4 ms·

Is there any evidence that signature matching is an accurate way to ensure correctness? As a useless anecdote, my current signature looks _nothing_ like the one

Is there any evidence that signature matching is an accurate way to ensure correctness? As a useless anecdote, my current signature looks _nothing_ like the one on my state issued ID from 10 years ago. Something that someone else said is quite important here: the time to fix these things is before an election, not afterwards. It doesn't take much imagination to see how invalidating large quantities of ballots after-the-fact is a dangerous road for a democracy. Put the rules and methods in place prior, in a bipartisan way.

dukeofdoom 6y ago
The Trump team did take this to court before the election, but they were denied on the basis of the "injury" only being hypothetical at that time... So they couldn't successfully sued before, and now they are told that its too late. Something very dishonest from the courts about that. Your own personal anecdote confirms that people's signatures change overtime. Hence more should have been rejected.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Relying on—and rejecting votes using—a poor method of voter identification is voter suppression. A signature shouldn't be used for identification matching but rather as akin to the signing of an affidavit.
  - dukeofdoom 6y ago
    Accepting votes that do not have matching signatures, is diluting the votes that do have matching signatures. Why should a person that voted in person, in a more secure way, have their votes diluted by a mailed in ballot that does not meet a minimum standard of security, and consequently are much more likely to be fraudulent. 1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots. 2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes. 3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.
22c 6y ago
> Is there any evidence that signature matching is an accurate way to ensure correctness? In these cases, I don't think that matters as much as the fact that the laws were not followed. "Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence to accusations of "you broke the speed limit".
- mindslight 6y ago
  > "Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence [sic] to accusations of "you broke the speed limit". Yet another comfortable sounding yet simplistically false untruth. Depending on the jurisdiction, of course.
  - 22c 6y ago
    If you'd indulge me, which part of the supposed untruth was blatantly false? Although I am not sure how fruitful an engagement this will be, given the pedantry[1] you've displayed against users of British English. [1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/
    - mindslight 6y ago
      There are states where the posted number isn't actually a hard limit but rather a recommendation of what's considered safe. And so arguing that you were still driving safely despite exceeding the posted limit can be a worthwhile defense. For example: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/chapter90/section17 https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/ch... (I added sic because I don't like propagating misspellings. But I didn't know "defence" was British spelling! Sorry, TIL)
      - 22c 6y ago
        I am sure there are places like that, but I don't think you'd be charged with "exceeding the speed limit" in those places, correct? You would be charged with unsafe driving or something similar, in which case you could make the argument that driving slower would not necessarily have been safer. I believe that is splitting hairs and I am sure you understand the basis of my argument when it comes to election workers following the laws set in place by the legislature. > Sorry, TIL Apology accepted and apologies for assuming you were being pedantic about it.
hartator 6y ago
> the time to fix these things is before an election, not afterwards. Mail-in ballots were not approved by state legislature which what what the constitution defines.

dukeofdoom 6y ago

The Trump team did take this to court before the election, but they were denied on the basis of the "injury" only being hypothetical at that time... So they couldn't successfully sued before, and now they are told that its too late. Something very dishonest from the courts about that. Your own personal anecdote confirms that people's signatures change overtime. Hence more should have been rejected.

sjwright 6y ago
Relying on—and rejecting votes using—a poor method of voter identification is voter suppression. A signature shouldn't be used for identification matching but rather as akin to the signing of an affidavit.
- dukeofdoom 6y ago
  Accepting votes that do not have matching signatures, is diluting the votes that do have matching signatures. Why should a person that voted in person, in a more secure way, have their votes diluted by a mailed in ballot that does not meet a minimum standard of security, and consequently are much more likely to be fraudulent. 1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots. 2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes. 3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.

22c 6y ago

> Is there any evidence that signature matching is an accurate way to ensure correctness? In these cases, I don't think that matters as much as the fact that the laws were not followed. "Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence to accusations of "you broke the speed limit".

mindslight 6y ago
> "Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence [sic] to accusations of "you broke the speed limit". Yet another comfortable sounding yet simplistically false untruth. Depending on the jurisdiction, of course.
- 22c 6y ago
  If you'd indulge me, which part of the supposed untruth was blatantly false? Although I am not sure how fruitful an engagement this will be, given the pedantry[1] you've displayed against users of British English. [1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/
  - mindslight 6y ago
    There are states where the posted number isn't actually a hard limit but rather a recommendation of what's considered safe. And so arguing that you were still driving safely despite exceeding the posted limit can be a worthwhile defense. For example: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/chapter90/section17 https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/ch... (I added sic because I don't like propagating misspellings. But I didn't know "defence" was British spelling! Sorry, TIL)
    - 22c 6y ago
      I am sure there are places like that, but I don't think you'd be charged with "exceeding the speed limit" in those places, correct? You would be charged with unsafe driving or something similar, in which case you could make the argument that driving slower would not necessarily have been safer. I believe that is splitting hairs and I am sure you understand the basis of my argument when it comes to election workers following the laws set in place by the legislature. > Sorry, TIL Apology accepted and apologies for assuming you were being pedantic about it.

hartator 6y ago

> the time to fix these things is before an election, not afterwards. Mail-in ballots were not approved by state legislature which what what the constitution defines.