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.

It's all faith

...

That doesnt even get into bad faith gop poll observers that challenge every signature or lack of curing systems.

heck my smartphone with the power of Google software can't tell my fingerprint a fraction of the time ... think signature matching even with a machine is going to be any better ... especially when I had to sign a computer screen with a Popsicle stick?

That is absolutely correct. I do not believe that this would have made enough of a difference. I have said from the beginning (not here but in another circle) that if this election was decided illegitimately the bulk of the cheating mechanism would have been done by the IT systems. But what this signature business shows is a willingness to muddy the water, and to set aside integrity - people willing to cheat in minor dishonesties will turn a blind eye to the major. The best place to hide an effective conspiracy is behind one that is less effective ... debunk the one in front and all the energy is spent on that rather than on the one that worked. I could cite several examples of this, in other fields.

The only reason voting rights advocates fight for this in court and do well is GOP lead areas very intentionally dont have curing for ballots. So if you go through 100 ballots and decide 10 the signature was off because they didnt sign quite the same way or whatever they throw the vote away and dont tell the voter they lost their vote. This is used as a method to create voting suppression instead of have better voting integrity. Places with a curing system send a mail back to the voter alerting them there was a rpholem allowing them to correct the signature nor show up with photo ID to prove who they are.

They even used lack of curing in red counties in a lawsuit to try and erase votes that were cured in blue counties. They were legal votes which were corrected. Guiliani called them forgeries.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8Z01vyR6Hyk&feature=share

That is indeed what they decided - and that is what is wrong. There can be a stack of "doubtful" returns that are verified by a supervisor. Was there a history of worker bias rejecting good ballots?

I'm sure you get some amount of mistakes from employees. But the army of Karen observers is a larger issue that want to remove as many as possible with challenges

Partisan bad actors make the situation worse

Yes they were sued for it and this was the compromise they came up with ... All in an article you linked

@English Remi you live in PA?