3 ms·
"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 p
by 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 agoIt'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 agoClarification and examples do not make an inherently qualitative thing quantifiable.
- thedream 6y agoIndeed. 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?
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThey didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities. There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.
- thedream 6y ago> they interpreted them to the best of their abilities Oh wow that settles it, then! Case closed. By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.
- 6y ago