You have to prove who you are to get a ballot and then your identity gets checked again when you turn it in. Signature verification was never a top notch method to identify folks but rather used as a way to remove legal votes.

Perhaps someone can explain why they would trust the media that lied about Hunter Biden... Before the election but now...

Signature verification isn't s***... Pardon my English.

I mean what is referred to here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/11/17/pennsylvania-supreme-court-overturns-one-of-trump-campaigns-only-victories-election-observers/?sh=3513916d371e

You can believe whatever you like...

how do we know they aren't ... PA and other states have their rules regarding ensuring the ballots cast are legit and the federal system allows a great latitude in those rules, so if the PA election officials followed those rules and the state certifies those ballots then they are legit in the eyes of the state and the federal government

Will part of a power structure allow it frame work to be attacked? This would undermine the power of the persons in the power structure.

So the headline would be: "State that relaxes certification rules, certifies ensuing vote. therefore vote is legal." - when I say "legit" I do not mean in a circular legalistic way, but in a way which people can trust.

Yes goodness is this can go one of two ways but both ways civil war.

signatures are required to affirm you are who you say you are and a legal voter ... you have to sign to vote in person or by mail ... that signature can be used to prosecute you if you did something illegal like lied about your status

Anyone who thinks differently could be naive.

That's me because I have Indian company and I have to sign a piece of paper about 10 times before they accept my name, verification.

Copy the email will be provided upon request...

So...

Not free worldly

folks trusted it right up until the Nov 2020 elections where in the run up to the election Trump claimed that if he lost it would be because of voter fraud ... note by these same rules Trump was selected in PA to be the Republican nominee in the primary

And if that verification is removed there is no longer a way to show that you are. Why would they remove that condition in the name of "voter rights".

Which folks trusted the elimination of effective signature verification?

they keep the signatures ... just separated from the ballot so that the ballot (i.e., who you voted for) remains a secret

Perhaps people in America don't understand happens the tools of empire creation come back home.

And signature comparison was no longer going to be a reason to reject, was it not? What are we discussing?

Consider this. John Smith presents his birth certificate, social security card, utility bills proving address to get a photo ID. He then uses photo ID and verifies his signature matches to obtain a ballot and mails it in where they check his identity and address matches where the ballot was sent and he lives. But somehow if another signature verification is required to make sure his identity is correct?

no longer a sole reason to reject as per the article you linked

Picture this... A mail in ballot can be requested with only a driver's license number in a name and a county... So anybody know those three things can have a ballot sent anywhere...

That verified the state of Georgia

I mean you cant just like walk into a BMV and say heres this dead guys ID I would like to change his address to mine and update his voter registration please

... the signature on the ballot application has to be the same as on the driver licence - if it is not the application should be rejected. If that verification is removed then the whole thing is fishy. This is the problem - the people need to have confidence in the system, whereas this system seems to have been set up to allow shenanigans without challenge.

@English Remi not sure what we're discussing ... I'm telling what happened best I can decipher ... you seem not to want to trust it, fine that's your call but it's the call of the court to determine whether it was legal or not and so far they've determined it was

The signature has to match when you apply for the ballot. They dropped the requirement on the second one when turned in.

It's not just me that does not trust a system that has set itself up not to be trusted. Signature verification is important otherwise why do we sign for anything?

The heist scenarios are clever and all but the number of folks willing to commit a felony for 1 vote and leading the cops to your home address is pretty minimal. We cant even get half the country to vote legally for 1 vote.

it's a balancing act ... let some election worker decide whether a signature is valid or not and that allows their bias to potentially come into play and throw out legitimate ballots ... put the checks on the application side and double check the information when the ballot is received is just a different way of ensuring election security ... maybe you don't like it but it's what they decided in PA

Why?

@English Remi, you just advanced to level 3!

It's been used as a way to disenfranchise 10s of thousands of legal voters but hasnt caught any tangible fraud. If the GOP did right by voters instead of trying to strip rights they couldnt have even won the case or needed to have a case.

not sure if you ask me ... I sign stuff all the time and one signature looks nothing like another ... I have to sign a screen with my finger when I buy stuff with a credit card ... had to sign on a screen with a Popsicle stick when I early voted in person

System design versus reality...

The reality is all of these platitudes mean nothing.

Useful idiots parenting the talking points of the elite.

A signature check from a minimum wage employee with no skill in handwriting analysis yields bad results.

No one discussing this topic had any primary or secondary sourced data.