VENT--My really uncomfortable voting experience

[lllll]

nm

Edited December 2, 2015 by ^ 022

[KungFuPanda]

I'm trying to figure out how it would make you uncomfortable. If you don't believe in hell, then other people believing you're going there shouldn't be an issue. I mean, we KNOW some people believe this and some don't. It's an odd, unprofessional conversation to have, but I wouldn't consider it complaint-worthy if these are volunteers and it didn't hold up the line.

[Hikin' Mama]

I'm trying to figure out how it would make you uncomfortable. If you don't believe in hell, then other people believing you're going there shouldn't be an issue. I mean, we KNOW some people believe this and some don't. It's an odd, unprofessional conversation to have, but I wouldn't consider it complaint-worthy if these are volunteers and it didn't hold up the line.

I agree. I live in an area where there are many people of a denomination that has very different beliefs than I do. I hear them talking about it often. It doesn't bother me, because I don't believe it.

 

I have a very good friend who is Catholic (I'm not). She and I were on a field trip and talking to another Catholic woman. In the course of conversation, the other woman said that people who weren't Catholic weren't part of the true church and weren't going to heaven. (I don't know if all Catholics believe this, or if she just said it.) I think she assumed I was Catholic, because of my friend. Here again, didn't bother me, because I don't believe it.

 

I have a FB friend who posts pagan/witch stuff, and I am a Christian. I like her as a person, though our beliefs are obviously different. Her beliefs don't change mine.

 

I read albeto's posts often, even though I disagree with her, because as I stated above, I'm a Christian. Doesn't make me uncomfortable, because I'm firm in my beliefs. I still sometimes like to hear another point of view. I get my own point of view all. day. long. from my brain that never shuts off. :)

 

I think it is interesting to hear where other people are coming from. Even if sometimes I go away thinking, "Oh my, what a nutter!"

[chiguirre]

I'm trying to figure out how it would make you uncomfortable. If you don't believe in hell, then other people believing you're going there shouldn't be an issue. I mean, we KNOW some people believe this and some don't. It's an odd, unprofessional conversation to have, but I wouldn't consider it complaint-worthy if these are volunteers and it didn't hold up the line.

 

 

I agree. I live in an area where there are many people of a denomination that has very different beliefs than I do. I hear them talking about it often. It doesn't bother me, because I don't believe it.

 

I have a very good friend who is Catholic (I'm not). She and I were on a field trip and talking to another Catholic woman. In the course of conversation, the other woman said that people who weren't Catholic weren't part of the true church and weren't going to heaven. (I don't know if all Catholics believe this, or if she just said it.) I think she assumed I was Catholic, because of my friend. Here again, didn't bother me, because I don't believe it.

 

I have a FB friend who posts pagan/witch stuff, and I am a Christian. I like her as a person, though our beliefs are obviously different. Her beliefs don't change mine.

 

I read albeto's posts often, even though I disagree with her, because as I stated above, I'm a Christian. Doesn't make me uncomfortable, because I'm firm in my beliefs. I still sometimes like to hear another point of view. I get my own point of view all. day. long. from my brain that never shuts off. :)

 

I think it is interesting to hear where other people are coming from. Even if sometimes I go away thinking, "Oh my, what a nutter!"

These were not random nutters. They were the official poll workers (they aren't paid, but they are officially in charge of the voter roll). They are in a position of authority and could conceivably prevent you from voting. I really had no ability to ignore their conversation. They were discussing damnation while they were checking my driver's license against the voter roll. This is in no way appropriate behavior for people who control access to the voting booths.

[Pam in CT]

I'm trying to figure out how it would make you uncomfortable. If you don't believe in hell, then other people believing you're going there shouldn't be an issue. I mean, we KNOW some people believe this and some don't. It's an odd, unprofessional conversation to have, but I wouldn't consider it complaint-worthy if these are volunteers and it didn't hold up the line.

 

Can't speak for OP.  I generally have a pretty thick skin and can tolerate disagreement.  

 

For me, the context of the conversation being at a polling place, conducted audibly by poll workers, makes a material difference.  *Many* conversations that would not make me the least bit uncomfortable if I overheard them in a diner, would trouble me in that context.

 

I'd be troubled if poll workers on the job were chatting audibly about homeschooling being equivalent to educational neglect.  Whether or not I was a homeschooler.

 

I'd be troubled if pollworkers on the job were chatting audibly about handicapped ramps being a monumental waste of public taxes.  Whether or not I used such ramps.

 

I'd be troubled if pollworkers on the job were chatting audibly about how non vaxxers put immune-compromised kids at risk.  Whether or not I had such a child, or vaccinated myself, or didn't.

 

I'd also be troubled if pollworkers on the job were audibly kvetching about mothers who brought their enormous broods of kids to vote, or elderly voters who tottered and took too much time, or a person whose first language was something other than English asked for clarification on the ballot instructions.  Or whatever.

 

 

The job of the pollworkers is to help eligible voters to vote.  Cheerful speculation about which ones are destined for damnation does not further this cause.  Whether or not it crosses a legal line, it is sufficiently unprofessional that the voter registrar or whoever is doing the poll worker orientation and training should IMO be apprised of it.  

[Garga]

They shouldn't have been talking about hot topic issues at the voting booths.  However, it should not be illegal.  Do we need more laws like that?  No. That seems like a frivilous law.  It should be policy and they should be told to knock it off, but it should not be a law in the lawbooks. I mean, we're all adults and humans and do we really want to be told what we're allowed to talk about or not?  No. We don't want to go down that road.  Not in a legal sense.  In a common sense, don't be an irritating poll worker sense, sure, but not make it illegal. 

[Murphy101]

Were they talking about voters present?

 

I don't have enough context to be offended.

 

I think it was mildly unprofessional, but if I stopped going places that were unprofessional I'd have a hard time leaving the house and would wear myself out with all the complaining. :/

 

But two people talking to each other about something unrelated to their job or others around them, while doing their job in an otherwise satisfactory manner is not usually on my radar.

[Pam in CT]

They shouldn't have been talking about hot topic issues at the voting booths.  However, it should not be illegal.  Do we need more laws like that?  No. That seems like a frivilous law.  It should be policy and they should be told to knock it off, but it should not be a law in the lawbooks. I mean, we're all adults and humans and do we really want to be told what we're allowed to talk about or not?  No. We don't want to go down that road.  Not in a legal sense.  In a common sense, don't be an irritating poll worker sense, sure, but not make it illegal. 

 

I agree.  It's a training and management issue.  Poll workers need instruction, management and feedback about how to foster an appropriate environment, just like any other kind of worker.  

 

(Difficult to imagine what legislation would look like anyway.  No speculating on who's destined for hell while working at polling stations  is unlikely to do the job.   :laugh: )

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, it is completely the context of the polling station that makes this talk inappropriate.  Under normal circumstances I think people who are uncomfortable just need to be uncomfortable.  This is a different case. 

 

People who are involved in running voting already know that a conversation like that is not on, there is no need for a law.

 

I think sometimes we take voting a little for granted.  But there are international organizations dedicated to the institutional aspects of fair and free voting, it isn't a casual thing to run a fair voting system.  No one who comes to vote should feel like an outsider or unwelcome.  It probably isn't that big a deal for most of the people who post here - we are mostly pretty secure people who are articulate and have a strong sense of our right, even our obligation to vote.

 

That is not true of everyone - there are many vulnerable populations who we have difficulty getting out to vote, not to mention newer citizens who come from places where voting was dangerous.  

 

There is a reason international observers are sent to make sure voting is done properly.  The government rests on the will of the people for its authority, and any compromise of that is a potentially serious issue.

[Hikin' Mama]

These were not random nutters. They were the official poll workers (they aren't paid, but they are officially in charge of the voter roll). They are in a position of authority and could conceivably prevent you from voting. I really had no ability to ignore their conversation. They were discussing damnation while they were checking my driver's license against the voter roll. This is in no way appropriate behavior for people who control access to the voting booths.

While it wouldn't make me uncomfortable, I do agree that it was inappropriate, and I'm sorry that you felt uncomfortable. They should have saved any conversation amongst themselves for when they had no one there and therefore a break in their job. When I vote, the volunteers are fully focused on the voters and not really having personal conversations with one another, at least when I'm there. So I guess I do agree with you.

[FaithManor]

While I was checking in this morning at my local polling place the volunteers were publically discussing how "people who don't take care of their families" are worse than unbelievers and will be punished. Talk about not creating an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere in a civic space!

 

I was tempted to complain but that would have possibly descended into a nasty confrontation in a public school lobby while kids are in class.

 

But seriously, if you cannot welcome every voter without sounding off about the assumed moral worth of a large chunk of the population, do not volunteer to serve the entire electorate. It is not okay to create a hostile environment for every random non-Christian who goes to vote.

Wow! That would not fly here. 

 

I am in a little township so we rent the local conservation club for our township meetings and polling place. It's a fun time. People are so happy to be there to cast their vote. Everyone chats about what's happening in their businesses, or on the farm, or in the schools, and the weather, and where they went for vacation, and how big Buford and Jasper got this spring, and who got married, and who had a baby, and who passed away or moved to Arizona because they can't take one more Michigan ice storm. It is a great time of just catching up.

 

I am sorry that happened. Voting day is a great day for the citizenry, and they should not have to deal with intolerance, bigotry, or lack of manners from the poll workers. I think you should speak up about it.

[kiwik]

Hostile environment? Hearing an opinion different from yours constitutes a hostile environment? It's an open civic place. The Bill of Rights still applies.

 

If someone had said something to or about you personally or commented on the wellbeing or not of your kids, I'd be behind you. Not liking the conversation topics happening between volunteers for the 30 seconds you're engaged is just one of those things that should just roll off of your back. Seriously. Someone you don't know who follows a religion you don't believe thinks that nonbelievers and those who neglect children will be punished by a god you don't think exists...and somehow this is hostile?

 

I don't get it. I mean, who cares what a random stranger thinks? Who has the time to get worked up over it?

 

You shouldn't be hearing any personal opinions about any religious, political or social matter from the employees {paid or unpaid} at a polling station.  If they say they like the rain and you don't fine but anything else is inappropriate. I would say people voting should keep their mouths shut too but they do have expectation of free speech so it is just a manners thing.

 

And people shouldn't be carrying out personal conversations with each other while supposedly interacting with customers whether they are there to vote or to buy soap. 

[TranquilMind]

While I was checking in this morning at my local polling place the volunteers were publically discussing how "people who don't take care of their families" are worse than unbelievers and will be punished. Talk about not creating an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere in a civic space!

 

I was tempted to complain but that would have possibly descended into a nasty confrontation in a public school lobby while kids are in class.

 

But seriously, if you cannot welcome every voter without sounding off about the assumed moral worth of a large chunk of the population, do not volunteer to serve the entire electorate. It is not okay to create a hostile environment for every random non-Christian who goes to vote.

Well, it sounds like they are just having a conversation about their personal religious beliefs.

 

Curious...how is this hostile?  Are you in favor of "people who don't take care of their families" or does anyone advocate this as a morally neutral or good thing?    Not sure how they are defining that, but this is a scriptural reference. 

[TranquilMind]

You shouldn't be hearing any personal opinions about any religious, political or social matter from the employees {paid or unpaid} at a polling station.  If they say they like the rain and you don't fine but anything else is inappropriate. I would say people voting should keep their mouths shut too but they do have expectation of free speech so it is just a manners thing.

 

And people shouldn't be carrying out personal conversations with each other while supposedly interacting with customers whether they are there to vote or to buy soap. 

Wow, good luck enforcing that. 

 

I do agree that people shouldn't rudely ignore customers, or in this case, voters, but they ARE going to have conversations with each other and they are not going to clear the subject matter with you. 

[TranquilMind]

Were they talking about voters present?

 

I don't have enough context to be offended.

 

I think it was mildly unprofessional, but if I stopped going places that were unprofessional I'd have a hard time leaving the house and would wear myself out with all the complaining. :/

 

But two people talking to each other about something unrelated to their job or others around them, while doing their job in an otherwise satisfactory manner is not usually on my radar.

This, exactly. 

[TranquilMind]

Can't speak for OP.  I generally have a pretty thick skin and can tolerate disagreement.  

 

For me, the context of the conversation being at a polling place, conducted audibly by poll workers, makes a material difference.  *Many* conversations that would not make me the least bit uncomfortable if I overheard them in a diner, would trouble me in that context.

 

I'd be troubled if poll workers on the job were chatting audibly about homeschooling being equivalent to educational neglect.  Whether or not I was a homeschooler.

 

I'd be troubled if pollworkers on the job were chatting audibly about handicapped ramps being a monumental waste of public taxes.  Whether or not I used such ramps.

 

I'd be troubled if pollworkers on the job were chatting audibly about how non vaxxers put immune-compromised kids at risk.  Whether or not I had such a child, or vaccinated myself, or didn't.

 

I'd also be troubled if pollworkers on the job were audibly kvetching about mothers who brought their enormous broods of kids to vote, or elderly voters who tottered and took too much time, or a person whose first language was something other than English asked for clarification on the ballot instructions.  Or whatever.

 

 

The job of the pollworkers is to help eligible voters to vote.  Cheerful speculation about which ones are destined for damnation does not further this cause.  Whether or not it crosses a legal line, it is sufficiently unprofessional that the voter registrar or whoever is doing the poll worker orientation and training should IMO be apprised of it.  

Who CARES what others think about those issues?  They can talk all day long about the negatives of home schooling, or handicapped ramps, or large families, or vaccines (or lack thereof).

 

It wouldn't affect me in the least.  I know what I'm doing and why.     They don't control what choices you make (not yet, anyway).  So smile and go on your merry way...or confront the viewpoint, if you feel so inclined. 

[TranquilMind]

These were not random nutters. They were the official poll workers (they aren't paid, but they are officially in charge of the voter roll). They are in a position of authority and could conceivably prevent you from voting. I really had no ability to ignore their conversation. They were discussing damnation while they were checking my driver's license against the voter roll. This is in no way appropriate behavior for people who control access to the voting booths.

They are just random citizens who agreed to work at the polls for the day. Anyone can do it.  Why there is an expectation that they do not express opinions when discussing things amongst themselves is perplexing to me. 

 

They could be anyone, with any view.  

 

 

There is no "authority".  They are simply following some guidelines given to them, and if you have an issue voting, you address it with one of the precinct committeemen on the job. 

You could have simply said, "Well, I think God is a loving God and people do the best they can." or something, if you wanted to address it head on.  (I would probably say something like that). 

[bolt.]

Well, it sounds like they are just having a conversation about their personal religious beliefs.

 

Curious...how is this hostile? Are you in favor of "people who don't take care of their families" or does anyone advocate this as a morally neutral or good thing? Not sure how they are defining that, but this is a scriptural reference.

It's hostile because it selects members of the public, identifies them as "worse" than other members of the public, who are insulted for not choosing the 'belief' that the speakers approve of, and suggests that they (both groups) deserve and will receive mistreatment from a powerful deity on the basis of their decisions (to 'not believe' or to not adequately care for family members in a manner approved by the speakers).

 

And, as it happens, I am in favour of "people who don't take care of their families" -- very much in favour of them finding ways out of their difficulties, including (but not limited to) receiving ongoing government or charitable handouts and free medical or addictions treatment, and anything else they need or want in order to stabilize their lives.

 

But, I suppose, 'send them to hell' is a solution of another more 'Christian' type.

[TranquilMind]

It's hostile because it selects members of the public, identifies them as "worse" than other members of the public, who are insulted for not choosing the 'belief' that the speakers approve of, and suggests that they (both groups) deserve and will receive mistreatment from a powerful deity on the basis of their decisions (to 'not believe' or to not adequately care for family members in a manner approved by the speakers).

 

And, as it happens, I am in favour of "people who don't take care of their families" -- very much in favour of them finding ways out of their difficulties, including (but not limited to) receiving ongoing government or charitable handouts and free medical or addictions treatment, and anything else they need or want in order to stabilize their lives.

 

But, I suppose, 'send them to hell' is a solution of another more 'Christian' type.

It is merely the expression of an opinion.  If you don't like it, speak up, and offer your own opinion.  While it is not something *I* would discuss, because I can't make those sorts of final judgments, I really don't feel the need to police others in their conversations. 

 

Your solution of handouts, presupposes that the person not taking care of his family cannot do so for reasons out of his control.  That could be, and we have and should have safety nets for that. (My personal pet peeve -this is a CHURCH job and a personal job, not the government's job).   

 

But it is equally true that some people have different priorities than supporting their families. 

[bolt.]

It is merely the expression of an opinion. If you don't like it, speak up, and offer your own opinion. While it is not something *I* would discuss, because I can't make those sorts of final judgments, I really don't feel the need to police others in their conversations.

 

Your solution of handouts, presupposes that the person not taking care of his family cannot do so for reasons out of his control. That could be, and we have and should have safety nets for that. (My personal pet peeve -this is a CHURCH job and a personal job, not the government's job).

 

But it is equally true that some people have different priorities than supporting their families.

Yep. Express your opinions as poll workers: some voters deserve a God to punish them, and you hope it happens soon. That's a *great* part of the democratic process. A very welcoming environment! If you don't like it, voter, simply start up an argument. That will make you feel even more welcome and respected in your polling place! A polling station really *should* be a place where you have to endure religious bigotry and stand up for yourself. Why shouldn't it be?

 

Well, maybe because discomfort is a barrier to democracy, and being condemned by others' religious views makes people uncomfortable.

 

And, by the way, my "solution" doesn't imply what you think it implies. I think that even people who are impoverished by poor choices should receive hand outs. I think even selfish idiots deserve to eat, sleep, and carry on life in safety -- even if they keep on being idiots forever, whether they have dependants or not. People make bad choices. Starving them is not the answer. Feel free to start a new topic if you have questions about that.

[kiwik]

Wow, good luck enforcing that.

 

I do agree that people shouldn't rudely ignore customers, or in this case, voters, but they ARE going to have conversations with each other and they are not going to clear the subject matter with you.

I doubt you could enforce it but in any service jobs i have had personal conversations were kept for places where cuatomers couldn't hear.

 

And in the extreme polling booth people in say, Myammar could use comveraations like that to intimidate votors. It damages the democratic process if pepple are made to feel unwelcome or looked down on.

[TranquilMind]

I doubt you could enforce it but in any service jobs i have had personal conversations were kept for places where cuatomers couldn't hear.

 

And in the extreme polling booth people in say, Myammar could use comveraations like that to intimidate votors. It damages the democratic process if pepple are made to feel unwelcome or looked down on.

I can't remember the last time a cashier paid attention to me instead of continue personal conversations.  It's happened at the polls too.  Who cares?  They don't have to make me feel welcome.  I'm there to vote and I get the job done. 

[Bluegoat]

There are guidelines for training poll workers in every voting district.  They put a lot of emphasis on being welcoming and not making people uncomfortable.

 

Voting is not picking up milk.  It's the central way that people in representative democracies participate in government.

 

Making it uncomfortable or difficult for people to vote is an old and anti-democratic trick used by immoral partisans to keep people who would vote against them from doing so.  It has in the past included just making people feel uncomfortable.  Exemplary behavior is an important part of working in this kind of capacity.

[Murphy101]

It's hostile because it selects members of the public, identifies them as "worse" than other members of the public, who are insulted for not choosing the 'belief' that the speakers approve of, and suggests that they (both groups) deserve and will receive mistreatment from a powerful deity on the basis of their decisions (to 'not believe' or to not adequately care for family members in a manner approved by the speakers).

 

And, as it happens, I am in favour of "people who don't take care of their families" -- very much in favour of them finding ways out of their difficulties, including (but not limited to) receiving ongoing government or charitable handouts and free medical or addictions treatment, and anything else they need or want in order to stabilize their lives.

 

But, I suppose, 'send them to hell' is a solution of another more 'Christian' type.

For all any of us currently know, these two ladies were simply friends commiserating over one of their xh or some such. No reason to presume this was directed at anyone, much less everyone, who happened to be over hearing them.

 

And "people who don't" is a far different thing from "people who can't".

 

Most people think the two should be addressed differently and have a different attitude towards one vs the other.

[Jean in Newcastle]

For all any of us currently know, these two ladies were simply friends commiserating over one of their xh or some such. No reason to presume this was directed at anyone, much less everyone, who happened to be over hearing them.

 

And "people who don't" is a far different thing from "people who can't".

 

Most people think the two should be addressed differently and have a different attitude towards one vs the other.

:iagree: That's the thing about (inadvertent) eavesdropping.  You don't know the context.  

 

I do think that having or continuing personal conversations when you are supposed to be serving the public is unprofessional.