "apolitically". The last people who tried that got shot at Nuremberg.
Unfortunately patriotism itself is highly political; the ultimate question of "my country, right or wrong" results in some people noticing that it is in fact wrong in some cases.
Do they not teach Clausewitz in the US military? "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Every shot fired in anger is a political act. Not the politics of the person firing it, but those directing the fire.
It is possible to try to be non-partisan, but an apolitical military is an oxymoron.
The US military is the guarantor of a host of political lines across the world; supporting South Korea or Taiwan or Israel or Germany or Bosnia is a political act.
You can't sign up and then disclaim responsibility for the political results of following orders "apolitically". The last people who tried that got shot at Nuremberg.
> Not the politics of the person firing it, but those directing the fire.
... you're almost there... and yet ...
> It is possible to try to be non-partisan, but an apolitical military is an oxymoron. > > The US military is the guarantor of a host of political lines across the world; supporting South Korea or Taiwan or Israel or Germany or Bosnia is a political act.
At the direction of the duly elected civilian leadership.
> You can't sign up and then disclaim responsibility for the political results of following orders "apolitically". The last people who tried that got shot at Nuremberg.
This isn't considered a matter of politics. Its a matter of honor and lawfulness.
... you're almost there... and yet ...
> It is possible to try to be non-partisan, but an apolitical military is an oxymoron. > > The US military is the guarantor of a host of political lines across the world; supporting South Korea or Taiwan or Israel or Germany or Bosnia is a political act.
At the direction of the duly elected civilian leadership.
> You can't sign up and then disclaim responsibility for the political results of following orders "apolitically". The last people who tried that got shot at Nuremberg.
This isn't considered a matter of politics. Its a matter of honor and lawfulness.
Who is elected as citizen leadership is a matter of politics. What is lawful is a matter of politics.
Americans need to stop confusing "non-partisan" (or worse "partisan but not along R/D lines") for "apolitical".
Americans need to stop confusing "non-partisan" (or worse "partisan but not along R/D lines") for "apolitical".
In many countries other than the US it is uncommon for private citizens in daily life to fly or display flags at all, let alone with some nationalist or political slogan adorning it, except when associated with right-wing activism.
The electorate isn't able to express meaningful opinions on the role and size of the military, thus support of the institution itself has become political.
The vote and free speech remain powerful tools for meaningful expression. And they do have an impact. Even if it seems like you're being ignored, each voice really does matter, and policy does change in response.
But that policy flows from the civilian political realm. Military leadership doesn't decide which missions to take on. Congress and the President do. The military won't decide the fate of this election, no matter how contentious it gets. The civilian bodies will.
But that policy flows from the civilian political realm. Military leadership doesn't decide which missions to take on. Congress and the President do. The military won't decide the fate of this election, no matter how contentious it gets. The civilian bodies will.
Voting between candidates that all support ongoing military actions is not meaningful. It's similar to the treasonous NSA - discussing it is simply outside of the mainstream Overton window, primary candidates who dare touch it are branded "unelectable" etc.
Speech gets swamped by mass propaganda. I don't see how it's possible to look at say the run up to the Iraq war and think that antiwar had a meaningful voice. When it comes down to it, the warmongers are just better funded, better connected, and take advantage of basic human nature.
Since it seems impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars, or even to simply downsize it, discouraging general support for the military makes sense (when voice fails, try exit). I'm not asking you to agree with my arguments above, but you don't get to make a unilateral call that this isn't a political viewpoint.
Speech gets swamped by mass propaganda. I don't see how it's possible to look at say the run up to the Iraq war and think that antiwar had a meaningful voice. When it comes down to it, the warmongers are just better funded, better connected, and take advantage of basic human nature.
Since it seems impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars, or even to simply downsize it, discouraging general support for the military makes sense (when voice fails, try exit). I'm not asking you to agree with my arguments above, but you don't get to make a unilateral call that this isn't a political viewpoint.
If there was any political support for changing the approach to the NSA one of the candidates would back it.
That's tautological. If one of the candidates backed it, there would be more political support for holding the NSA accountable.
Democracy is a closed feedback loop, and thus causality works in both directions. Given the very few bits of input a person has into decisions, it's likely that most influence flows the opposite direction.
Democracy is a closed feedback loop, and thus causality works in both directions. Given the very few bits of input a person has into decisions, it's likely that most influence flows the opposite direction.
It is "impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars" because most people disagree with that goal. (according to observed preference, not stated preference) We just tossed out the only president in many decades to refrain from starting a new war, instead choosing one who voted for the Iraq war. The people have spoken, and they want war.
I find the narrative that Trump hasn't started a new war interesting, but not particularly compelling given his actions with Iran and ongoing incitement of civil unrest.
> The people have spoken, and they want war
I see where you're coming from, as usually I vote third party or abstain to avoid thinking I support one candidate that differs only by an epsilon of cultural preferences. But when one of the choices is responsible for the deaths of a quarter million Americans, it's a little different.
> The people have spoken, and they want war
I see where you're coming from, as usually I vote third party or abstain to avoid thinking I support one candidate that differs only by an epsilon of cultural preferences. But when one of the choices is responsible for the deaths of a quarter million Americans, it's a little different.
So you're saying no one would have died from CoVid-19 if Trump weren't in office? Citation needed.
No, but fewer people would have. By contributing to it he's responsible for the entire outcome. It's similar to how two people can both be charged for one instance of murder.
It seems likely that if the national response to covid had tracked with, say, the NY State response, that yes: we'd have seen far fewer deaths. The first 60-100k, mostly in the northeast, probably couldn't have been saved. The initial outbreak happened too fast and too hard. But after that, NY has been flat. They controlled it. The same could have been true for the rest of the country, yet we collectively chose not to.
And yeah, that national response is the job of the executive branch. So very roughly 150k americans are dead now because Trump was in office. Somewhere around there.
And yeah, that national response is the job of the executive branch. So very roughly 150k americans are dead now because Trump was in office. Somewhere around there.
The NY state response included sending sick patients into nursing homes. Had other states done that uniformly we'd have even more deaths, not fewer.
That happened in March and April, and obviously it was a mistake. But they controlled it, is the point. Their response after the initial wave has been excellent.
But it's a silly digression anyway. If you don't think NY is a good example, then pick Oregon. Or Canada. Or Germany. The point is that lots of large-scale responses of the form a "typical" democratic administration would have taken have very clearly been effective. While the US response, nationally, has not.
But it's a silly digression anyway. If you don't think NY is a good example, then pick Oregon. Or Canada. Or Germany. The point is that lots of large-scale responses of the form a "typical" democratic administration would have taken have very clearly been effective. While the US response, nationally, has not.
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 guidelines you linked on electioneering do not ban flag t-shirts, or anything military related (the military is not a candidate, campaign, or political party, and is strictly apolitical).
It's unconscionable that election officials are publicly admitting to breaking election code in 2020.
>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 guidelines you linked on electioneering do not ban flag t-shirts, or anything military related (the military is not a candidate, campaign, or political party, and is strictly apolitical).
It's unconscionable that election officials are publicly admitting to breaking election code in 2020.
Would you rather they not admit to it?
I'm simply pointing out the brazenness that this comment section has become.
Multiple election officials are here posting anecdotes of them breaking election code. I assume this is due to their biases and hatred of the right.
The gall of it all...
Multiple election officials are here posting anecdotes of them breaking election code. I assume this is due to their biases and hatred of the right.
The gall of it all...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you for upholding these principles and acting upon them. Having experienced how quickly disagreements with cops can escalate, I probably wouldn't have done anything. It's refreshing knowing that someone did, though.
[deleted]
As a non-citizen who had a chance to observe how the process works in California, I was struck by how little emphasis is put in the secrecy of the vote. The whole system looks reasonable except for how easy it can be for poll workers to know what you voted for.
Beyond that, the system is clearly geared towards increasing participation and enfranchising as many people as possible (a good thing in a democratic system).
Beyond that, the system is clearly geared towards increasing participation and enfranchising as many people as possible (a good thing in a democratic system).
Based on my long experience in California, I have no idea what you could be referring to. I am given ballot(s) in an opaque folder, mark my choices in a booth enclosed on three sides, and feed the ballots into the machine myself. There's no way for a poll worker to observe me making the choices, or the marked ballot. I suppose in theory they could use the order in which people enter to locate a ballot after the fact, but that would involve riffling through a stack of ballots!
Voting is county by county, and it is run by human beings that make mistakes, but in the dozens of times I have voted the secrecy of my ballot has been entirely up to me. Party affiliation is not a secret, true, it is a public record. But the actual Please provide a lot more context than "how easy it can be" or please delete your post.
Voting is county by county, and it is run by human beings that make mistakes, but in the dozens of times I have voted the secrecy of my ballot has been entirely up to me. Party affiliation is not a secret, true, it is a public record. But the actual Please provide a lot more context than "how easy it can be" or please delete your post.
Poll workers can’t riffle through ballots without being detected.
The ballot counting device has a locked compartment where the inserted ballots are kept. Only the inspector for the location has the key (although this may be handed to another worker when the inspector takes a break). This compartment has a numbered tamper seal placed on it, and this seal is checked throughout the day and its number is re-recorded each time.
Provisional ballots and mail-in ballots are similarly protected. They aren’t behind a locked compartment, but the boxes they go into are again sealed with tamper-evident seals that are—again—numbered and regularly checked.
Of course, no system is perfect and inspectors are undertrained (a few hours of training once every other year or so), overloaded at times, and human. As someone in security as my day job though, I’d say the measures in place to prevent tampering, fraud, and ballot disclosure are reasonably sound.
Source: I am an SF election inspector.
The ballot counting device has a locked compartment where the inserted ballots are kept. Only the inspector for the location has the key (although this may be handed to another worker when the inspector takes a break). This compartment has a numbered tamper seal placed on it, and this seal is checked throughout the day and its number is re-recorded each time.
Provisional ballots and mail-in ballots are similarly protected. They aren’t behind a locked compartment, but the boxes they go into are again sealed with tamper-evident seals that are—again—numbered and regularly checked.
Of course, no system is perfect and inspectors are undertrained (a few hours of training once every other year or so), overloaded at times, and human. As someone in security as my day job though, I’d say the measures in place to prevent tampering, fraud, and ballot disclosure are reasonably sound.
Source: I am an SF election inspector.
And the Sequoia optical scanner (the 80s looking one) doesn't neatly stack the ballots inside, they drop into one of two hampers inside (ballots that have write-ins are segregated) and become a huge mess.
In my experience, if the machine beeps and spits your ballot out, which it will always do if you don't vote on some of the elections (and I never vote the stuff I don't know about, like school boards) then the poll worker will grab it and try to shove it back in. I don't think they are trying to invade your privacy, they just are trying to be helpful. But, in the end, they aren't respecting the secrecy of my ballot.
In San Francisco, at least, the counting machine is programmed not to reject an undervote (it will reject overvotes and other mistakes)
There's variation state-to-state. In NC (1996-2012 at least), no poll workers touch ballots with identifying information in them. On entry to the polling place, a sticker is placed beside your name on a physical rollbook to keep track of who has and hasn't voted. The poll worker hands you your ballot which you take to a privacy booth to mark your choices. The voter personally inserts the anonymous ballot into the counting machine.
CO has universal mailings. You mail (or drop off) your ballot in a double envelope, and only the outer envelope carries identifying information. One workstation examines the outer envelope to track who voted, and a different workstation processes the anonymous ballots. It requires a little more trust on the part of the voter, but also encourages more participation.
CO has universal mailings. You mail (or drop off) your ballot in a double envelope, and only the outer envelope carries identifying information. One workstation examines the outer envelope to track who voted, and a different workstation processes the anonymous ballots. It requires a little more trust on the part of the voter, but also encourages more participation.
A reminder here that it varies MASSIVELY state by state. Some states definitely are NOT for increasing participation and enfranchising as many people as possible and plenty of states have way more in regards to hiding your vote from the poll workers
But if you want to participate more in the elections than just R vs D, say, decide which candidate R or D should elect, then you land in a public registry, no?
It's not just party affiliation (which is public I think in at least most states) but also the procedures in place for discarding incorrectly filled ballots. Poll workers need to recover them and mark them as voided. It is not terrible, but it has a lower threshold of security than other electoral systems I am familiar with.
Dropping a mail-in ballot in person seemed to have no plausible subreptitious election integrity attack I could think of though.
Dropping a mail-in ballot in person seemed to have no plausible subreptitious election integrity attack I could think of though.
At least in California, all of these voided ballots are counted at the end of the day and tallied with the number of recorded ballots, the number of ballots issued, the number of ballots remaining, and the number of people who physically showed up to vote.
To be honest, the numbers are always off by 1-5 (in a precinct of ~1,500 registered voters, with ~100 physical ballots cast) simply because poll workers are generally undertrained and out-of-practice so mistakes are made throughout the day. But the system at least does a decent job of limiting the amount of fraud that could happen at a single polling location. And there are hundreds throughout the city.
Source: am an SF election inspector.
To be honest, the numbers are always off by 1-5 (in a precinct of ~1,500 registered voters, with ~100 physical ballots cast) simply because poll workers are generally undertrained and out-of-practice so mistakes are made throughout the day. But the system at least does a decent job of limiting the amount of fraud that could happen at a single polling location. And there are hundreds throughout the city.
Source: am an SF election inspector.
We were off by few in one of the crosschecks for a while. Turned out to just be voided mail-in ballots that in-person voters dropped off, which aren't supposed to be counted in the respective field. Which the manual doesn't really state (but one can infer it, it's clearly to ensure the total number of unused + used in person ballots match the supplied ballots). That manual could use some tightening...
I do quite like that permanent residents like me are allowed to be a poll worker in SF...
I do quite like that permanent residents like me are allowed to be a poll worker in SF...
My concern here isn't around integrity of the vote but secrecy of the vote for a given person in this event. It might just be that this is so different from what I've seen in other systems that it stood out.
Ah, yeah. I do agree that that's a weakness here: you hand your ballots to the poll worker, they void it out, and that's placed into a bin to be counted at the end of the day.
Potentially a poll worker could use that opportunity to look at your ballot and see who you voted for. Perhaps it would be better if you were allowed to tear the ballot in half yourself and drop it into the slot but there may be a reason why it's not done that way.
Potentially a poll worker could use that opportunity to look at your ballot and see who you voted for. Perhaps it would be better if you were allowed to tear the ballot in half yourself and drop it into the slot but there may be a reason why it's not done that way.
Virginia here, but this should apply anywhere paper ballots are used. The voter is free to mark the ballot they hand back to be spoiled and replaced any way they want, including in a manner that obscures who they voted for. The ideal marking if someone was concerned about this would be to go through and check every box for every candidate before handing it in to be spoiled.
There are systems where the ballot itself isn't special, but the envelope you use is. Because of that there's no need to account for the ballots themselves. Poll workers never interact with your vote, you place the filled envelope in the ballot box, just like dropping off mail-in ballots work here.
It depends on the state. For example, Massachussetts has semi-open primaries. If you're registered R and show up at the primary, you get an R ballot. If you're registered D, you get a D ballot. If you're registered "Unaffiliated", they ask you which ballot you'd like. That would be something like 55% of MA voters, last I checked.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_S... it looks like 17 states have completely open primaries. 4 more are like Massachusetts. 3 more have open or semi-open primaries on the Democratic side only.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_S... it looks like 17 states have completely open primaries. 4 more are like Massachusetts. 3 more have open or semi-open primaries on the Democratic side only.
I think you are getting the primary round of elections confused with the general election itself. Your local board of elections probably has sample ballots that you can take a look at online if you like, and that might clarify some of the confusion.
While you can register as a member of one particular party in order to vote in that party's primary election, you certainly don't have to, and it has nothing to do with how you vote in the general election. In some states, even if you are "unaffiliated" you can participate in one party's primary in that state as well.
While you can register as a member of one particular party in order to vote in that party's primary election, you certainly don't have to, and it has nothing to do with how you vote in the general election. In some states, even if you are "unaffiliated" you can participate in one party's primary in that state as well.
I think some states let you participate in primaries as an unaffiliated voter
> 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 recorded.
Wtf? You can vote in secret but you gotta tell us who you voted with?
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 recorded.
Wtf? You can vote in secret but you gotta tell us who you voted with?
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.
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.
> As a non-citizen who had a chance to observe how the process works in California, I was struck by how little emphasis is put in the secrecy of the vote.
Maybe it's because we generally don't expect our votes to be revealed, nor do we expect serious repercussions if they were.
If things change so that either/both of those things stop being true, we'd probably see a push for better anonymity.
Maybe it's because we generally don't expect our votes to be revealed, nor do we expect serious repercussions if they were.
If things change so that either/both of those things stop being true, we'd probably see a push for better anonymity.
Can't speak for other places, but every time I've voted in-person in Wisconsin it has been through a procedure that doesn't involve the poll workers seeing my ballot after they give it to me. After getting a folder containing a ballot, I take it over to a closed stall to mark it and feed it directly into the scanning machine when I'm done. Safe, secure and results in immediately knowing that your ballot is valid and accepted.
As a sibling comment mentions, states and cities have a great deal of freedom in terms of the "how" of voting and some do it better than others.
As a sibling comment mentions, states and cities have a great deal of freedom in terms of the "how" of voting and some do it better than others.
As a non citizen who worked the polls as a clerk, there’s plenty of ballot secrecy. Many people don’t care. But there are procedures in place. Sometimes people do care and they can obscure it.
Once the ballot is in the box, disassociated from the voter then there is no more secrecy concerns.
Once the ballot is in the box, disassociated from the voter then there is no more secrecy concerns.
> Once the ballot is in the box, disassociated from the voter then there is no more secrecy concerns.
There are plenty of towns where "everyone knows everyone" and a system that requires trust on poll workers in this aspect is a bit alien to me. For example, one system I am familiar with the ballot itself is not special, the envelope is (it has signatures from the poll workers, which is also problematic because they can potentially surreptitiously mark the envelope in a special way to associate the vote to a specific person), which makes it unnecessary for poll workers to ever be in contact with the ballots themselves.
Overall, my qualms are minimal and am more concerned about the use of computers for the vote than anything else in the process.
There are plenty of towns where "everyone knows everyone" and a system that requires trust on poll workers in this aspect is a bit alien to me. For example, one system I am familiar with the ballot itself is not special, the envelope is (it has signatures from the poll workers, which is also problematic because they can potentially surreptitiously mark the envelope in a special way to associate the vote to a specific person), which makes it unnecessary for poll workers to ever be in contact with the ballots themselves.
Overall, my qualms are minimal and am more concerned about the use of computers for the vote than anything else in the process.
In the state where I'm at, things worked a bit differently this year because of all the mail-in ballots -- but typically when I vote in person, my name is crossed off a paper list of registered voters and then I am escorted to a voting machine to enter in an electronic ballot that has no identifiers attached.
Obviously that's harder to do with mail ballots, because we have to be able to discern that one voter submitted one ballot. (and my state also allows people to track their mail-in ballot)
Obviously that's harder to do with mail ballots, because we have to be able to discern that one voter submitted one ballot. (and my state also allows people to track their mail-in ballot)
Why is this harder with mail ballots? My state (Washington) uses a double envelope system. My name is on the outer envelope so I can't cast two ballots and the inner envelope protects the secrecy of my vote.
Or do you mean you have to verify that the ballot is actually submitted after the name is crossed off?
Or do you mean you have to verify that the ballot is actually submitted after the name is crossed off?
My experience in Maryland and the District of Columbia, going back almost thirty years, is that there it is difficult to impossible for a poll worker to know how you voted.
They have an optional secret ballot in all the votes. So does oregon who was doing vote by mail before it was cool...
Oregon has one of the worst voter-registration online systems in the country however, a date of birth + residency will give access to party registration of the individual, alongside some other information I believe.
IIRC Oregon is one of the states that sells a big CSV of every registered voters name, address, and party affiliation. So really all they're doing is competing with their own business
Quick edit: It's $500 to get data for everyone in the state, but there might be an extra fee if you want to know when they voted
Quick edit: It's $500 to get data for everyone in the state, but there might be an extra fee if you want to know when they voted
Holy cow, that is nuts. Like I could actually buy that myself if I wanted? USA really needs a privacy amendment to the constitution quite badly.
That’s true of most states.
Similar experience here in Georgia. It sounds like there is more to do on setup morning here, since we had to show up at 5am (and didn't have things really ready until 6:30 or so). There are so many seals to check and record; lots and lots and lots of paperwork.
In Georgia, the ballots are printed from a terminal that the voter uses and then scanned, leaving both an electronic count and a paper trail (the ballot itself is ejected from the bottom of the scanner into a sealed ballot box).
However, our scanners jammed 40 minutes into the day; after a couple hours, a technician managed to come to our precinct and opened the ballot box and revealed that a lackluster design in the ballot box caused the ballots coming out of the scanner to sometimes curl up and jam. Without any realistic solution, we just had to open the ballot box every time it jammed (supervised every time to ensure no monkey business) and push any stuck ballots out of the way of the scanner so that more could be scanned. Amusingly we had good success regularly giving the machine a good shove to dislodge any stuck ballots.
We also had problems printing receipts---in our case, we only need to print 3 from each scanner, but we ran out of scanner receipt paper. Since another precinct called us during the day looking for extra receipt paper... it wasn't available. But, we dodged a bullet, since there was just enough paper to print 2 of the 3 receipts. (1 gets posted on the door of the polling place; 2 go to the county. We wrote an apology on the receipt and only sent 1 to the county. I verified on the Secretary of State website that the votes tabulated for our precinct matched what our receipts printed. Cool to be able to double-check like that!)
I spent a while thinking about what a pollworker would need to do to illegally cast ballots. It would be a tall order indeed and would require cooperation and secrecy from everyone there, since the only way to cast a ballot is to scan it, and everyone can see the scanners at all times. I can't see it realistically happening in any precinct.
In Georgia, the ballots are printed from a terminal that the voter uses and then scanned, leaving both an electronic count and a paper trail (the ballot itself is ejected from the bottom of the scanner into a sealed ballot box).
However, our scanners jammed 40 minutes into the day; after a couple hours, a technician managed to come to our precinct and opened the ballot box and revealed that a lackluster design in the ballot box caused the ballots coming out of the scanner to sometimes curl up and jam. Without any realistic solution, we just had to open the ballot box every time it jammed (supervised every time to ensure no monkey business) and push any stuck ballots out of the way of the scanner so that more could be scanned. Amusingly we had good success regularly giving the machine a good shove to dislodge any stuck ballots.
We also had problems printing receipts---in our case, we only need to print 3 from each scanner, but we ran out of scanner receipt paper. Since another precinct called us during the day looking for extra receipt paper... it wasn't available. But, we dodged a bullet, since there was just enough paper to print 2 of the 3 receipts. (1 gets posted on the door of the polling place; 2 go to the county. We wrote an apology on the receipt and only sent 1 to the county. I verified on the Secretary of State website that the votes tabulated for our precinct matched what our receipts printed. Cool to be able to double-check like that!)
I spent a while thinking about what a pollworker would need to do to illegally cast ballots. It would be a tall order indeed and would require cooperation and secrecy from everyone there, since the only way to cast a ballot is to scan it, and everyone can see the scanners at all times. I can't see it realistically happening in any precinct.
I'm as much of a technophile as any other HN reader, but I am continuously flummoxed that anyone makes use of the sort of electronic voting machines described in this article. This is mainly from the perspective that a lot of the redundancy and auditability of the system seemed to rely on a bunch of printers working perfectly.
Paper ballots and a pencil/pen are still hugely more reliable and trustworthy, IMO.
Paper ballots and a pencil/pen are still hugely more reliable and trustworthy, IMO.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
In the UK, everything is done on paper - even if there was potential for fraud, scaling it across the whole nation would take years and huge amounts of money (and even more hush money)
In the UK, everything is done on paper - even if there was potential for fraud, scaling it across the whole nation would take years and huge amounts of money (and even more hush money)
We had a presidential election in 2000 that was stolen in public by the GOP, despite being on paper. They did it with a technicality.
They're doing the same with signature matching (your signature on your ballot has to match a different signature that could be many years older).
Paper is safe from people outside the system, but not from politicized courts that are able to ignore paper ballots for minor mistakes.
They're doing the same with signature matching (your signature on your ballot has to match a different signature that could be many years older).
Paper is safe from people outside the system, but not from politicized courts that are able to ignore paper ballots for minor mistakes.
I liked how an election advocate buddy said it one time:
"GWB doesn't lose his right to speech when he makes another gaff. Under no circumstances should a voter lose their right to vote for a mistake."
It just slays me that we're still arguing about this.
"GWB doesn't lose his right to speech when he makes another gaff. Under no circumstances should a voter lose their right to vote for a mistake."
It just slays me that we're still arguing about this.
Keep in mind the whole hanging chad situation is also impossible because we just use pencils.
But the legal aspect is troubling too
But the legal aspect is troubling too
IMO, the benefits of having electronic voting with an auditable paper trail and backup outweighs the downsides, if implemented properly.
The process described in the article seems a little different than the ones we used in Texas (Dallas County). We have our registration verified and check in, and then are given a paper ballot. You put that into the voting machine, cast your ballot which is recorded electronically on the machine, then printed on the paper ballot and returned to you. You're told to inspect it for accuracy, then deposit it in a _separate_ tabulating machine, which scans it and displays what it recorded when reading your vote, tabulates your vote electronically, and stores the paper backup in a locked deposit box inside the machine. From my understanding, if anything goes wonky during this process and you notice it, you can have the ballot invalidated and receive another to cast. At the end of the day, the counts are printed and stored along with the memory cards on every machine, and those and the secure ballot boxes are all stored with tamper evident seals.
So you have the electronic count on the voting machine from the memory card, the printed count from the voting machine generated at the end of the day, the electronic count on the tabulating machine from its memory card, the printed count from the tabulating machine generated each day, as well as the paper ballots as a backup, which from my understanding are re-tabulated en-masse on larger and faster machines after the election to get a second count as part of the certification process. All data points have to match. None of the machines are connected to the internet, so you'd have to gain physical access to them or the memory cards, and anything done would have to match the counts on all the other associated machines and receipts, plus the paper ballot backups. The Secretary of State also generates a list of voters who cast ballots each day by county and voting location based on when you first check in to vote, so that's another publicly auditable list that would have to match that is not related to the voting machines themselves.
Paper ballots are definitely more simple and probably just as secure, if not more, if handled properly. However, having multiple points of redundancy is invaluable to help quickly identify issues and ensure everything matches over multiple steps of the process.
The process described in the article seems a little different than the ones we used in Texas (Dallas County). We have our registration verified and check in, and then are given a paper ballot. You put that into the voting machine, cast your ballot which is recorded electronically on the machine, then printed on the paper ballot and returned to you. You're told to inspect it for accuracy, then deposit it in a _separate_ tabulating machine, which scans it and displays what it recorded when reading your vote, tabulates your vote electronically, and stores the paper backup in a locked deposit box inside the machine. From my understanding, if anything goes wonky during this process and you notice it, you can have the ballot invalidated and receive another to cast. At the end of the day, the counts are printed and stored along with the memory cards on every machine, and those and the secure ballot boxes are all stored with tamper evident seals.
So you have the electronic count on the voting machine from the memory card, the printed count from the voting machine generated at the end of the day, the electronic count on the tabulating machine from its memory card, the printed count from the tabulating machine generated each day, as well as the paper ballots as a backup, which from my understanding are re-tabulated en-masse on larger and faster machines after the election to get a second count as part of the certification process. All data points have to match. None of the machines are connected to the internet, so you'd have to gain physical access to them or the memory cards, and anything done would have to match the counts on all the other associated machines and receipts, plus the paper ballot backups. The Secretary of State also generates a list of voters who cast ballots each day by county and voting location based on when you first check in to vote, so that's another publicly auditable list that would have to match that is not related to the voting machines themselves.
Paper ballots are definitely more simple and probably just as secure, if not more, if handled properly. However, having multiple points of redundancy is invaluable to help quickly identify issues and ensure everything matches over multiple steps of the process.
I'm with you. To me electronic voting machines means you've given your democracy to the best hackers. "Hackerocracy"?
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'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 were worse.
I attended a handful of the "logic and accuracy" tests. One time, both the printer and memory card reader failed, of the the unit randomly chosen for testing. So they swamped parts and cards until they got it to work. Deemed a success. In truth, the only thing proven was that one of their printers could make marks on paper, given enough fiddling.
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 were worse.
I attended a handful of the "logic and accuracy" tests. One time, both the printer and memory card reader failed, of the the unit randomly chosen for testing. So they swamped parts and cards until they got it to work. Deemed a success. In truth, the only thing proven was that one of their printers could make marks on paper, given enough fiddling.
I will defer to your knowledge because it appears you have a deeper understanding of the internals.
At a user level for me in this last general, the only issues I've observed have been independent of the machine(s).
We are perhaps looking at different machines on different timelines and locale, but I don't doubt that there is a long way to go in terms of reliability and efficacy.
At a user level for me in this last general, the only issues I've observed have been independent of the machine(s).
We are perhaps looking at different machines on different timelines and locale, but I don't doubt that there is a long way to go in terms of reliability and efficacy.
Thank you for followup.
Because everyone does everything their own way, it's very hard to generalize about elections in the USA. Which is a problem all on its own.
In reflecting on your direct observations (experiences), I'm chewing on why we have different assumptions. I'd say most of the time, most of the gear and procedures work pretty good. Prior to a botched local election in 2004, I had a very high opinion of my local election administration. And it was only after really digging into the problem space that I started to see when the reality didn't quite match the narrative.
One thing noob me didn't appreciate was that with FPTP form of elections, our system is unnecessarily brittle. My large county has at least one mandatory manual recount every general election. Triggered when the margin of victory is smaller than the error rate.
That's when the real drama starts.
Honestly, I feel ridiculous obsessing over jitter in the process when the correct fix is to switch to a more robust form of elections. If we switched to a combo of ranked choice voting and proportional representation, the stakes would be so much lower, and trust in the process would be so much higher.
Again, thank you for replying. I'm grateful that you and many others have leaned into this issue. More eyeballs (attention) is better.
Because everyone does everything their own way, it's very hard to generalize about elections in the USA. Which is a problem all on its own.
In reflecting on your direct observations (experiences), I'm chewing on why we have different assumptions. I'd say most of the time, most of the gear and procedures work pretty good. Prior to a botched local election in 2004, I had a very high opinion of my local election administration. And it was only after really digging into the problem space that I started to see when the reality didn't quite match the narrative.
One thing noob me didn't appreciate was that with FPTP form of elections, our system is unnecessarily brittle. My large county has at least one mandatory manual recount every general election. Triggered when the margin of victory is smaller than the error rate.
That's when the real drama starts.
Honestly, I feel ridiculous obsessing over jitter in the process when the correct fix is to switch to a more robust form of elections. If we switched to a combo of ranked choice voting and proportional representation, the stakes would be so much lower, and trust in the process would be so much higher.
Again, thank you for replying. I'm grateful that you and many others have leaned into this issue. More eyeballs (attention) is better.
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.
This was power balancing combined(?) with minor reader issues.
This may be accurate for Philadelphia County -- I don't know -- but it is definitely not how voting worked in at least one other area of Pennsylvania.
I'm not saying the person is lying, but they may be misinformed about the procedures applying across the entire state.
(I'm also not saying anything is wrong with how it was done anywhere in PA.)
I'm not saying the person is lying, but they may be misinformed about the procedures applying across the entire state.
(I'm also not saying anything is wrong with how it was done anywhere in PA.)
What were the differences?
I voted in Allegheny County. We filled in bubbles on paper, and then at the end, put our ballots in what looked like a scantron machine. It had a screen with a simple confirmation message (something like "thank you for voting") that lit up after it scanned your ballot. I also wasn't asked my party affiliation.
Wow, that's much different. I wonder if the machines are unique to Philly, then.
I worked the polls in Allegheny, and while the broad strokes are similar to what you described, there are definitely a few differences:
- Most people fill out their ballot on paper with a pen, but a voting machine is also available to generate a ballot (anyone can request to use the machine, but it's intended for those with disabilities). Either way, the voter then feeds their paper ballot into a central counting machine (most districts only have one, but some have more).
- Police are in no way involved (unless the poll workers call them to attempt to address an issue during the day). The judge of elections is responsible for picking up the materials a few days beforehand and then dropping them off at the county office at the end of the day.
- Only four receipts are printed: one to go to the county office, one stays with the minority inspector for a year, one is posted outside the polling place, and... I can't remember what happens with the fourth.
In any case, though, thanks for writing this up in detail -- it's good to read how other places do it, and for those that haven't been a poll worker, it's good to read how at least one place does it!
- Most people fill out their ballot on paper with a pen, but a voting machine is also available to generate a ballot (anyone can request to use the machine, but it's intended for those with disabilities). Either way, the voter then feeds their paper ballot into a central counting machine (most districts only have one, but some have more).
- Police are in no way involved (unless the poll workers call them to attempt to address an issue during the day). The judge of elections is responsible for picking up the materials a few days beforehand and then dropping them off at the county office at the end of the day.
- Only four receipts are printed: one to go to the county office, one stays with the minority inspector for a year, one is posted outside the polling place, and... I can't remember what happens with the fourth.
In any case, though, thanks for writing this up in detail -- it's good to read how other places do it, and for those that haven't been a poll worker, it's good to read how at least one place does it!
If it helps, the machines described in OP sound similar to what we used here four years ago. I haven't voted in between though so I'm not sure when the switchover actually took place here.
I know that in Texas, some smaller counties don't use voting machines at all and only do paper ballots. However some of the larger ones like Dallas use a DRE machine combined with a tabulator instead. As long as the Secretary of State approves the method, counties are free to handle it as they see fit.
I’m in PA - Lancaster county voter here. My experience matches yours with the scantron. We had no digital option this election, though we did in the last. Two people worked the books at our polling place.
> 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.
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.
He explained it in the article and it makes sense:
> 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 recorded.
> 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 recorded.
Huh ... I wonder if that's going to come up in many of the legal proceedings in PA over their due process violations.
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.
You're dodging the allegation. It's not that it's not public information or that it must dictate the vote. It's that there's no reason for the poll worker to ask or know what you party registration is prior to sending to you machine A or machine B. At best it's a non-issue, at worst it's an opportunity to steer voters to a broken machine.
Any comparison of total turnout v.s. historic turnout based upon political party could be done after the fact anyway.
Any comparison of total turnout v.s. historic turnout based upon political party could be done after the fact anyway.
I want to clarify that I don’t think drew is being dishonest here. I’ve never heard this requirement nor been asked my party affiliation in a general election. Primaries - yes.
Pennsylvania voter here - in 2018 they asked me for my party affiliation and then remarked (jokingly) on the fact that my affiliation was an extreme minority for the district. I was a bit put off by this. 2020 and a few districts over however, totally secret somehow. No idea what changed.
We let voters use any machine they wanted, or the first one which became available, with no special preference.
But whatever, I don't write the laws. If it bugs you, you should reach out to the election board directly: 1-877-VOTESPA.
But whatever, I don't write the laws. If it bugs you, you should reach out to the election board directly: 1-877-VOTESPA.
It may also be left over from the SOP for primary elections, where your party registration does determine which ballot you get.
I don't know how votes work in PA, but where I'm from the voter picks the machine.
> 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 ?
Can I have affiliation for 'no party' ?
Or better yet, never answer the question so the answer is NULL ?
Typically the question is part of the voter registration form. But there's a "no affiliation" option.
I was obsessively watching this[0] (and several other) page during the last week.
The affiliations listed in that report are (in descending order of count (that count is mail-in ballots received)):
- Democratic
- Republican
- No Affiliation
- Other
- Libertarian
- Green
This is specific to PA, but we are talking in a thread about PA, so I think this is okay.
[0] https://www.votespa.com/About-Elections/Pages/Counting-Dashb...
The affiliations listed in that report are (in descending order of count (that count is mail-in ballots received)):
- Democratic
- Republican
- No Affiliation
- Other
- Libertarian
- Green
This is specific to PA, but we are talking in a thread about PA, so I think this is okay.
[0] https://www.votespa.com/About-Elections/Pages/Counting-Dashb...
What if you don't have a party affiliation?
I like how he went into real detail. I had signed up to be a poll worker in Alameda County, California but they had more than enough volunteers so I didn't get a chance to get called up myself and see how things happen.
A fascinating post and I'm thankful for the post. Interesting to learn the experiences first hand.
That said, it's sad to see we're no better than any other forum that just turns into political bullshit arguments sooner or later.
That said, it's sad to see we're no better than any other forum that just turns into political bullshit arguments sooner or later.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
504: Gateway Timeout (likely an HN caused DDoS)
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.
Cannot connect to the site! Source of post is here though.
https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/tree/master/cont...
https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/tree/master/cont...
Raw link which has line wrapping: https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/blob/master/cont...
The canonical URL is gemini://drewdevault.com/2020/11/10/2020-Election-worker.gmi
The police officer mishap was disturbing.
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.
Doea anybody ever actually verify the machine receipts by counting the paper ballots?
In Canada we just use paper ballots, it works great. The whole count is usually done the night of the election. I don't see the appeal of complicated voting machines in the US.
In Canada we just use paper ballots, it works great. The whole count is usually done the night of the election. I don't see the appeal of complicated voting machines in the US.
Great writeup.
I am very surprised that police officers transport the ballots. When I was a poll judge, we transported everything ourselves, in pairs. Sheriffs did do traffic control and such at central count, like at a sporting event.
I am very surprised that police officers transport the ballots. When I was a poll judge, we transported everything ourselves, in pairs. Sheriffs did do traffic control and such at central count, like at a sporting event.
The story about the police is ridiculous and in line with everything activists complain about. Police are not supposed to "puff up" they're supposed to be the cool heads.
Looks like HN broke Drew's blog.
Seems to have been hugged to death. Anyone have an alternative link?
It's not hugged to death, my Gemini server is just kind of unstable and crashes a lot. I'm keeping an eye on it.
Url changed from https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/drewdevault.com/2020/11/10/202... (by author's request).
Thanks for taking the time to write this. It is interesting to someone who lives in a developed country.
> The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation.
Is this a joke? An electoral system in which votes are not secret is anything but democratic.
Is this a joke? An electoral system in which votes are not secret is anything but democratic.
[deleted]
If, as Trump claims, Biden's victory is fraudulent, it would mean over 100k voted were falsely cast.
If that happens to be true, it would put every single election on US soil into question. Pretty much undermines democracy altogether.
If that happens to be true, it would put every single election on US soil into question. Pretty much undermines democracy altogether.
none of this addresses:
1. all the dead people who voted
2. all the ballot harvesting and curing which can be heavily manipulated
1. all the dead people who voted
2. all the ballot harvesting and curing which can be heavily manipulated
The Daily Signal is published by the highly partisan Heritage Foundation and this person's account does not appear to be substantiated by any other evidence. The person who witnessed the events he relayed may be a lawyer, but he is not an election lawyer and also not from PA, so his specific knowledge of their rules and regulations may be lacking.
Assuming the person making these claims accurately relayed his observations, what he saw sounds just as likely to be workers setting up & testing the machines for proper functionality.
Of course, there's a chance that's not the case, and something else was going on. But lacking evidence to the contrary, this account seems explainable by something other than election fraud.
Assuming the person making these claims accurately relayed his observations, what he saw sounds just as likely to be workers setting up & testing the machines for proper functionality.
Of course, there's a chance that's not the case, and something else was going on. But lacking evidence to the contrary, this account seems explainable by something other than election fraud.
It’s hard to trust allegations like “our switchboard was hacked”, especially coming from someone who starts out with saying the Dems always cheat.
I’d much rather hear concrete allegations with evidence from someone who isn’t a lawyer for the losing party.
I’d much rather hear concrete allegations with evidence from someone who isn’t a lawyer for the losing party.
As well, this media outlet linked in the op is owned by The Heritage Foundation a far-right-wing "think tank". The other pieces of media on the site do not seem to be without a certain political bias.
And yet television pictures during the count refute pretty much everything this person is saying - there were poll watchers mere feet away from the people processing the ballots.
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.
> Online voting seems like such a simpler approach.
It isn't. Bruce Schneier has written about how online voting is a terrible idea in general [0], and how real-world attempts at it are often woefully incompetent. [1][2] Voting should remain paper-based.
[0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/election_mach...
[2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/02/voatz_interne...
It isn't. Bruce Schneier has written about how online voting is a terrible idea in general [0], and how real-world attempts at it are often woefully incompetent. [1][2] Voting should remain paper-based.
[0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/election_mach...
[2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/02/voatz_interne...
I used to be in your camp, but ultimately I think the decentralization and heterogeneity of the election processes provides a non-trivial layer of "security by obfuscation". In other words, if we streamline the process too well, we'll find ourselves with a system with a handful of highly vulnerable points of failure.
I would much prefer a seemingly archaic system that, at the cost of annoyances and delays, at least provides us with a reasonable sense of conviction that the results are accurate.
I would much prefer a seemingly archaic system that, at the cost of annoyances and delays, at least provides us with a reasonable sense of conviction that the results are accurate.
Computers make it very easy to centrally modify/control information. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's a terrible thing.
It's also unique in its specifics. Voting is an unusual data-management challenge as we want a paper-trail (we want to be able to verify the correctness of the count), and voter anonymity (it must be impossible to prove that a specific person voted a specific way). We can do this robustly and easily with paper-based voting. Electronic systems are often deeply flawed.
Bruce Schneier's article on this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
Bruce Schneier's article on this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
It also makes it much easier to directly observe which systems work better and which systems don't. Imagine for a moment that the entire country was using the exact same ballot process in 2000: The punch system that lead to so much ambiguity in FL. Its one thing to look at a system and say in the abstract "this could be much more reliable." Its another entirely to say "Look at states X, Y, and Z: Their process is actually much more reliable".
I expect the same thing to happen after this election. Once things calm down, several states are going to improve their processes.
I expect the same thing to happen after this election. Once things calm down, several states are going to improve their processes.
> Once things calm down, several states are going to improve their processes.
I hope so. But the annoying thing about American federalism is that we like to do things 50 different ways, long after the experiment should have been over.
I hope so. But the annoying thing about American federalism is that we like to do things 50 different ways, long after the experiment should have been over.
>But the annoying thing about American federalism is that we like to do things 50 different ways
This was how the system was originally designed to work, as specified in the 10th amendment. This is also how the European Union works - a federation of independent states.
That's much better then everyone getting stuck with a federal one-size-fits-all solution that is sub-optimal (or corrupted), which does happen sometimes.
Different states can try different things, and copy what works amongst each other. Once enough states agree on an optimal solution an amendment can be passed forcing any lagging states to the new solution. This could apply to things like civil rights, health care, etc.
For example, before Obama-Care we already had states trying things - Romney-care in Massachusetts guaranteed coverage to all, Vermont was ready to implement a public plan that they had to cancel, NY and California also had significant reforms in the works, etc. Most assuredly the best solutions would have risen to the top and have been copied. But now that can't happen, because for better or worse we are stuck with a contentious law that was passed and is not easy to change. Perhaps the big insurance companies were afraid there profit margins would be reduced, so they negotiated a good deal for themselves with congress? (they get subsidized premiums from the government, and the public gets to pay the deductibles, without the ability to shop, company plans reducing individual choice, etc)
I don't believe it was the intention of our system to allow drastic changes by transitory slim majorities at the federal level. It seems that everyone with an axe to grind would like a federal law (or better yet a Supreme Court case) to force their opinion on the entire country, and that is not right. Our government is an outgrowth of our culture. Tweaks to the system are not going to change what people believe in.
This was how the system was originally designed to work, as specified in the 10th amendment. This is also how the European Union works - a federation of independent states.
That's much better then everyone getting stuck with a federal one-size-fits-all solution that is sub-optimal (or corrupted), which does happen sometimes.
Different states can try different things, and copy what works amongst each other. Once enough states agree on an optimal solution an amendment can be passed forcing any lagging states to the new solution. This could apply to things like civil rights, health care, etc.
For example, before Obama-Care we already had states trying things - Romney-care in Massachusetts guaranteed coverage to all, Vermont was ready to implement a public plan that they had to cancel, NY and California also had significant reforms in the works, etc. Most assuredly the best solutions would have risen to the top and have been copied. But now that can't happen, because for better or worse we are stuck with a contentious law that was passed and is not easy to change. Perhaps the big insurance companies were afraid there profit margins would be reduced, so they negotiated a good deal for themselves with congress? (they get subsidized premiums from the government, and the public gets to pay the deductibles, without the ability to shop, company plans reducing individual choice, etc)
I don't believe it was the intention of our system to allow drastic changes by transitory slim majorities at the federal level. It seems that everyone with an axe to grind would like a federal law (or better yet a Supreme Court case) to force their opinion on the entire country, and that is not right. Our government is an outgrowth of our culture. Tweaks to the system are not going to change what people believe in.
> we'll find ourselves with a system with a handful of highly vulnerable points of failure.
I'd say we have that now, since there may be 50 election systems, but we generally know which 5 are going to be important ahead of time. And that selection of states aren't necessarily the best equipped.
I'd say we have that now, since there may be 50 election systems, but we generally know which 5 are going to be important ahead of time. And that selection of states aren't necessarily the best equipped.
Don’t forget the worst of the delays this year we’re deliberately left in place by GOP legislatures. There was a massive shift to mail in voting yet no changes to how they’re processed.
The pre-canvass part: opening mail in ballots, verifying them, preparing them for tabulation, can be securely done before the election. Most states with substantial mail in already do this. That means on Election Day, workers merely have to tabulate ballots which is a lot less work.
But in PA specifically the legislature declined to allow pre-canvass before the election.
When done right we have have reasonable speed and security.
The pre-canvass part: opening mail in ballots, verifying them, preparing them for tabulation, can be securely done before the election. Most states with substantial mail in already do this. That means on Election Day, workers merely have to tabulate ballots which is a lot less work.
But in PA specifically the legislature declined to allow pre-canvass before the election.
When done right we have have reasonable speed and security.
I agree with you, except that I saw all the "anachronistic processes" as meaningful and useful backup systems. Obviously online voting would be simpler for the voter, I don't think anyone would deny that, but you wouldn't get:
1. Your physical signature witnessed by a poll worker, and your identity and presence physically recorded in several different locations.
2. A physical paper ballot only accessible by poll workers.
3. A locally stored electronic ballot only accessible by poll workers.
4. Multiple physical receipts with your votes, distributed to many different physical locations only accessible to poll workers.
5. A trained poll worker available to help at the time and place that you vote.
6. An easy backup plan if something goes wrong.
Online voting is optimized for the happy path, but handling all the edge cases where something could go wrong is extremely difficult to implement and difficult for voters to understand. With online voting you need to ensure the security of the voter's physical device, operating system, web browser, each link in their internet connection, and all of those for the voting servers as well. After implementing processes to secure all of that, you need to communicate the security in a way that an average voter can understand it. You also need to think about what to do when a voter needs help, or their computer crashes mid-vote, or their power goes out, or someone sends them the wrong link, etc. etc. etc.
Current processes are a little more complicated up front, but processes for preventing and correcting errors are easy to implement and understand.
1. Your physical signature witnessed by a poll worker, and your identity and presence physically recorded in several different locations.
2. A physical paper ballot only accessible by poll workers.
3. A locally stored electronic ballot only accessible by poll workers.
4. Multiple physical receipts with your votes, distributed to many different physical locations only accessible to poll workers.
5. A trained poll worker available to help at the time and place that you vote.
6. An easy backup plan if something goes wrong.
Online voting is optimized for the happy path, but handling all the edge cases where something could go wrong is extremely difficult to implement and difficult for voters to understand. With online voting you need to ensure the security of the voter's physical device, operating system, web browser, each link in their internet connection, and all of those for the voting servers as well. After implementing processes to secure all of that, you need to communicate the security in a way that an average voter can understand it. You also need to think about what to do when a voter needs help, or their computer crashes mid-vote, or their power goes out, or someone sends them the wrong link, etc. etc. etc.
Current processes are a little more complicated up front, but processes for preventing and correcting errors are easy to implement and understand.
The thing is, your grandma can watch a paper process, understand it, and verify that no shenanigans happened during the part that she was watching. But she can't do the same for online voting. She's not going to audit the software used. She's not going to verify network integrity, or authenticate packets.
The manual processes are much better for transparency and verifiability. And we really badly need those qualities right now, when you have to be able to prove to the other side that the vote was legit, and be able to prove that every claim otherwise is false.
The manual processes are much better for transparency and verifiability. And we really badly need those qualities right now, when you have to be able to prove to the other side that the vote was legit, and be able to prove that every claim otherwise is false.
Yes exactly this so much. I’ve done poll clerk and the security of the process depends on security seals and armed guards and all sorts of things that are easy to understand.
It’s trading one set of problems for an entirely different (and far scarier, IMO) set of problems.
If you think IoT is bad when it comes to security, imagine what will happen when IoT is applied to voting.
Insecure and hackable voting machines were already a problem more than a decade ago, and they're still a problem today.
Insecure and hackable voting machines were already a problem more than a decade ago, and they're still a problem today.
It could be.
With voting I think the consideration is a barrier for voting. In many states you do not need to prove it to vote. Some states allow a normal vote and some states make them provisional. Still, no concrete identification is required when voting in most states. The voter is trusted to be who they say they are under possible penalty. This only applies to in person voting. Almost all states allowing mail in voting do not require notarization.
With electronic voting you have a huge barrier in that not everyone has access to the means to vote electronically. You disenfranchise a pool of voters.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
With voting I think the consideration is a barrier for voting. In many states you do not need to prove it to vote. Some states allow a normal vote and some states make them provisional. Still, no concrete identification is required when voting in most states. The voter is trusted to be who they say they are under possible penalty. This only applies to in person voting. Almost all states allowing mail in voting do not require notarization.
With electronic voting you have a huge barrier in that not everyone has access to the means to vote electronically. You disenfranchise a pool of voters.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
Beyond hacking, there is a reason to do polls in person. It is also a protection against people being coerced or selling their vote. When they are at the polling station, no outside force can exert any influence as the vote is fully confidential.
> Online voting seems like such a simpler approach.
It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.
It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.
And even if you do secure it, if Joe McCitizen can't understand it, it does you no good.
There are plenty of things that people do online without really understanding how it works, but they still do it.
Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted.
Also, it can be an option in addition to voting in person or by mail (like you can do now with taxes).
Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted.
Also, it can be an option in addition to voting in person or by mail (like you can do now with taxes).
> Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted.
There's a lot of handwaving in this sentence about what can be done. We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. You think we can do a better job when control of a nuclear power with the world's largest economy rests in the balance?
> like you can do now with taxes
I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
There's a lot of handwaving in this sentence about what can be done. We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. You think we can do a better job when control of a nuclear power with the world's largest economy rests in the balance?
> like you can do now with taxes
I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
> We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it.
This is hyperbole at best. In most cases, international policy does not change all that much regardless of what major party member happens to be president of the US.
> I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
Unless you have taken the time to fine tune your payments such that you don't receive a refund or owe a significant tax payment, then someone else filing can effectively get your refund, or put information in there that can land you legal trouble or have you owe a significant payment when you actually do not. That said, we have been able to file taxes online for many years now. It would be nice if we could get with the times and do the same for voting.
This is hyperbole at best. In most cases, international policy does not change all that much regardless of what major party member happens to be president of the US.
> I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
Unless you have taken the time to fine tune your payments such that you don't receive a refund or owe a significant tax payment, then someone else filing can effectively get your refund, or put information in there that can land you legal trouble or have you owe a significant payment when you actually do not. That said, we have been able to file taxes online for many years now. It would be nice if we could get with the times and do the same for voting.
The problem is voting has to be simple enough that the average citizen can verify it.
That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.
That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.
That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it.
The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever.
They further keep equating property theft scenarios, where you would easily notice that your money went to someone else, or personal harrassment scenarios, where your first consequence is a human individual audit not a national election outcome, with scenarios where you'd have no idea that your vote was changed unless you start implementing policies that would allow people to sell their votes, which is something that we don't allow for a reason. Paper ballots kept in small batches distributed among thousands of precincts that are counted by hand with opposition observers are hard to systematically rig. Bits in a cloud machine somewhere that lose all connection to your action are not.
They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever.
They further keep equating property theft scenarios, where you would easily notice that your money went to someone else, or personal harrassment scenarios, where your first consequence is a human individual audit not a national election outcome, with scenarios where you'd have no idea that your vote was changed unless you start implementing policies that would allow people to sell their votes, which is something that we don't allow for a reason. Paper ballots kept in small batches distributed among thousands of precincts that are counted by hand with opposition observers are hard to systematically rig. Bits in a cloud machine somewhere that lose all connection to your action are not.
They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
> The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever.
Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert.
This also assumes that those who want to vote online have the knowledge to properly secure their private key.
> They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?
I would say that gerrymandering has done far more to disenfranchise voters compared to theoretical attacks against the personal devices of those who choose to vote online.
Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert.
This also assumes that those who want to vote online have the knowledge to properly secure their private key.
> They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?
I would say that gerrymandering has done far more to disenfranchise voters compared to theoretical attacks against the personal devices of those who choose to vote online.
> Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert.
"Software has no flaws" is not a strong position historically. I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue enough.
> Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?
This is a strawman meant to distract. You should instead ask "Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes. You can then ask "Is doing that easier if you can flip votes easily?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes.
"Software has no flaws" is not a strong position historically. I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue enough.
> Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?
This is a strawman meant to distract. You should instead ask "Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes. You can then ask "Is doing that easier if you can flip votes easily?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes.
> I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue enough.
But we still conduct a lot of business online without issue. If we followed the line of reasoning that you're suggesting, then we would still be doing things as they were done prior to 1995. The fact that we're not is testament that these systems largely work. Voting is not a special case that requires us to not make use of tried and tested technology.
> Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?
This is an example of the "begging the question" logical fallacy. You're just assuming the conclusion is true when that's not necessarily the case.
But we still conduct a lot of business online without issue. If we followed the line of reasoning that you're suggesting, then we would still be doing things as they were done prior to 1995. The fact that we're not is testament that these systems largely work. Voting is not a special case that requires us to not make use of tried and tested technology.
> Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?
This is an example of the "begging the question" logical fallacy. You're just assuming the conclusion is true when that's not necessarily the case.
> But we still conduct a lot of business online without issue.
Business has fallbacks though.
If your credit card is compromised, you can disable it, recover the funds, and get a new one.
There is no equivalent for voting, that I know of.
Business has fallbacks though.
If your credit card is compromised, you can disable it, recover the funds, and get a new one.
There is no equivalent for voting, that I know of.
[deleted]
Decentralized, paper elections are the entire strength of the American system. Rigging an election means dealing with 50 entirely independent processes and modifying/creating millions of physical pieces of paper. Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen ways to steal a centralized, digital election.
I worry about online voting not being transparent enough
Mandatory xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/2030/
It's true that the software field is bad at what it does. When someone makes a truly secure piece of software, they get a PhD and repeatedly make the HN front-page. [0]
It's not just a matter of writing code with no bugs, though. As I mentioned this another comment, [1] voting is unusual as we must be confident in the correctness of the count, and confident that it's not possible to prove whether a particular person voted a particular way. There's also a trust issue: with a digital system, a single corrupt official will likely be able to do far more damage to the vote than with a paper-based system. Even if the system is somehow structured to resist this, public trust might still be less than in a paper-based system.
[0] https://ts.data61.csiro.au/projects/seL4/
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048971
It's not just a matter of writing code with no bugs, though. As I mentioned this another comment, [1] voting is unusual as we must be confident in the correctness of the count, and confident that it's not possible to prove whether a particular person voted a particular way. There's also a trust issue: with a digital system, a single corrupt official will likely be able to do far more damage to the vote than with a paper-based system. Even if the system is somehow structured to resist this, public trust might still be less than in a paper-based system.
[0] https://ts.data61.csiro.au/projects/seL4/
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048971
You are correct. It needs to be anonymous, untamperable, auditable.
I recently had a discussion with a friend who asked me how to implement a write only audit log that will comply with some finra regulation. I asked him how tamper proof it needs to be, and mentioned his system admin could practically stop the log writer, do shady stuff, and start the log writer and there is nothing you can do about it.
As long as someone has access to the system, things can go wrong.
I am hoping zero knowledge proof systems will provide some guarantees here some day.
I recently had a discussion with a friend who asked me how to implement a write only audit log that will comply with some finra regulation. I asked him how tamper proof it needs to be, and mentioned his system admin could practically stop the log writer, do shady stuff, and start the log writer and there is nothing you can do about it.
As long as someone has access to the system, things can go wrong.
I am hoping zero knowledge proof systems will provide some guarantees here some day.
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 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.
Randomizing would be even faster and easier, if you just want incorrect answers in record time.
Voting has a short list of maybe four easily stated requirements. Online voting “solutions” tend to solve one or two, forget about the others, and try to compensate on user experience.
Voting has a short list of maybe four easily stated requirements. Online voting “solutions” tend to solve one or two, forget about the others, and try to compensate on user experience.
> Voting has a short list of maybe four easily stated requirements. Online voting “solutions” tend to solve one or two, forget about the others, and try to compensate on user experience.
Right. In this case:
> then being able to ensure your ballot was counted correctly by using your code
This fails the voter anonymity requirement. There must not be a database associating each voter with which way they voted.
Right. In this case:
> then being able to ensure your ballot was counted correctly by using your code
This fails the voter anonymity requirement. There must not be a database associating each voter with which way they voted.
I second that. People could still count for weeks afterwards to make sure everything comes out on the up and up.
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 counted) and then they settle to a certain GOP/DEM ratio, with a very slow drift towards GOP, presumably because rural votes take longer to show up. In the swing states you observe the same initial chaos, and the same slight initial drift towards GOP, but then Biden starts to get very lucky indeed, and his luck improves as time goes on.
To be fair, this could just be artifact of how votes are counted, in which case I'd like to see what could lead to such a pattern _only_ in the swing states. Or this could be evidence of vote rigging by all means necessary. No matter which side you're on, this should be looked into.
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 counted) and then they settle to a certain GOP/DEM ratio, with a very slow drift towards GOP, presumably because rural votes take longer to show up. In the swing states you observe the same initial chaos, and the same slight initial drift towards GOP, but then Biden starts to get very lucky indeed, and his luck improves as time goes on.
To be fair, this could just be artifact of how votes are counted, in which case I'd like to see what could lead to such a pattern _only_ in the swing states. Or this could be evidence of vote rigging by all means necessary. No matter which side you're on, this should be looked into.
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. This happened both legally (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/922202497/in-swing-states-law...), as well as though strategic dismantling of USPS mail processing facilities.
And now this pre-meditated orchestration, set up by a Republican president and Republican State house, is being used as evidence of some grand conspiracy. Its not, and has been predictable for months now, with countless news articles about it.
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. This happened both legally (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/922202497/in-swing-states-law...), as well as though strategic dismantling of USPS mail processing facilities.
And now this pre-meditated orchestration, set up by a Republican president and Republican State house, is being used as evidence of some grand conspiracy. Its not, and has been predictable for months now, with countless news articles about it.
Just FYI, in regards to your the 2nd point, while there was rampant speculation about delivery delays, I don’t think there’s any evidence that ballots were actually delayed due to USPS, and quite strong evidence in fact that ballots were not delayed by USPS.
Specifically, in PA where they were segregating late arriving ballots, only about 10,000 ballots arrived after 8pm on Election Day, and there’s no reason to believe those ballots weren’t delivered within the expected delivery timeframe and just mailed late.
The USPS wrote a letter months ago trying to urge states to be sure their mailing cutoff timelines corresponded with USPS’s physical delivery timelines (e.g. basically, don’t let someone request a mail in ballot within 4 days of the election) and there was a massive over-reaction. In the end there has been no incidence of ballots not being delivered on time that I’ve seen.
Specifically, in PA where they were segregating late arriving ballots, only about 10,000 ballots arrived after 8pm on Election Day, and there’s no reason to believe those ballots weren’t delivered within the expected delivery timeframe and just mailed late.
The USPS wrote a letter months ago trying to urge states to be sure their mailing cutoff timelines corresponded with USPS’s physical delivery timelines (e.g. basically, don’t let someone request a mail in ballot within 4 days of the election) and there was a massive over-reaction. In the end there has been no incidence of ballots not being delivered on time that I’ve seen.
You do realize GOP observers were thrown out in PA, and they put up bristol board so media observers couldn't see into the counting area right? They also violated orders by Justice Alito to keep mail in votes separate and votes by incoming date separate.
Their State courts also rules to extend the voting deadline for mail-in, which goes against their own laws and may end up going against the constitution.
PA has not been confirmed on some media sites; and been switched back to grey. It will likely make it to the Supreme Cort.
Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a lot of credible voter irregularities. Due process violations occurred in PA and NV (observers not allowed access) and in Detroit (observers were told to go home when 120k votes came in at 4am .. and then those votes changed to 12k).
There are a lot of questionable aspects to this election and they all need to be investigated. Please at least realize that investigation needs to happen. If there are no issues, investigations should not be a big deal. So far every state in question has been actively hindering transparency.
This could turn into one of the most disputed elections of our time and the media is trying to dismiss all the irregularities. This is incredibly dangerous, as we could potentially see riots that would make May look like a Canadian hockey game after party.
Their State courts also rules to extend the voting deadline for mail-in, which goes against their own laws and may end up going against the constitution.
PA has not been confirmed on some media sites; and been switched back to grey. It will likely make it to the Supreme Cort.
Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a lot of credible voter irregularities. Due process violations occurred in PA and NV (observers not allowed access) and in Detroit (observers were told to go home when 120k votes came in at 4am .. and then those votes changed to 12k).
There are a lot of questionable aspects to this election and they all need to be investigated. Please at least realize that investigation needs to happen. If there are no issues, investigations should not be a big deal. So far every state in question has been actively hindering transparency.
This could turn into one of the most disputed elections of our time and the media is trying to dismiss all the irregularities. This is incredibly dangerous, as we could potentially see riots that would make May look like a Canadian hockey game after party.
# 1 would fit, if there were a proportionate number of mail-in ballots for Jo Jorgensen and Kanye West. If you have 10,000 ballots, some of those will be expected. Tens of thousands of Biden-only? Repeatedly? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
What does “Biden only” votes mean to you? Is that where you see vote totals jump for Biden, but not for any other candidate? Because your conclusion from that, that it’s obviously fraud, seems incredibly naive. The simple answer is they update candidate totals in chunks.
Further, if someone was committing fraud, they could just add a few votes for other candidates to evade your detection. Your sniff test doesn’t pass my sniff test.
Further, if someone was committing fraud, they could just add a few votes for other candidates to evade your detection. Your sniff test doesn’t pass my sniff test.
Biden-only means the ballot is marked _only_ for Biden, and not for any of the congress or local legislature candidates. That's unlikely as fuck, especially when such ballots come as a large batch or a series of large batches. That's what you do if you bought into the "Joe is ahead by 15%" polls and didn't have the time to make your scam believable at 4AM on November 4th.
For PA
Joe Biden: 3,376,367 Donald Trump: 3,326,687 Jo Jorgensen: 77,922
So, for every Jorgensen voter, there are approx. 43 Biden voters.
I mean, if mail-ins were proportional, you'd expect Jorgensen to get what, between 100 and 200 mail-in ballots? But we know that Biden has a much higher ratio of mail-in ballots than Trump, and maybe Jorgensen voters are closer to Trump than Biden, in their voting habits?
Just speculation. Same goes for Kanye West. Who knows how many of those votes were serious and planned, and how many were just for the "lols" at the polling station.
Points is - both Jorgensen and West are so few compared to the rest, that seeing just tens to a couple of hundred votes per TEN thousand doesn't really seem out of place.
Joe Biden: 3,376,367 Donald Trump: 3,326,687 Jo Jorgensen: 77,922
So, for every Jorgensen voter, there are approx. 43 Biden voters.
I mean, if mail-ins were proportional, you'd expect Jorgensen to get what, between 100 and 200 mail-in ballots? But we know that Biden has a much higher ratio of mail-in ballots than Trump, and maybe Jorgensen voters are closer to Trump than Biden, in their voting habits?
Just speculation. Same goes for Kanye West. Who knows how many of those votes were serious and planned, and how many were just for the "lols" at the polling station.
Points is - both Jorgensen and West are so few compared to the rest, that seeing just tens to a couple of hundred votes per TEN thousand doesn't really seem out of place.
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.
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.
In Florida, early votes were counted as soon as they were received. In Pennsylvania, by state law the early votes couldn't be counted until the polls closed. That's the main reason for the difference in timing and the large shift.
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.
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.
That's not true as far as I can see. Which other states are you talking about? Are you confusing party registration with vote, maybe? Are you correcting for ballot return rate, which itself was very different between registrations?
Did this only happen in swing states and VA though? And why does drift happen _well after_ in-person vote is already counted? And do you have data to support your point #1? Because people claim that, but I don't really see any evidence to support the claim.
It's substantially more noticeable in swing states because they're swing states and by definition divided roughly 50/50 on partisan lines (really usually 30/30/30[undecided/independent], but the latter varies from place to place). If a state is more heavily tilted one way than the other, the day-of vote is more likely to be just as representative of that tilt as the mail-in vote, especially if you stop paying attention when the state gets called (which was as soon as polls closed for many of the states whose tendencies were more obvious). To add, urban areas have been more heavily hit by covid (so are more likely to vote by mail) and even the in-person vote count in cities takes longer to count. Even in 2016, IIRC Clinton started to (ultimately unsuccessfully) close the gap in MI and WI later at night as the vote counts from Detroit and Milwaukee trickled in.
edit: to balance parens
edit: to balance parens
Because mail delays were strategic against the swing states. Florida, for example, where they're allowed to count mail in votes well before election day, did not see much shift in voting ratios as time went on.
Have you done any searching for evidence? It is trivially easy to find. Paper looking at partisan voting methods: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24640 One of the presidents attempts to discredit mail in voting: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12888181603895582...
And of bigger importance, the election that just occurred, where mail in ballots were heavily partisan.
Have you done any searching for evidence? It is trivially easy to find. Paper looking at partisan voting methods: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24640 One of the presidents attempts to discredit mail in voting: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12888181603895582...
And of bigger importance, the election that just occurred, where mail in ballots were heavily partisan.
> Did this only happen in swing states and VA though?
I see no evidence that this is the case, but certainly you'd expect differences in the apparent pattern based on state ballot counting procedures. Swing states get a lot more attention, and in addition, the swing states where the effect has been noticed plus Virginia all delay even the beginning of mail-in ballot processing to election day, some not allowing ballot counts of mail-in ballots until after the polls close. So, that forces any systematic differences in mail-in ballots to also produce aystematic differences in vote count over time, whereas systems where the mail-in ballots are preprocessed well before election day and have no required delay after the polls close for counting don't systematically create that issue.
I see no evidence that this is the case, but certainly you'd expect differences in the apparent pattern based on state ballot counting procedures. Swing states get a lot more attention, and in addition, the swing states where the effect has been noticed plus Virginia all delay even the beginning of mail-in ballot processing to election day, some not allowing ballot counts of mail-in ballots until after the polls close. So, that forces any systematic differences in mail-in ballots to also produce aystematic differences in vote count over time, whereas systems where the mail-in ballots are preprocessed well before election day and have no required delay after the polls close for counting don't systematically create that issue.
> why does drift happen _well after_ in-person vote is already counted?
Where is the evidence for this? Most states weren't particularly clear about exactly which ballots were being counted when, and didn't report distinct ballot cohorts. The GA data (where they were really good about it after Tuesday) doesn't show the effect you're talking about.
[edit: OK, you're just repeating this point without evidence again and again in this topic, despite being repeatedly asked for a citation. That doesn't seem like rational discussion, and I suspect you're just being a troll.]
Where is the evidence for this? Most states weren't particularly clear about exactly which ballots were being counted when, and didn't report distinct ballot cohorts. The GA data (where they were really good about it after Tuesday) doesn't show the effect you're talking about.
[edit: OK, you're just repeating this point without evidence again and again in this topic, despite being repeatedly asked for a citation. That doesn't seem like rational discussion, and I suspect you're just being a troll.]
Exactly! We didn't see any issues in any non-contested areas. We're seeing serious problems in Detroit, Philly, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Las Vegas.
But we didn't see any issues at all in Miami, or Cleveland, or Iowa City, or Cincinnati, or Dallas, or Nashville, or Houston. All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
The irregularities in these key cities is highly suspected, especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software .. and that software is used in 40+ counties. All of those votes are going to need to be manually counted now.
As more work is done and the recounts being, I predict the differences between the hand and machine counts is going to be a significant indicator of election interference.
This is on its way to be the most contested election in history.
But we didn't see any issues at all in Miami, or Cleveland, or Iowa City, or Cincinnati, or Dallas, or Nashville, or Houston. All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
The irregularities in these key cities is highly suspected, especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software .. and that software is used in 40+ counties. All of those votes are going to need to be manually counted now.
As more work is done and the recounts being, I predict the differences between the hand and machine counts is going to be a significant indicator of election interference.
This is on its way to be the most contested election in history.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
One has to be careful that comparisons are made between comparable entities. In this case, note that different states can begin processing absentee/mail-in votes at different times [0], so one state being able to handle absentee/mail-in vote processing without apparent incident does not necessarily say anything about how counting might progress in another state.
> Detroit, Philly, ..., Milwaukee
Absentee/mail-in vote processing/counting can only begin on Election Day.
> Atlanta, ..., Las Vegas
Signature verification can be performed upon receipt of the absentee/mail-in ballot, but actual counting can only start on Election Day
> Miami
Ballot verification/counting can start 22 days before Election Day
> or Cleveland, ..., or Cincinnati
Verification and scanning can occur before Election Day. Unclear whether "scanning" includes counting, or just how far ahead of time the process can start.
> or Iowa City
Affadavits may be reviewed the day before Election Day, but counting can only start on Election Day (and must be finished by 10 P.M. on Election Day)
> Or Dallas, ..., or Houston
Verification can be performed upon receipt. Jurisdictions with <= 100k people, counting starts on Election Day; for larger jurisdictions, counting can start at the end of the early voting by personal appearance period, which I think is 4 days before Election Day [1]
> or Nashville
Verification can be performed upon receipt, but counting can only start on Election Day.
So in short, some of the examples of cities that count "without incident" can conceivably do so because they have much more time to do so. Iowa City and Nashville are better comparisons, but that doesn't rule out some other factor that renders the comparison invalid.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
Do they actually have all their ballots counted, or do they simply not show up in news stories?
For example, Decision Desk HQ reports that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia have >99% of their ballots in, while Michigan, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, Nevada, California, and Washington all are reported to have >95% of their ballots in. So by those metrics, states in the first group are doing better than states in the second group, but some states in the second group get attention heaped upon them, while others seemingly pass under the radar.
New York is a particularly egregious example, with a reported 77.3-88.0% of its ballots in. And yet very little attention appears to be devoted to it.
(This assumes DDHQ's numbers are actually reasonable/accurate, of course)
> especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software
You seem to be mixing some stories.
From what I understand, the race whose results got reversed was for the Oakland County Board of Commissions [2]. The margin was 1127 votes.
The 6000 vote reversal was from Antrim county. The Michigan Secretary of State has put out a statement about that specific incident [3], where they claim that the error was due to human error, not software error (though it's not entirely unreasonable to say the software is not entirely blameless, as pointed out in [4] by a University of Michigan professor who claims to have looked into the incident [5]), and that no manual recount was involved.
[0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...
[1]: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html
[2]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...
[3]: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-544676--,00....
[4]: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/human-error-dom...
[5]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...
One has to be careful that comparisons are made between comparable entities. In this case, note that different states can begin processing absentee/mail-in votes at different times [0], so one state being able to handle absentee/mail-in vote processing without apparent incident does not necessarily say anything about how counting might progress in another state.
> Detroit, Philly, ..., Milwaukee
Absentee/mail-in vote processing/counting can only begin on Election Day.
> Atlanta, ..., Las Vegas
Signature verification can be performed upon receipt of the absentee/mail-in ballot, but actual counting can only start on Election Day
> Miami
Ballot verification/counting can start 22 days before Election Day
> or Cleveland, ..., or Cincinnati
Verification and scanning can occur before Election Day. Unclear whether "scanning" includes counting, or just how far ahead of time the process can start.
> or Iowa City
Affadavits may be reviewed the day before Election Day, but counting can only start on Election Day (and must be finished by 10 P.M. on Election Day)
> Or Dallas, ..., or Houston
Verification can be performed upon receipt. Jurisdictions with <= 100k people, counting starts on Election Day; for larger jurisdictions, counting can start at the end of the early voting by personal appearance period, which I think is 4 days before Election Day [1]
> or Nashville
Verification can be performed upon receipt, but counting can only start on Election Day.
So in short, some of the examples of cities that count "without incident" can conceivably do so because they have much more time to do so. Iowa City and Nashville are better comparisons, but that doesn't rule out some other factor that renders the comparison invalid.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
Do they actually have all their ballots counted, or do they simply not show up in news stories?
For example, Decision Desk HQ reports that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia have >99% of their ballots in, while Michigan, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, Nevada, California, and Washington all are reported to have >95% of their ballots in. So by those metrics, states in the first group are doing better than states in the second group, but some states in the second group get attention heaped upon them, while others seemingly pass under the radar.
New York is a particularly egregious example, with a reported 77.3-88.0% of its ballots in. And yet very little attention appears to be devoted to it.
(This assumes DDHQ's numbers are actually reasonable/accurate, of course)
> especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software
You seem to be mixing some stories.
From what I understand, the race whose results got reversed was for the Oakland County Board of Commissions [2]. The margin was 1127 votes.
The 6000 vote reversal was from Antrim county. The Michigan Secretary of State has put out a statement about that specific incident [3], where they claim that the error was due to human error, not software error (though it's not entirely unreasonable to say the software is not entirely blameless, as pointed out in [4] by a University of Michigan professor who claims to have looked into the incident [5]), and that no manual recount was involved.
[0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...
[1]: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html
[2]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...
[3]: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-544676--,00....
[4]: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/human-error-dom...
[5]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...
Track late vote tallies in other states. They shifted Democratic as well. This is why the popular vote count has shifted by about 2,000,000 votes from around election day, even though the counts in the states getting close attention have shifted only by a fraction of that amount. Data is there to fully support this trend, it is not just a PA, Georgia, etc thing. And point #1 is fully supported by the most trivial search to see what President Trump has been saying about mail voting for months, up to & including attempts to make it harder, leading supporters of President Trump to believe the best way to have their vote be counted was to vote in person.
https://apnews.com/article/14a2ceda724623604cc8d8e5ab9890ed
https://apnews.com/article/14a2ceda724623604cc8d8e5ab9890ed
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-...
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?
It is! It's happening right now in NY and CA, which (being big, lazy, and mostly single-party) count their ballots like mollases. Biden's lead there has been steadily and inexorably climbing. And this despite the fact that they are neither swing states nor Virginia.
Can I flip the question around: can you show me a state with late mail ballot counting that is not trending toward Biden? The only exception I can think of is AZ over the past few days, but they're processing primarily provisionals in red counties at this point. The blue counties are done.
Edit: or alternatively, why is Arizona not evidence of fraud by Trump, given that it counted up very rapidly to Biden, leveled off when the early vote was complete, and then began processing different ballots that skewed differently. CLEARLY Trump is cheating with those provisionals, right?
The whole thesis is just silly. Different counties count at different rates. Different populations vote by different mechanisms, and the reported vote over time is an essentially random walk within that space. There's no mechanism by which you'd expect a consistent rate of margin growth. It doesn't even make sense.
Can I flip the question around: can you show me a state with late mail ballot counting that is not trending toward Biden? The only exception I can think of is AZ over the past few days, but they're processing primarily provisionals in red counties at this point. The blue counties are done.
Edit: or alternatively, why is Arizona not evidence of fraud by Trump, given that it counted up very rapidly to Biden, leveled off when the early vote was complete, and then began processing different ballots that skewed differently. CLEARLY Trump is cheating with those provisionals, right?
The whole thesis is just silly. Different counties count at different rates. Different populations vote by different mechanisms, and the reported vote over time is an essentially random walk within that space. There's no mechanism by which you'd expect a consistent rate of margin growth. It doesn't even make sense.
Because smaller rural districts finish counting early, leaving only the heavily blue urban districts towards the end
> Why is this not happening in non-swing states other than Virginia?
On what basis do you say its not?
On what basis do you say its not?
Mail ballots come from different counties with highly different demographics. You get massive Biden support in one city and massive Trump support in another rural county - it's not surprising at all. There's also differences in when the ballots arrived: some states could process ballots ahead of time so the late counted ones are only those that arrived late and may be more or less D/R leaning. And different states have different voter registration policies; that's why Arizona has had relatively good Trump performance on the later counts since there are a large number of Republican voters using vote-by-mail and there always have been in Arizona. There is boundless discussion of the specifics of this on twitter, etc. I don't think swing state/non-swing state is a useful categorization here. Just look at the where the ballots are coming from directly.
> 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?
Cause voting is not luck based. Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Partly because of covid, which they are more likely to believe is an issues. Plus, Trump and republicans discouraged mail voting and claimed it is fraudulent long before election. They did also tried to stop the mail counting and slow down post.
So, republicans were less likely to trust mail and more likely to vote in person.
Cause voting is not luck based. Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Partly because of covid, which they are more likely to believe is an issues. Plus, Trump and republicans discouraged mail voting and claimed it is fraudulent long before election. They did also tried to stop the mail counting and slow down post.
So, republicans were less likely to trust mail and more likely to vote in person.
Because Trump told all his base to NOT vote by mail.
In addition to my other comment: Mail votes increasing the Democrats' vote tallies is not unique to PA. If you track the overall popular vote from day to day, you will see it has increased drastically to a degree that far overshadows the late counts of mail votes in the few states that decided this election.
This is because many other states that were not swing states, "red" and "blue", simply aren't getting any attention. But the late counted mail votes in those states have followed the same pattern as PA. If you believe PA is somehow special in this phenomenon, you are wrong.
Finally, if you want to complain about your perception of a problem with late votes skewing things, the cause of that comes down to election laws in PA which prevent processing of such votes until election day, which was a law that PA sought to change so results would be known earlier, but they were blocked in this effort by GOP state legislature.
This is because many other states that were not swing states, "red" and "blue", simply aren't getting any attention. But the late counted mail votes in those states have followed the same pattern as PA. If you believe PA is somehow special in this phenomenon, you are wrong.
Finally, if you want to complain about your perception of a problem with late votes skewing things, the cause of that comes down to election laws in PA which prevent processing of such votes until election day, which was a law that PA sought to change so results would be known earlier, but they were blocked in this effort by GOP state legislature.
It's only "luck" if votes are counted in a random and independent order, which I don't think is the case in PA
COVID precautions are highly stratified by political affiliation: Republicans have received the message that many/all precautions are unnecessary. Many others have followed more cautious recommendations from medical experts. In addition, Republicans received the message the mail voting was inherently more subject to fraud, while Democrats, cautious of COVID and not believing the "fraud" message, frequently votes by mail.
This had the exactly predicted result that Democrats voted by mail significantly more than Republicans, who were much more inclined to vote by person.
Many states report in-person voting very quickly, while mail in votes take more time to process. This, again, had the easily predicted outcome of increasingly the tally of votes for Democratic candidates by a significant margin over Republican mail votes.
A great example of this same phenomenon can be seen in states like Florida that are allowed to count such votes before election day. In those states, the predicted result of increased Democratic early/mail voting was fully born out by the results: Democrats lead the early available result, and as in-person votes on election day were tallied Republican votes significantly outpaced Democratic votes. Of course neither Republicans, or Democrats whose tallies suffered as more in-person results were processed, complained about this or alleged fraud, because again, it was the exactly predicted result
Another consideration is that, while polls weren't perfect, the overall result of the election is supported by the polls. Yes, in any individual state the polls may have been outside the margin of error, but as a whole, and in national polls, the results of the election follow the direction of the polls, and the national popular vote is generally within the margin of error on display in national polls. While still not perfect in this election cycle, pollsters did rethink their methods after 2016, taking steps like weighting education level in their models in accordance with the 2016 outcomes, so it is not surprising that, overall, the polls more closely mirrored the results of the 2020 election.
A final point with respect to the claim that Democrats are good at or routinely cheat in elections. The record of Democratic wins does not support this. If they were excellent at stealing elections, I would not expect them to have lost more than half of the presidential elections in the last 40 years. I would not expect them to occupy less than half of the state Governorships. I would not expect them to be in control of less than half of state legislatures. I would not expect them to lose very tight races in toss-up states. I would not expect election results in specific regions, counties, etc. to closely mirror party affiliation trends in voter registration.
I would expect massive conspiracies that would require thousands of people across the country to collaborate to be just about impossible to hide. I would expect more concrete evidence of voter fraud to appear than claims that typically disappear on close inspection. I would expect the bipartisan group of election officials, poll workers, etc. to include substantial numbers of people from opposing parties to have witnessed systematic irregularities instead of the rare vague suspicion.
In short, no available data has come to light to support any sort of widespread election fraud. Should any of the very small scale allegations being levelled by President Trump's campaign demonstrate concrete evidence, I fully support a rigorous investigation and legal proceeding to bring the incidents to light.
This had the exactly predicted result that Democrats voted by mail significantly more than Republicans, who were much more inclined to vote by person.
Many states report in-person voting very quickly, while mail in votes take more time to process. This, again, had the easily predicted outcome of increasingly the tally of votes for Democratic candidates by a significant margin over Republican mail votes.
A great example of this same phenomenon can be seen in states like Florida that are allowed to count such votes before election day. In those states, the predicted result of increased Democratic early/mail voting was fully born out by the results: Democrats lead the early available result, and as in-person votes on election day were tallied Republican votes significantly outpaced Democratic votes. Of course neither Republicans, or Democrats whose tallies suffered as more in-person results were processed, complained about this or alleged fraud, because again, it was the exactly predicted result
Another consideration is that, while polls weren't perfect, the overall result of the election is supported by the polls. Yes, in any individual state the polls may have been outside the margin of error, but as a whole, and in national polls, the results of the election follow the direction of the polls, and the national popular vote is generally within the margin of error on display in national polls. While still not perfect in this election cycle, pollsters did rethink their methods after 2016, taking steps like weighting education level in their models in accordance with the 2016 outcomes, so it is not surprising that, overall, the polls more closely mirrored the results of the 2020 election.
A final point with respect to the claim that Democrats are good at or routinely cheat in elections. The record of Democratic wins does not support this. If they were excellent at stealing elections, I would not expect them to have lost more than half of the presidential elections in the last 40 years. I would not expect them to occupy less than half of the state Governorships. I would not expect them to be in control of less than half of state legislatures. I would not expect them to lose very tight races in toss-up states. I would not expect election results in specific regions, counties, etc. to closely mirror party affiliation trends in voter registration.
I would expect massive conspiracies that would require thousands of people across the country to collaborate to be just about impossible to hide. I would expect more concrete evidence of voter fraud to appear than claims that typically disappear on close inspection. I would expect the bipartisan group of election officials, poll workers, etc. to include substantial numbers of people from opposing parties to have witnessed systematic irregularities instead of the rare vague suspicion.
In short, no available data has come to light to support any sort of widespread election fraud. Should any of the very small scale allegations being levelled by President Trump's campaign demonstrate concrete evidence, I fully support a rigorous investigation and legal proceeding to bring the incidents to light.
I'm curious where everyone is getting their "news" at. For one, the "blue wave" of mail in ballots is a myth: https://i.imgur.com/LIX2cwQ.jpg
Two: No one is really questioning the machines not "working right". It is clear that there is no validation with the mail in ballots. MIB's are some of the most rejected ballots there are, yet no one seems to have any stats on this, or the stats provided are very low. Then you factor in tons of twitter and facebook posts of women saying that they were sent two ballots, one for their maiden name and one for their current name, at both their current address and their old addresses. Never mind that it is state law in most of these places that a ballot has to be "solicited" and cannot just be mailed en mass via mail. Put another way, you can't just mail 5 million ballots out to just 1 million physical addresses. I would not be surprised if during a recount, 50% of these MIBs are rejected.
Three: elections are quite predictable. There are 100's of counties that for the last 40 years have always predicted the outcome. If this county is blue, then blue is our president, etc. This seems to still be the case this time around, except for the states in question.
People's Pundit Daily https://youtu.be/Em0R9DRSbIE for the most part has been a really good source of information on behind the scene numbers and what "normal" elections typically should look like. I'd recommend it.
Two: No one is really questioning the machines not "working right". It is clear that there is no validation with the mail in ballots. MIB's are some of the most rejected ballots there are, yet no one seems to have any stats on this, or the stats provided are very low. Then you factor in tons of twitter and facebook posts of women saying that they were sent two ballots, one for their maiden name and one for their current name, at both their current address and their old addresses. Never mind that it is state law in most of these places that a ballot has to be "solicited" and cannot just be mailed en mass via mail. Put another way, you can't just mail 5 million ballots out to just 1 million physical addresses. I would not be surprised if during a recount, 50% of these MIBs are rejected.
Three: elections are quite predictable. There are 100's of counties that for the last 40 years have always predicted the outcome. If this county is blue, then blue is our president, etc. This seems to still be the case this time around, except for the states in question.
People's Pundit Daily https://youtu.be/Em0R9DRSbIE for the most part has been a really good source of information on behind the scene numbers and what "normal" elections typically should look like. I'd recommend it.
My parents in PA received a mail in ballot for my grandfather. He has been dead over 7 years. Not only is he dead, he never lived with my parents at their address. I keep checking the status of his mail in ballot online to ensure that he hasn’t voted.
* As a security/integrity issue, the ballots themselves are much less scary than the pollbooks, which are what we use to match voters against the voting rolls.
* Everything's ultimately on paper; there are bar codes, which nobody loves, but they're auditable against the readable printed ballot.
* Most of the security is physical/human; for us, each polling station (a location can have several precincts and thus several stations, each a giant rolling metal box) is sealed using numbered plastic seals before the polls open and after they're closed, and everything is recorded redundantly and signed off on by the poll workers.
* A matching count at the close of polls is a big deal, a nightmare big deal; in Illinois, we can't just shrug off a missing ballot and say "nothing we can do about it"; in March, I had to stay 3 hours late while we resolved a similar issue (IIRC, a mis-recorded provisional). Most pollworkers in my experience are there for the money (I've never bothered cashing the check) and the threat that they won't get paid if they count doesn't match is extremely powerful.
* The local police are not allowed to monitor polling places, and the municipality of the polling place is usually confused about that; in Cook County, it's the County Sheriff's Department that has authority over polling places. Our cops were very friendly and responsive.
* The drama of every election is the the "string line" that defined the 100 foot "no electioneering" radius of the polling place; the entertainment you can count on each cycle is the candidate whose people religiously move their lawn signs inside the string line, and freak out when you remove them.
It's an interesting system that derives a lot of resiliency from extreme complexity and maximal human touch points --- Illinois elections will never do something with 1 person when the same thing could be done with 2 --- which is sort of the opposite of how we reason about security online. It's simultaneously terrifying and reassuring.