• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

2022 US Election

You need to keep in mind that most of the voter fraud in the past few cycles have been done by Republicans.
 
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?
We're going to put fraud directly alongside apathy? The effects aren't the same.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 get what you mean, and I guess I agree.
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.
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.
 
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.

Yeah or like throwing out thousands of legimate ballots because some maniac like TMIT decides the signatures don't match enough
 
Meanwhile all someone needs is a picture of the signature and a specialized printer to forge said signatures perfectly.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
We're sort of allergic to national ID cards, but you still need them to function so everyone has them. I think it was SNAP that was getting stolen at new high rates this past pandemic.
 
Can't have hungry people stealing food now can we?
 
Well, in this instance it would have been some help if SNAP recipients weren't getting their accounts ripped off and emptied. I mean it's sad when it's baby formula getting resold by "Vinny," but it's value dense and it stores.
 
Top Bottom