5 ms·

> If we don't have a meaningful signature match, than we don't have a meaningful way to prevent fraud with mail in ballots. Period. This isn't true at all. We

by nl 6y ago

> If we don't have a meaningful signature match, than we don't have a meaningful way to prevent fraud with mail in ballots. Period. This isn't true at all. We've had mail-in voting in Australia for decades, and there is no signature matching. Some US states do use it at all. Signature verification is error prone and becoming more-so as less people use their signatures regularly. > Bad ballot Rejection rate of 6% in previous election to now 0.02%, with mail in ballots. Wikipedia says in the 2016 election 1% of mail ballots were rejected[1]. I'd expect that to be a lot less this year because of the increased emphasis on it and the much higher numbers, but I haven't verified your 0.02% number. But going from 1% to 0.02% shouldn't be surprising based on the completely different voting behavior this year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting_in_the_United_States#Reliability_of_postal_ballots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting_in_the_United_St...

dukeofdoom 6y ago
Can you expend on how the process works in Australia. Genuinely curious. The 0.02% or the more recent 0.06% rejection rate is very low. Think of it this way. Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number. This is why teachers are always reminding students not to forget to sign their test, in a class of 30, and that only requires one signature. If you worked with the general public, and you asked them to tie their shoes, I honestly believe you would have a higher failure rate than 0.02%
- nl 6y ago
  > Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number. No that's not what it means. It means 2-6 were rejected. "Signature matching" is a junk process and should be ignored. In the AZ random sampling that the Judge asked for, 6/100 signatures were inconclusive, and this was on verified voters. > Can you expend on how the process works in Australia. Genuinely curious. https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/postal-voting.htm https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/postal-voting.htm You control the voting envelopes and ballot papers which is actually how fraud is controlled in the US too. The signature verification thing is nothing but ineffective security theatre.

by nl 6y ago

dukeofdoom 6y ago

Can you expend on how the process works in Australia. Genuinely curious. The 0.02% or the more recent 0.06% rejection rate is very low. Think of it this way. Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number. This is why teachers are always reminding students not to forget to sign their test, in a class of 30, and that only requires one signature. If you worked with the general public, and you asked them to tie their shoes, I honestly believe you would have a higher failure rate than 0.02%

nl 6y ago
> Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number. No that's not what it means. It means 2-6 were rejected. "Signature matching" is a junk process and should be ignored. In the AZ random sampling that the Judge asked for, 6/100 signatures were inconclusive, and this was on verified voters. > Can you expend on how the process works in Australia. Genuinely curious. https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/postal-voting.htm https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/postal-voting.htm You control the voting envelopes and ballot papers which is actually how fraud is controlled in the US too. The signature verification thing is nothing but ineffective security theatre.