• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is this what a voting booth should look like?

Redress said:
Do you favor spending more money on elections to find neutral places instead of publicly owned buildings? But what about the deficit?
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as how polling places are supposed to be neutral, yes, or at least make a polling place neutral. How hard is it to put a sheet over that painting? Wait, seeing as it is obviously a left leaning polling place, it could be pretty hard.
 
Redress said:
Do you favor spending more money on elections to find neutral places instead of publicly owned buildings? But what about the deficit?
Click to expand...

Wow...redress. Wow.

Nice job grasping onto the extreme fallacy here.

Roll of tape and some paper, and easy to do it. Some tape + a sheet, easy to do. Set up polling in the cafeteria or gym (depending which one this is, go to the opposite) instead. Or set up in some class rooms.

You realize there's a TON of distance between "spend money that has any impact what so ever on the national deficit to be able to get a neutral location" and "Don't use an area that's got a giant mural of one of the candidates right where the polls will be"
 
DashingAmerican said:
Well I vote in a community center with brown walls and a gravel parking lot that doesn't even have a flag. That's about as neutral as it gets.
Click to expand...

OMG....BROWN walls? Are you kidding? That is obviously an attempt to sway the vote for Obama......
 
apdst said:
Yeah! Right! :lamo
Click to expand...

It actually wouldn't.....sorry if you disagree. The reality is, I don't think it would make a difference. If the church I voted in today has Jesus pics and crosses...I would almost expect to see anti-abortion signs and anti gay marriage propoganda. It wouldn't change my vote.
 
apdst said:
40 bucks worth of plywood could have nuetralized this polling house.
Click to expand...

People would have found something else to complain about. The story would have been that they created interest because people wanted to see what had been covered up or some other BS faux outrage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wow...redress. Wow.

Nice job grasping onto the extreme fallacy here.

Roll of tape and some paper, and easy to do it. Some tape + a sheet, easy to do. Set up polling in the cafeteria or gym (depending which one this is, go to the opposite) instead. Or set up in some class rooms.

You realize there's a TON of distance between "spend money that has any impact what so ever on the national deficit to be able to get a neutral location" and "Don't use an area that's got a giant mural of one of the candidates right where the polls will be"
Click to expand...

So you favor increased spending. You RINO!
 
disneydude said:
People would have found something else to complain about. The story would have been that they created interest because people wanted to see what had been covered up or some other BS faux outrage.
Click to expand...

The point is, one of the guys on the ballot is staring right at you, while the other guy isn't represented at all.

Can you not see how this is illegal by our voting laws?
 
disneydude said:
People would have found something else to complain about. The story would have been that they created interest because people wanted to see what had been covered up or some other BS faux outrage.
Click to expand...
It's not a huge deal. But it should be covered up. Deal with it.
 
Erod said:
pollingsite_philly.jpg


Voting in Philadelphia today....
Click to expand...
Hell those booths are more enclosed than the ones I used. Mine was basically without the curtain thing.

The picture/painting is questionable, but at the same time once you’re in the booth you cannot see it.

Still, why the hell is that picture in a SCHOOL, FFS? If it is a school.
 
disneydude said:
People would have found something else to complain about. The story would have been that they created interest because people wanted to see what had been covered up or some other BS faux outrage.
Click to expand...

Cover the mural and there wouldn't have been anything to complain about.
 
Zyphlin said:
Again...SERIOUSLY...you're STILL not realizing a difference between a room with a large mural of the person RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT complete with campaign emblem and former campaign slogans and....a church? A supermarket?

Really?

Here's the funny thing. There's some people here who don't think this is a giant thing, but do think it's wrong. What they actually have an issue with is the ridiculous strawmanning that's being engaged in.

I don't think this is a giant issue, though it is a stupid thing and a problematic one for that polling place. But I think attempts to claim it's perfectly fine is beyond preposterous and attempting to argue it with nothing but non-sensical strawmen doesn't change that.
Click to expand...



Honestly Zyph.....no. If anything, I think voting in a church probably has a GREATER chilling effect than a mural. Some non-Christians may not feel comfortable voting in a Christian church full of Christian symbols. What if the polling was put up in a Mosque. Do you think that perhaps some people might be intimidated to vote there? I can absolutely guarantee that there are polling places in Mormon churches in Utah, because when I lived there, half of the polling sites were Mormon churches and some of my friends didn't feel comfortable to vote because of it.

I raise this point, not because I think it is a big issue....I told them the same as I say here....GET OVER IT. It takes 5 minutes to vote, are you really so intimidated by a church that you won't go vote? Are you so intimidated by a mural of our President that it would cause you not to vote or would change your vote? Its a silly issue.
 
Deuce said:
It's not a huge deal. But it should be covered up. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I agree.....to err on the side of caution it should have been covered. But this faux outrage is just plain silly.
 
Deuce said:
It's not a huge deal. But it should be covered up. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Essentially, this.

Is it a huge deal? No. It's not going to influence a lot of votes and is, as an isolated thing, mostly irrelevant.

However...it is against the law, and it does set a bad precedence, and based on principle should not be allowed to stay and should be covered up. It's not about this particular instance, it's about general election practices and precedence.

It's becoming a "bigger" deal in part because you have people trying to argue it as being okay, acting like people simply saying "needs to be covered" are making a "big deal" out of it, or by being told to cover it up and doing a purposeful half assed job showing flippant disrespect for the electoral process in this country.
 
disneydude said:
Honestly Zyph.....no. If anything, I think voting in a church probably has a GREATER chilling effect than a mural. Some non-Christians may not feel comfortable voting in a Christian church full of Christian symbols.
Click to expand...

Chilling Effects != Electioneering

Compare more apples to oranges.

Yes. I do understand people having issues with polls happening in a Church for the reason you state. I can understand some Muslims possibly not wanting to go into a Church to vote just like I could imagine some Christians not wanting to go into a Mosque to vote. That's not an issue of electioneering...IE attempting to influence voters towards/against a particular candidate...but rather one of suppressing turnout.

This is an instance of electioneering however. It's a clearly political presentation relating to one of the candidates that can provide conscious or subconscious persuasion towards voters. Avoiding that kind of thing is part of why you can't have banners and political signs for the candidates within a certain distance from the polling location...because when people are there to vote they're supposed to be absent any kind of exterior source that one could reasonably believe could influence their vote. "Brown Walls" looking like Obama's skin is not a reasonable potential influence....The candidate himself, campaign slogans, and campaign imagery absolutely is.

What you're speaking of are two decidedly different things.
 
disneydude said:
My voting place was a Presbyterian church with big crosses and Jesus everywhere.
Click to expand...

So, was there a poster of Romney? Maybe you voted for Jesus by mistake?
 
Zyphlin said:
Chilling Effects != Electioneering

Compare more apples to oranges.

Yes. I do understand people having issues with polls happening in a Church for the reason you state. I can understand some Muslims possibly not wanting to go into a Church to vote just like I could imagine some Christians not wanting to go into a Mosque to vote. That's not an issue of electioneering...IE attempting to influence voters towards/against a particular candidate...but rather one of suppressing turnout.

This is an instance of electioneering however. It's a clearly political presentation relating to one of the candidates that can provide conscious or subconscious persuasion towards voters. Avoiding that kind of thing is part of why you can't have banners and political signs for the candidates within a certain distance from the polling location...because when people are there to vote they're supposed to be absent any kind of exterior source that one could reasonably believe could influence their vote. "Brown Walls" looking like Obama's skin is not a reasonable potential influence....The candidate himself, campaign slogans, and campaign imagery absolutely is.

What you're speaking of are two decidedly different things.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying....I just disagree on the extent of the problem. I think a mural of our President is different than a campaign slogan....where I will agree with you is that the campaign ensignia pushes it more to the fence for me. If it was just the mural, I don't think it would be an issue at all. I don't think a mural on a wall is the same thing as campaign material.
 
disneydude said:
People would have found something else to complain about. The story would have been that they created interest because people wanted to see what had been covered up or some other BS faux outrage.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you wouldn't have objected if they just stuck a large "not" symbol over the picture, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom