2022 US Election

[Birdjaguar]

many votes were illegal, easily greater than margin of victory. signatures did not match at scale...the process for validating them showed serious issues too (aka mass marking votes valid w/o checking in 2022). the court's ruling on this goes directly against law. this absolutely can and should got to scotus.

the judge is *lying*. "“clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of evidence” that misconduct was committed in last fall’s Arizona election." is not the required standard to invalidate the election.

you don't need "misconduct" for her case to be valid. all you need is to demonstrate that votes that were counted should not have been per law. she did that, there were plenty of invalid votes that were counted, far beyond margin of victory.

You need a source for that before it carries any weight beyond being a ridiculous opinion.

 

[mitsho]

signatures did not match at scale...

Signatures are a notoriously bad way of identity verification. Signatures seldom match, just try to sign ten times on a paper. Now recognise that you wanted to make those 10 signatures similar to each other whereas voters don't really remember how they signed on the voting application form ten years ago.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Signatures are a notoriously bad way of identity verification. Signatures seldom match, just try to sign ten times on a paper. Now recognise that you wanted to make those 10 signatures similar to each other whereas voters don't really remember how they signed on the voting application form ten years ago.

signature verification is the long-accepted means of validating election ballots. arizona blatantly broke its own process, in some cases having a <1s timeframe spent to "verify".

that's not the smoking gun people were alleging back in 2020, but for 2022 it's more than enough to invalidate the election in arizona. the state did not uphold its own process and the ballots in question are easily > margin of victory.

 

[mitsho]

signature verification is the long-accepted means of validating election ballots.

In the US maybe. Not really sure about the exact numbers for an OECD-wide analysis (which is the standard in comparative political science for democracies), but it's clear that signature verification is not a standard true and tested element of free and fair elections. Now you can debate on the juidicial intra-united states merits of the case, I can't comment on that, but from a subject professional point of view of the sciences, signatures are nonsense.

 

[Lexicus]

long-accepted

Just to note for folks who may be unaware, this means "long-accepted by TMIT" and of course "long" here means since roughly the 2020 election when all this "illegal voting" nonsense broke out of the insane racist fringe into the Republican mainstream.

In reality, anyone who spends a few minutes googling this issue will see that there are many, many problems with "signature match", both in principle and in terms of how states actually use signatures to determine the validity of ballots - enough problems to make the assertion that it is the Gold Standard of Election Integrity Verification look rather silly.

In reality this laser-like focus on "signature match check" as the Gold Standard of Election Integrity Verification is exactly what it looks like: motivated reasoning because the poster in question is (still) mad that his boi didn't win in 2020 and that his favored party did not sweep every election in 2022.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Economist thinks the chances of Donald Trump being elected are about 1 in 3. They also think he could be on trial while he's campaigning, and that it won't affect his chances much.

Oops. Just noticed this thread is for the 2022 election, not the 2024 election.

 

[Lexicus]

The Economist thinks the chances of Donald Trump being elected are about 1 in 3. They also think he could be on trial while he's campaigning, and that it won't affect his chances much.

Oops. Just noticed this thread is for the 2022 election, not the 2024 election.

I'd hazard a guess that being on trial would help him just like being indicted in NY appeared to help him.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In the US maybe. Not really sure about the exact numbers for an OECD-wide analysis (which is the standard in comparative political science for democracies), but it's clear that signature verification is not a standard true and tested element of free and fair elections. Now you can debate on the juidicial intra-united states merits of the case, I can't comment on that, but from a subject professional point of view of the sciences, signatures are nonsense.

how are you going to verify who voted w/o signature, if they're not in person with id?

if you can't id the person, how can you determine whether they are a) eligible to vote and b) haven't voted already?

you can't have a free/fair election with no functional oversight over who is voting. i guess you could just require in-person voting outright and copy id image into the ballot or similar.

 

[Broken_Erika]

If signatures need to be exact precise matches than no votes will be valid.

 

[Harv]

The Economist thinks the chances of Donald Trump being elected are about 1 in 3.

I take your source at face value. However, I have serious doubts about that 1 in 3 probability and believe it is closer to a snowball and a furnace. I believe this is because DJT lost the moderates. Maybe 538 has done better research on this question and will check there. I might just be out of touch with the world.

 

[Lexicus]

1 in 3 is almost exactly the odds they gave him on Election Eve 2016

 

[Birdjaguar]

if you can't id the person, how can you determine whether they are a) eligible to vote and b) haven't voted already?

I have voted in every election for many decades. In each case I voted in my precinct; I walked up to a table and gave my name and, if asked, my address. They check my name off their voter rolls list and gave me a ballot. It has worked very well every single time not only for me, but all those who were also voting.

 

[mitsho]

how are you going to verify who voted w/o signature, if they're not in person with id?

if you can't id the person, how can you determine whether they are a) eligible to vote and b) haven't voted already?

you can't have a free/fair election with no functional oversight over who is voting. i guess you could just require in-person voting outright and copy id image into the ballot or similar.

I can tell you how it works in Switzerland: there is a voter registry that is based upon the normal citizen registry (you have to tell your city when you move). Then, everyone able to vote gets sent a letter with a ballot and a voting card. You put both of those together and send it in. The two cards get separated, but it serves as a control (number of ballots cast). Now, those ballots and cards can get stolen - but then the citizens who didn't receive their card complain, an investigation is started and in the end, these 5 - 20 votes you got didn't change anything anyways. And the other common way of tampering (filling out ballots for elderly or uninterested relatives) isn't stopped either by signatures or cards - so no change there. So basically, since we know who gets a ballot beforehand, there can be no funny business. And if something happens, it is always minor, and then investigated. Which we can do since our oversight commissions are not polarised (but have members from 5-10 parties and experts in them). I really don't see the need for signatures - though some communities still have them as a sort of stamp, they don't verify them (and they couldn't by the way).

Long story short: free and fair elections are about trust and many eyes belonging to different parties looking closely at the process. Signature match can be a part, but it's not gamechanger. What matters is rather a complete voter (and citizen) registry which the US for some reason struggles against. And then it's simple number verification.

And keep in mind, we do this 4 times a year, so we know our way around.

 

[Lexicus]

I have voted in every election for many decades. In each case I voted in my precinct; I walked up to a table and gave my name and, if asked, my address. They check my name off their voter rolls list and gave me a ballot. It has worked very well every single time not only for me, but all those who were also voting.

Did u ever mail in a ballot?

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

What matters is rather a complete voter (and citizen) registry which the US for some reason struggles against.

I'd say there's a very good reason
but I digress

 

[Birdjaguar]

Did u ever mail in a ballot?

My wife does mail in regularly. She likes staying home. I like early, walk in voting.

 

[mitsho]

I'd say there's a very good reason
but I digress

It‘s about Data Privacy, I know. And fear of the government abusing the data it gets from it. Which is funny since there‘s also Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and co who get way better data and are less controlled. But I do agree we disgress and this isn‘t directly related to the topic anymore. For me, it‘s just a precondition, for you, it‘s a step too far, which means that for us, this is the reason for this „signature problem“.

 

[Lexicus]

My wife does mail in regularly. She likes staying home. I like early, walk in voting.

So what is the procedure she goes through to do that? The question was how you ID people who mail in ballots

 

[Samson]

I have done mail n voting here. It is just dependant on having access to the form that they post to the registered address if you request a mail in ballot.

 

[Lexicus]

I have done mail n voting here. It is just dependant on having access to the form that they post to the registered address if you request a mail in ballot.

Same