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.
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?
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)
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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 definitely political messaging, but the linked PDF says that political messaging is only banned if it's associated with a specific campaign or candidate.
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.
It's arguably made them blunter and more strident, but I don't think "righties" are on particularly solid ground if they want accuse the left of being uniquely mean and insulting.
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.
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?).
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...
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?
They didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities.
There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.
> By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.
This is a particularly funny response given that your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive for interpreting the rules in a particular way.
Yes, they allow me to mentally travel back and recall past events. Behold:
> 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!
> "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.
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?
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.
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.
