3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Well charges would simply be the legal citation numbers, and if you look at that link it's indeed titled "speed limits". I get your abstract argument, but you don't see to be applying it to a specific situation. Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? I've yet to see any cases with arguments that make me worry, so it would be something new. In general I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement. Many people have repeatable signatures, and many do not. A signature is not a method of technical verification, but rather legal authorization with a possibility to argue authenticity based on stroke angles etc. If I usually make a half-attempt at writing my name, but sign my ballot with an X, that's legit. The best way to prevent a person from filling out multiple ballots is to make sure everyone votes so there are few unused ballots to steal in the first place.
    - 22c 6y ago
      > Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? There are several cases, but off the top of my head I can give you Trump v. Raffensperger [1] filed in the superior court of Fulton County, state of Georgia. Beginning around paragraph 139 of the petition, you can see arguments that the Trump legal team have brought which talk about various violations of state mandates regarding signatures. > I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement You may argue that these laws or mandates could disenfranchise some voters, but I think it's unfair to suggest that it's their sole (or even primary) purpose. > make sure everyone votes Even in countries where voting is mandatory you do not get full voter turnout. There would certainly be enough left over to turn the tide of many elections. [1] https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger.pdf https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...
      - mindslight 6y ago
        If I'm reading it correctly, the actual argument put forth there seems to be that three people were checking each signature, rather than a single one (due to a previous consent decree over disenfranchisement). State law certainly doesn't mandate that each registrar has to personally review every ballot themselves. And so just as a registrar can deputize a single employee to do the job, I would think they have the power to deputize multiple people to do the job collaboratively.
        22c 6y ago
        I think you may have read from where I linked and then into the following complaint. The complaint supported by paragraphs 139 - 141 is "RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH GEORGIA LAW PROVISIONS FOR MATCHING SIGNATURES AND CONFIRMING VOTER IDENTITY FOR ELECTORS SEEKING TO VOTE ABSENTEE". The following paragraphs talk about a different issue (which also happens to relate to signature verification).
        mindslight 6y ago
        By my reading, 139-141 just factually cite Georgia law. I don't see where it is alleged how the law was specifically not followed, apart from continuing to read into the next complaint.

by 22c 6y ago

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.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Well charges would simply be the legal citation numbers, and if you look at that link it's indeed titled "speed limits". I get your abstract argument, but you don't see to be applying it to a specific situation. Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? I've yet to see any cases with arguments that make me worry, so it would be something new. In general I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement. Many people have repeatable signatures, and many do not. A signature is not a method of technical verification, but rather legal authorization with a possibility to argue authenticity based on stroke angles etc. If I usually make a half-attempt at writing my name, but sign my ballot with an X, that's legit. The best way to prevent a person from filling out multiple ballots is to make sure everyone votes so there are few unused ballots to steal in the first place.
  - 22c 6y ago
    > Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? There are several cases, but off the top of my head I can give you Trump v. Raffensperger [1] filed in the superior court of Fulton County, state of Georgia. Beginning around paragraph 139 of the petition, you can see arguments that the Trump legal team have brought which talk about various violations of state mandates regarding signatures. > I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement You may argue that these laws or mandates could disenfranchise some voters, but I think it's unfair to suggest that it's their sole (or even primary) purpose. > make sure everyone votes Even in countries where voting is mandatory you do not get full voter turnout. There would certainly be enough left over to turn the tide of many elections. [1] https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger.pdf https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...
    - mindslight 6y ago
      If I'm reading it correctly, the actual argument put forth there seems to be that three people were checking each signature, rather than a single one (due to a previous consent decree over disenfranchisement). State law certainly doesn't mandate that each registrar has to personally review every ballot themselves. And so just as a registrar can deputize a single employee to do the job, I would think they have the power to deputize multiple people to do the job collaboratively.
      - 22c 6y ago
        I think you may have read from where I linked and then into the following complaint. The complaint supported by paragraphs 139 - 141 is "RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH GEORGIA LAW PROVISIONS FOR MATCHING SIGNATURES AND CONFIRMING VOTER IDENTITY FOR ELECTORS SEEKING TO VOTE ABSENTEE". The following paragraphs talk about a different issue (which also happens to relate to signature verification).
        mindslight 6y ago
        By my reading, 139-141 just factually cite Georgia law. I don't see where it is alleged how the law was specifically not followed, apart from continuing to read into the next complaint.