Observing the vote count

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone understands the reasoning behind the policy not to allow vote count to be observed? Here are two obvious questions:

a) What would stop people who count votes from simply making up the number that would favor whatever candidate that person happens to favor? Its not even about Republicans or Democrats, I think people on either side can lie if nobody watches them, thats just human nature.

b) I guess if the above is just a sacrifice for "greater good" then maybe it would make sense. But what "is" the greater good here? I guess right now "greater good" is looking credible. But what about November 3? What bad thing would have happened if, on November 3, people were allowed to observe the vote count from as close the distance as they like?

I guess if thats the policy they had in other elections too then I can still see how Trump is being a bit dishonest in that he didn't protest all the previous elections and he only protests the one that he lost. But still the question remains: *why* did they have that policy in the previous elections? Just because something happens over and over that doesn't remove the question as to why it happens. And, by the way, did they, in fact, have that policy, or is it something recent?

I never heard of any policy of "not observing the vote count". So I dont know what you're talking about.

There is no general policy that vote counts are not allowed to be observed. Many states allow the count to be viewed by the general public, in limited numbers. Other states require that you be an approved election official, or elected state official. In either case, bipartisan observation of the count usually occurs one way or another. Many places now livestream the count.

The idea that "you can't watch the count" is drummed up from an instance where a counter was denied access to a secured count room, for failing to be able to prove they were who they said they were. As soon as they were properly identified, they were given access. They took the part of the story where they were turned away, ignored the reason WHY they were turned away, ignored the fact that they were admitted access once things were cleared up, and turned it into "they won't let us view the count!"

So yeah, that's not actually a rule.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/veri ... c431849575


Rules by state
https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/ ... s-2020.pdf

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 15 Nov 2020, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In Pennsylvania there was a policy that observers have to be at least certain number of feet away. Although I read different numbers from different sources. I remember hearing 20 feet, but today I read that it was 10 feet and then Trump's team was able to get it down to 6 feet. So I am not sure about the exact numbers. But why would they have those numbers to begin with?

Keeping people away from the actual votes so they can't get close enough to mess with the actual votes. If you're close enough to the votes to touch them, you're close enough to the votes to steal one, or add one.

Also ""you can't watch" and "you can watch, but have to be X feet away" are NOT the same thing.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 15 Nov 2020, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But, presumably, they would go to jail if they do it, so nobody would dare.

That has NEVER stopped people from trying. If NOBODY gets close enough to even try, then you don't have to worry about someone CLAIMING that they saw someone do something.

First off...thats not "a policy of not observing the count". Its the exact opposite.

Second ..have you been under a rock for the last eight months????? We ALL have to stay six feet apart when doing ANYthing (counting votes or shopping for groceries). Ever heard of the Covid Virus?????

That too. You have to police the observers as well.

In what sense is it opposite?



Okay, it didn't occur to me that 6 feet coincided with the covid distance. But still, what about 20 feet and 10 feet that I heard about earlier?

But then the other solution is to handcuff them while they are watching votes, and then they can stay as close as they like.

Of course, you can't handcuff someone who isn't guilty of a crime. So I guess you can *give them a choice* between two options:

Option 1: Stand without handcuffs, 20 feet away

Option 2: Stand with the handcuffs, as close as they like

And then you leave it up to them to pick one or the other. And of course they are also allowed to switch back and forth. So if they chose to stand in the handcuffs but then they got tired of the handcuffs, then they can ask to get them removed with the precondition that they step aside by 20 feet first. And, conversely, if someone chose to be without handcuffs, but then they can't see properly, they can ask to be put in handcuffs and allowed closer in to see it.

Yes, you have ti have observers watching the observers. Then you have to have observers watcthing the observers watching the observers.

Finally...you have to have observers watching the observers watching the observers watching the observers....where the f**k was I?

In the end, none of this matters, because of the candidates are not worth voting for and should all die a horrible death from inoperable cancer.

Who is going to police the...police police, but...the police police police?




Please police me...like I...police you.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 15 Nov 2020, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its a policy of "observing the count". Not of "NOT observing the count". Ergo it's the opposite.

But is there such a policy? I thought that people are "allowed" to observe it, rather than "have to"?

Either way its the opposite of what you were saying.