You need to keep in mind that most of the voter fraud in the past few cycles have been done by Republicans.
2022 US Election
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,660
We're going to put fraud directly alongside apathy? The effects aren't the same.
They kind of are. When you have the leaders of one side openly admitting the measures were intended to suppress more of one group than another then you have in both cases people trying to manipulate the result in one direction or the other. The effect is a vote that does not align so well with the true wishes of the population.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,660
Apathy of result is not the same distrust as fraud. They are both not good, but one storms the capital. They're not the same. One we are talking about simply not needing security because people won't cheat elections if it's easy(lol) and that argument is being made by people who don't want to wait twice a year for primary general vote showing up for. I daresay that these are not particularly desirable voters to model a republic after.
I'm not in favor of "papers please" ID laws, which seem to be the article. The signature matching is a pita, imperfect, and high effort. But that is why it works. Elections are probably worth the effort required.
I'm not in favor of "papers please" ID laws, which seem to be the article. The signature matching is a pita, imperfect, and high effort. But that is why it works. Elections are probably worth the effort required.
Last edited:
I get what you mean, and I guess I agree.
The thing about signature matching is that it seems it would have such a high error rate wherever you put the threshold. It may have made sense in the days when you signed for loads of transactions, but these days I never sign anything. If the only time I signed something was when I voted they would probably look like different people every time.
There is also the point that this should be easy to measure. The fact that there is not a well cited data source showing what the error rate is makes me suspect that they do not want us to know.
Lexicus
Deity
Yeah or like throwing out thousands of legimate ballots because some maniac like TMIT decides the signatures don't match enough
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Meanwhile all someone needs is a picture of the signature and a specialized printer to forge said signatures perfectly.
If you have a picture of the signature I bet you would not need to be that skilled to manually have a similar failure rate to real people through any system. That would be a good control for the test they should do to determine false positive/negative rates.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,660
It really is necessary to combine with a physically written on piece of paper for the indents. Forcing the game of writing manually for the vote is onerous by design due to cumberance of duplication and mass production. That requires effort, that produces evidence.
mitsho
Deity
There are better ways to check. F.e. we have the ballot and a voter id card. You get both per mail and then put both in the mail or go with them to mailing station. The voter id card is put in a box, the ballot in an urn. Then both the box and the urn are counted by a machine. The voter cards have a small (non readable by eye number) on them, if someone voted twice or with a fake voted id card, you know it. There are next to no such cases. The numbers are better than the signatures. And no, the numbers can't be linked to a person, just to the database of which cards were sent out.
This whole complicated system is by the way why e-voting isn't popular. It's so much easier to fake and fraud - on the internet instead of by hard mail. What is gaining traction though is the Innovation of e-signature. For initiatives and ballots, you have to get a certain number of citizens to sign - on paper, one for every city/village - and then send that in. These sheets then get sent to the cities who have to confirm that X is a citizen (and his or her signature is valid - though I am not sure how they do that). Here you usually need around 10-15% more signatures since people sign who aren't allowed to, or they sign in a wrong city or they sign twice or thrice. The point is, you have to collect those signatures on the street or with people you know. It's hard work. It would be much easier, if they could sign online - and that's the next Innovation coming. For that you need a digital secure signature - which would also be much better than the current handwritten one anyways. And in a roundabout way I think I have now answered TMITs points from the last page.
This whole complicated system is by the way why e-voting isn't popular. It's so much easier to fake and fraud - on the internet instead of by hard mail. What is gaining traction though is the Innovation of e-signature. For initiatives and ballots, you have to get a certain number of citizens to sign - on paper, one for every city/village - and then send that in. These sheets then get sent to the cities who have to confirm that X is a citizen (and his or her signature is valid - though I am not sure how they do that). Here you usually need around 10-15% more signatures since people sign who aren't allowed to, or they sign in a wrong city or they sign twice or thrice. The point is, you have to collect those signatures on the street or with people you know. It's hard work. It would be much easier, if they could sign online - and that's the next Innovation coming. For that you need a digital secure signature - which would also be much better than the current handwritten one anyways. And in a roundabout way I think I have now answered TMITs points from the last page.
Can't have hungry people stealing food now can we?
