5 ms·

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 viol

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 ;]

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
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.
- thedream 6y ago
  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?
raisedbyninjas 6y ago
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.
- thedream 6y ago
  "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?).
  - barumi 6y ago
    > "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.
    - thedream 6y ago
      > 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/Primary_2020_Election_Board_Training_Guide.pdf https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > "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.
    - thedream 6y ago
      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...
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Clarification and examples do not make an inherently qualitative thing quantifiable.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

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.

thedream 6y ago
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?

raisedbyninjas 6y ago

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.

thedream 6y ago
"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?).
- barumi 6y ago
  > "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.
  - thedream 6y ago
    > 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/Primary_2020_Election_Board_Training_Guide.pdf https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > "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.
  - thedream 6y ago
    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...
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Clarification and examples do not make an inherently qualitative thing quantifiable.