In NM she just applies for a mail in ballot through a portal (name and address) and they send it to her. Then she just sends it back in the double envelops with her signatures. No ID required.
2022 US Election
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
I'm pretty sure if TMIT was checking my mail-in ballot from 2020 against a previous signature on file he'd say I was an illegal vote - the signatures clearly don't match.
Also, less of an issue now but the illiterate are allowed to vote too, and tbh saying that your signature has to match arbitrarily well with past signatures seems to shade pretty close to a literacy test for voting, which...wait a minute
Also, less of an issue now but the illiterate are allowed to vote too, and tbh saying that your signature has to match arbitrarily well with past signatures seems to shade pretty close to a literacy test for voting, which...wait a minute
Signature matching is BS.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
your physical presence is a non-trivial portion of that id process. it would make any mail-in ballot also to your name/address fake, and would also be suspicious if someone else came forward with your same name + address and tried to cast the ballot.
signature match would catch fraudulent mail-ins, which is what you're describing. waiting until near election end and "finding" these ballots is not an uncommon way for fraud to happen in historical cases where it's been caught.
i call bs that they "couldn't". it's not that hard to put a line that says "sign here" on a piece of paper. does your country just have contracts and paperwork that gets verbally affirmed with no followup or something? people consent to surgery, big purchases, legal work etc with no written documentation that tracks to their signature, or something serving the same function as that signature? what's to stop people who have an otherwise valid contract from getting out of it by claiming they didn't agree when they did?
the process you describe does not check against a common type of fraud...aka casting a non-voter's ballot for them. voter registry is a good idea but i think some people in the usa would blather how that's racist or some other nonsense.
the bs is doing mail-in ballots w/o a process to verify that the person who filled it out is the same person whose name is attached to it. you are directly advocating against basic fraud protection in elections, then also claiming that there's no way fraud could happen.
Man, I wonder who knows more, the people do this, or some random dude on the Internet with a vested interest in calling "bs"? lol
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
well,
I had ONE instance at work these past 11 years where someone signed someone else's legal document. It looked off to me, cursive yes, but the name didn't look like a match, and so I called and verified that, no, the intended recipient was not the one who signed it.
So, this stuff does happen...sometimes. Don't say it doesn't.
ok my personal anecdote is over.
I had ONE instance at work these past 11 years where someone signed someone else's legal document. It looked off to me, cursive yes, but the name didn't look like a match, and so I called and verified that, no, the intended recipient was not the one who signed it.
So, this stuff does happen...sometimes. Don't say it doesn't.
ok my personal anecdote is over.
One in eleven years, huh. I'm not sure this is making the point you think it is.
Please document instances of where this fraud has happened at any scale above 3-5 incidents
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
my point is don't brush off falsification of legal documents because "signatures aren't important". They are.
I check them;
I don't know why others who are supposed to don't, if that is what's required.
Perhaps because there's a certain level of fraud (however tiny) that's considered acceptable if it means the maximum amount of voters going through the polling place...
Granted, it might be hard for a voter to perfectly match a previous signature they made X years ago; but if someone signs "Joe Smith" on "Jack Johnson's" document, if you've got something that egregious, that is catch-able, no matter how rare it may be.
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,156
Here's the funny thing about mail-in ballots and signatures:
No one ever had an issue with mail in voting until a certain narcissistic man child with the spray on orange tan got his butt handed to him in 2020. Been watching US elections since the year Martin and Bobby were shot, and never heard a peep about mail in voting. Wonder why that changed? I mean, surely we're not going argue about a non-issue because some Yankee real estate developer got his feelings hurt.
No one ever had an issue with mail in voting until a certain narcissistic man child with the spray on orange tan got his butt handed to him in 2020. Been watching US elections since the year Martin and Bobby were shot, and never heard a peep about mail in voting. Wonder why that changed? I mean, surely we're not going argue about a non-issue because some Yankee real estate developer got his feelings hurt.
Nobody is. People are rightfully calling out mistaken hysteria over something that isn't actually a problem at scale.
"it happened once in x years" is not "this is a problem that requires a change"
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
What scale must it be?
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I mean, “it happens a statistically significant amount with some degree of consistency,” would be a good start.
“In eleven years I know it happened one time in an unrelated sector,” is not that.
“In eleven years I know it happened one time in an unrelated sector,” is not that.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
which is what?
More than anything that has been demonstrated so far.
Which is the point. Why is it being taken a valid concern? Why are you putting words in peoples' mouths, suggesting that they're "brushing off" things or the like?
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Like any statistical or historical evidence that it’s a thing that happens beyond like a handful of instances that don’t materially affect the outcome?
All I’ve seen so far is baseless speculation that it *could* happen, and a tenuously analogous example in an unrelated field where the incentives are wildly different.
The reason this sort of voter fraud is *not a thing* is because voter fraud is only worthwhile if it could actually change an electoral outcome, and doing that requires fraud at-scale. It’s not just forging a signature here or there, but hundreds or thousands of signatures without getting caught.
By contrast, in the scenario you’re suggesting, it’s one signature at the end of which someone gets a direct, personal, material gain. It’s just not worth it in the same way for voter fraud.
If you want to affect an election, you’re better off trying to tamper with the design of the ballots, the accessibility of voting locations, the registering of valid ballots, the transportation of ballots to a counting location, the counting of ballots, or the certifying of ballot counts. Things we actually have evidence of people attempting to do at various times. Forging thousands of individual signatures to alter an election is an absurd waste of time for anyone serious about stealing an election.
Last edited:
There is a point that if we are going to say what is the right thing to do we should be able to talk numbers. I have not actually looked, but my understanding is that the numbers really are on our side. Is it like a handful in a million when in person voter fraud is estimated, and a handful in a hundred when we are talking about the effect of putting people off voting?
