Frankly, this is one of the fallacies of the in person voting crowds. There are so many holes in that being a solution.
I see that the Usual FR Vote Fraud Denier Suspects are hard at work...
I really dislike the whole signature comparison thing. Truly “handwriting analysts” are often hacks. They will say: 50-50.
We should not have signature verification as a part of voting. It’s too easy to forge a signature. A good forgery is great; a bad forgery will work too. It’s also easy to “deem” a signature as “substantially similar,” or “matching,” etc. And it’s too easy to throw boxes of ballots into the SF Bay. Signatures also change over time.
No signatures. Just voter ID and in person. The way to go.
Lol! And who is certified to make such verification judgements? 3rd level flunkies?? Temporary chair warmers who got a crash course the night before on how to examine signatures for similarities or differences. What were the criteria, if any, were required to reject a signature?? And who cross-checked that decision and concured with each assessment?
Nobody! The decision was left to the flunky doing the amateur unqualified examinations.
What would motivate someone to make the correct determination and most likely couldn’t care less if the signatures matched or not?
Signature verification is a complete joke if it doesn’t get forensic level examination or it’s methods are performed by expertly trained technicians that gets cross examined.
The verification process in Maricopa county was a farse at best which lacked any real attempt at being the least bit cursory. Nobody there were experts and nobody cared because they got paid regardless! The worker simply ignored any examination so that the volume could be met to satisfy the demands dictated by thier supervisors which were under direct control by the SOS(Hobbs). Fraud detection had little to do with the verification... just make it look like verification and get the volume out!
There are no such issues when in-person voting is required. The abuse and vote fraud that comes easily with mail-in/drop-box ballots is minimized when ID and signature validation is done at polling check-in with bi-partisan oversight along with a strict chain of custody.
You’re “frankly” fallacy claim is pretentious BS. The election was stolen by exploiting the lack of oversight and ability to control the outcome by a corrupt SOS and it’s minions.
Show up:
1. on election day
2. Show government issued photo ID
3. on paper ballots
4. Election Observers from both sides have the right to meaningfully observe and challenge each ballot counted.
5. disputes ballots to be decided by a multiparty panel
6. All elections subject to audit every time
Nothing less than this is what we need.