Highest Rated Comments

nothinggood276 karma

I worked as a DRO (Deputy Returning Officer) at the election, and had two people come with drivers licences that didn't have the correct address, and had no secondary ID.

The first was an older woman (senior citizen) who had walked to the polling station. She was unaware of the requirements and was clearly upset, repeating that we were losing a vote and she wouldn't be back.

The second was a middle aged man who assumed the voter card counted as ID, even though it says it doesn't on the card.. When I told him he couldn't vote, he was definitely not happy, asking why he can't vote when women wearing face coverings can (They can't, they have to either show their face or sign an additional declaration even if they aren't using photo ID, which isn't required). The man left, saying we had lost a vote.

Interestingly, both came back later in the day with additional ID with their current address. They were polite, even apologetic while I was getting their ballots.

tl;dr: two people had ID issues at my polling station, both came back later to vote with the correct ID.

nothinggood273 karma

Hi Warren,

Thanks for doing this!

I was wondering what your opinion is on the shift in games towards micro transactions, dlc, etc. In your opinion, do gamers still get their money's worth?

nothinggood272 karma

On these points:

Why did the workers enter an obviously hazardous location?

I have however worked around a lot of industrial equipment, and know that at the end of the day, the workers need to be responsible for their own safety. Entering an area that could at any time become fatal was a bad and improper decision on the part of the workers, regardless of what management wanted.

While I understand your point that it is the workers responsibility to refuse unsafe work, that argument cannot be used to absolve the utility of wrongdoing.

First off, it is common for workers to feel uncomfortable refusing work, or just assume it's safe because they trust the people they work for. As the article said, this type of work had been completed "safely" in the past, perhaps giving the workers a false sense of security, or at least a feeling that it would be unreasonable to refuse. The ability to refuse work comes down to comfort and company culture, which the workers don't directly control.

It also does not matter, in terms of the company's culpability, that the workers didn't refuse. While it's possible for them to do so, the company is directly and wholly responsible for what they tell their workers to do. If they don't enforce safe work procedures, it's the same as not having them.

nothinggood271 karma

As a DRO yesterday, one at a time. The DRO has a couple checks to do on each ballot to ensure it was one they issued. We also have the 'final' decision on whether to accept a ballot at this point, although we are given fairly extensive guidelines. This includes that the mark must be in the white circle next to a candidate, and only one mark can be on the ballot.

There are often candidates' representatives present during the count, and they can protest any ballot being accepted or rejected. The final say still sits with the DRO, although we have to record the event.

A big the part of the count is also ballot balance. So the number of ballots you received has to equal the total after the count, and the cast ballots must equal the number of people you have marked as voted on the voter list and registered throughout the day.

I think that about does it for a way-too-detailed explanation of how vote counting works.. Let me know if you have any questions!