5 ms·

> Still, the League of Women Voters and NAACP say the state’s signature-verification requirement is unconstitutional because it disenfranchises so many. Electio

by koolba 6y ago

> Still, the League of Women Voters and NAACP say the state’s signature-verification requirement is unconstitutional because it disenfranchises so many. Election officials are not trained in handwriting analysis to be able to properly determine whether the signature on a ballot matches the one on a voter’s registration, not to mention that a person’s signature can change over time and with age. Every time I have to sign something that might be verified against a signature record I get nervous and I bet my signature reflects it.

mc32 6y ago
We definitely need a better way to sign something besides wet signatures; mine certainly evolves over time as well as medium and instrument (pens, etc.)
- elicash 6y ago
  I find the way it's used by credit card companies interesting. When making a purchase, you can do a different signature each time. You can doodle, draw a straight line, write your name, mix it up, whatever. The only value of the signature is that if you don't recall making a purchase, they can send it to you and it can help trigger your memory or make you trust whether or not the purchase was actually you. So it's not for them to use in the verification process. It's for us to help trigger our memories.
  - rgossiaux 6y ago
    Originally one point was that you signed the back of your card and the merchant would compare the signature on your receipt to the signature on the card to verify your identity. Another point was so the merchant has proof you intended to pay them. When I was living in the UK (which wisely uses a more sensible PIN system instead of signatures) I was shocked the first time someone asked to see the back of my card. I don't think it's ever happened to me in the US. Culturally we've collectively decided to ignore the whole "signature verification" thing, but when using your card abroad you sometimes are reminded that it's supposed to happen in theory.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    That's not why you sign a credit slip. You sign it so the vendor can match it against the signature on the back of the card, because they are on the hook if you later claim fraud. If it matches the back of the card it is a lot harder to claim fraud. The fact that you can put any doodle you want in there is because the vendors have decided it's cheaper to absorb the fraud than to check the signatures.
    - elicash 6y ago
      Their actions show that signatures aren't actually used in the way you describe. It does say to sign the back of the card, but I've never done so and it's never been checked. Not only do vendors not check, but there's no attempt by credit card companies at getting vendors to check. And they don't check on their end, either. The reason is not just because it's inefficient given the amount of fraud, but also because it's unreliable as a security mechanism. So clearly, that's not how the signature is actually used. What matters is how it's actually used, which is to help prevent good faith actors from accidentally reporting purchases as fraudulent. That's a valid use, but noteworthy.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    Yeah the problem is you can't really do that with elections. That's what makes them so tricky to do well at a distance (be it electronic voting or mail in though I trust mail in more than anything involving computers) it's hard to go back and fix any issues or audit and maintain anonymity. On top of just the sheer number of votes it's a lot of time and uncertainty to try to go back and forth trying to hash out votes.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Plus, you have to sign your ballot? It's supposed to be secret.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  You need to have some way to prevent fraud if you're going to allow mail-in ballots.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    It's not as if signatures are going to do that. Especially not any of the types of fraud that involve coercion or payment for votes. If you're paying someone for their vote they can still sign their name. One of the reasons it needs to be secret is to make it impossible for anyone to verify that you voted the way they want you to. I still don't understand how voting in person is supposed to be any more problematic than e.g. buying groceries in person. Wear a mask, stand six feet apart etc., what's the problem?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - oramit 6y ago
      It's not any more problematic for the voters, yes, but what about the poll workers? They stay there all day and skew older. The big concern is that reliable poll workers are going to skip this year because of COVID (not unreasonable) and we simply won't have people to facilitate the voting we normally do. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/894331965/wanted-young-people-to-work-the-polls-this-november https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/894331965/wanted-young-people...
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Would it be that hard to put a sheet of clear plastic between the poll workers and the voters?
thephyber 6y ago
I'm 100% sure my signature from more than a decade ago when I last signed paperwork for a new license doesn't match my current handwriting/signature. Also, I'm under the impression that signature verification isn't a very sturdy science. I'm curious what the false positive/false negative rates are and what variables are likely to affect them.
poorman 6y ago
Not to mention that digital signature pad they have at the DMV from the early 90s makes my signature looks like a bunch of random squiggles.
rtkwe 6y ago
Yeah it's silly but it's the only process we really have and it's the reason I'm not going to vote by mail this year. I have a reasonably consistent signature if I think about it but I'm not going to risk a random election official throwing it out because I'm younger and have a variable signature. That plus the screwballing that's happening at USPS right now I'm not going to rely on that. There's 2 weeks to early vote for me so I'll just vote in that period.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
My bank bounced my rent checks for MONTHS. I went in, supplied a new signature sample, everything. Ended up having to do direct deposit because my bank decided there was no way I could be me.
gruez 6y ago
Are you allowed to "print" (ie. not use cursive) your signature? If so that would go a long way to making your signatures more recognizable, especially if you don't normally write in cursive.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Have you seen Trump's signature? I've never heard of any requirement that your signature be your name in cursive. Your signature is whatever you want it to be.

by koolba 6y ago

mc32 6y ago

We definitely need a better way to sign something besides wet signatures; mine certainly evolves over time as well as medium and instrument (pens, etc.)

elicash 6y ago
I find the way it's used by credit card companies interesting. When making a purchase, you can do a different signature each time. You can doodle, draw a straight line, write your name, mix it up, whatever. The only value of the signature is that if you don't recall making a purchase, they can send it to you and it can help trigger your memory or make you trust whether or not the purchase was actually you. So it's not for them to use in the verification process. It's for us to help trigger our memories.
- rgossiaux 6y ago
  Originally one point was that you signed the back of your card and the merchant would compare the signature on your receipt to the signature on the card to verify your identity. Another point was so the merchant has proof you intended to pay them. When I was living in the UK (which wisely uses a more sensible PIN system instead of signatures) I was shocked the first time someone asked to see the back of my card. I don't think it's ever happened to me in the US. Culturally we've collectively decided to ignore the whole "signature verification" thing, but when using your card abroad you sometimes are reminded that it's supposed to happen in theory.
- jedberg 6y ago
  That's not why you sign a credit slip. You sign it so the vendor can match it against the signature on the back of the card, because they are on the hook if you later claim fraud. If it matches the back of the card it is a lot harder to claim fraud. The fact that you can put any doodle you want in there is because the vendors have decided it's cheaper to absorb the fraud than to check the signatures.
  - elicash 6y ago
    Their actions show that signatures aren't actually used in the way you describe. It does say to sign the back of the card, but I've never done so and it's never been checked. Not only do vendors not check, but there's no attempt by credit card companies at getting vendors to check. And they don't check on their end, either. The reason is not just because it's inefficient given the amount of fraud, but also because it's unreliable as a security mechanism. So clearly, that's not how the signature is actually used. What matters is how it's actually used, which is to help prevent good faith actors from accidentally reporting purchases as fraudulent. That's a valid use, but noteworthy.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Yeah the problem is you can't really do that with elections. That's what makes them so tricky to do well at a distance (be it electronic voting or mail in though I trust mail in more than anything involving computers) it's hard to go back and fix any issues or audit and maintain anonymity. On top of just the sheer number of votes it's a lot of time and uncertainty to try to go back and forth trying to hash out votes.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Plus, you have to sign your ballot? It's supposed to be secret.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
You need to have some way to prevent fraud if you're going to allow mail-in ballots.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It's not as if signatures are going to do that. Especially not any of the types of fraud that involve coercion or payment for votes. If you're paying someone for their vote they can still sign their name. One of the reasons it needs to be secret is to make it impossible for anyone to verify that you voted the way they want you to. I still don't understand how voting in person is supposed to be any more problematic than e.g. buying groceries in person. Wear a mask, stand six feet apart etc., what's the problem?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - oramit 6y ago
    It's not any more problematic for the voters, yes, but what about the poll workers? They stay there all day and skew older. The big concern is that reliable poll workers are going to skip this year because of COVID (not unreasonable) and we simply won't have people to facilitate the voting we normally do. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/894331965/wanted-young-people-to-work-the-polls-this-november https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/894331965/wanted-young-people...
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Would it be that hard to put a sheet of clear plastic between the poll workers and the voters?

thephyber 6y ago

I'm 100% sure my signature from more than a decade ago when I last signed paperwork for a new license doesn't match my current handwriting/signature. Also, I'm under the impression that signature verification isn't a very sturdy science. I'm curious what the false positive/false negative rates are and what variables are likely to affect them.

poorman 6y ago

Not to mention that digital signature pad they have at the DMV from the early 90s makes my signature looks like a bunch of random squiggles.

rtkwe 6y ago

Yeah it's silly but it's the only process we really have and it's the reason I'm not going to vote by mail this year. I have a reasonably consistent signature if I think about it but I'm not going to risk a random election official throwing it out because I'm younger and have a variable signature. That plus the screwballing that's happening at USPS right now I'm not going to rely on that. There's 2 weeks to early vote for me so I'll just vote in that period.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

My bank bounced my rent checks for MONTHS. I went in, supplied a new signature sample, everything. Ended up having to do direct deposit because my bank decided there was no way I could be me.

gruez 6y ago

Are you allowed to "print" (ie. not use cursive) your signature? If so that would go a long way to making your signatures more recognizable, especially if you don't normally write in cursive.

rootusrootus 6y ago
Have you seen Trump's signature? I've never heard of any requirement that your signature be your name in cursive. Your signature is whatever you want it to be.