In GA Audit, Once Again, Democrats Refuse to Allow Republican Poll Watchers

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

 

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

 

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

 

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

 

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

Well that's your opinion, although I cannot say I agree with it. If election security is lax

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

The voters not turning out is up to the voters.

The layers of security exist for a reason. Mail in voting is outlawed in many countries for a reason, as there have been issues with it.

I could go on, but obviously we're not going to agree on this, so Ill simply leave it at that.

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

Well that's your opinion, although I cannot say I agree with it. If election security is lax

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

The voters not turning out is up to the voters.

The layers of security exist for a reason. Mail in voting is outlawed in many countries for a reason, as there have been issues with it.

I could go on, but obviously we're not going to agree on this, so Ill simply leave it at that.

Mail voting is practical in the US because of services provided by our postal system which are not provided by many countries. For example, non-forwarding requests prevent ballots from being forwarded, a security measure that is necessary, door to door delivery which allows ballots to be received and mailed from home is an important feature of mail voting but not available in all countries, free home delivery s disappearing in many countries, and the availability of special delivery services from post offices needed by election offices are not necessary available in other countries. In many countries today, mail delivery services is an option you pay for which makes all mail voting impractical.

As I have said before security problems exist in all voting system. 38 states do not require photo ids for in person voting. In most states with in person voting, a poll worker decides who get's to vote which means the poll worker can allow anyone to vote. In several states that require photo ids, the poll worker can allow people they know to vote without ids. In nearly half the states there is no audit trail for in person voting. If the ballots are forged, destroyed or stolen, there is no backup. In every major elections there are many complains about violation of elections laws at the polls.

Obviously you do not consider turnout important so making voting more difficult is acceptable.

 

[Fueri]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

Well that's your opinion, although I cannot say I agree with it. If election security is lax

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

The voters not turning out is up to the voters.

The layers of security exist for a reason. Mail in voting is outlawed in many countries for a reason, as there have been issues with it.

I could go on, but obviously we're not going to agree on this, so Ill simply leave it at that.

Mail voting is practical in the US because of services provided by our postal system which are not provided by many countries. For example, non-forwarding requests prevent ballots from being forwarded, a security measure that is necessary, door to door delivery which allows ballots to be received and mailed from home is an important feature of mail voting but not available in all countries, free home delivery s disappearing in many countries, and the availability of special delivery services from post offices needed by election offices are not necessary available in other countries. In many countries today, mail delivery services is an option you pay for which makes all mail voting impractical.

As I have said before security problems exist in all voting system. 38 states do not require photo ids for in person voting. In most states with in person voting, a poll worker decides who get's to vote which means the poll worker can allow anyone to vote. In several states that require photo ids, the poll worker can allow people they know to vote without ids. In nearly half the states there is no audit trail for in person voting. If the ballots are forged, destroyed or stolen, there is no backup. In every major elections there are many complains about violation of elections laws at the polls.

Obviously you do not consider turnout important so making voting more difficult is acceptable.

Again, for the third time now, I do not have an overarching problem with mail in voting. I do have a problem with slamming through in months something which realistically should have taken years, using a pandemic as an excuse and acting as if election security is unimportant, as is/was the case here.

This was foolish, at best.

 

[Flopper]

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

Well that's your opinion, although I cannot say I agree with it. If election security is lax

Signature verification is supposedly the cornerstone of mail in ballot security.

It is basically a joke in the first place for several reasons, the first if which is the simple fact that actual handwriting analysis takes years to learn and is normally done by people with degrees in the sciences in the first place.

Anyone that thinks a bunch if volunteers were adequately trained in time to allow for any real level of proficiency in this for this election and the massive expansion of this is nuts, making the supposed safeguard largely ineffective

Add to that that some security measures were actually removed in some states and we end up with the shit show we have.

Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election.

In states that do all mail voting, the most important safeguard is not the signature check but getting the ballot in hands of the valid voter. The signature check works well to spot a forger who is forging a signature without having a sample of the signature to go by. This would occur if the ballot was delivered to the wrong address or the ballot was some how lost and a stranger found it and decided to cast that ballot not having a copy of the voters signature. These events are very rare and are certainly out weighted by the increase in voter turnout in all mail elections.

Interesting opinion, and proper delivery is certainly important, however, the signature of the voter on the ballot is their identification. It is what proves, or is supposedly what proves, that the intended voter submitted the ballot.

Signature verification is sufficient to identify the voter unless there is a skilled forger with a sample of the voter's signature and his ballot. In that case, verification will probably not catch the culprit. The state position is that it is very unlikely a ballot will be delivered to a skilled forger who has a sample of the voter's signature.

Signature verfication is one of several layers of security meant to safeguard a critical process.

Rolling some of those back, as was done for this election, is foolhardy. To your point of proper delivery, simply mailing ballots to all voters does not see to that requirement.

Expanding the scope in such a fashion as to outrun the ability to properly train volunteers to execute one of those safeguards is also foolish.

Mail voting can never be as secure as voting at the polls with strictly enforced voter identification and election regulations. However strictly enforced identification makes it much more difficult to vote, as does transportation to the polls, poll hours, parking, and waiting in line. All mail voting increases voter turnout by about 10%. In a state with 5 million registered voters all mail voting can increase turnout by as much half million votes. So it becomes a trade off between the possibly of more election fraud and a lot more people legally voting. If we can get hundreds of thousands more people voting at the sacrifice of possibly a few hundred additional cases of real voter fraud, I think it would be well worth it, particular when we consider that cases of real voter fraud occurs fairly equally between those voting democrat and republican.

Keep in mind there are serious problems that arise from voting at polls. Election workers often violate procedure and laws. Only 7 states have strict requirements on voter ids and that is not likely to change significantly. In most states a single person at the poll determines who gets to vote. In serval states, this person can allow people to vote because they know them to be a registered voter. This creates a huge potential for voter fraud. In every state in every major elections, there are numerous complaints of intimidation by other voters, observers, or poll workers, partisan election observers denied access, and violation of campaigning laws at the polls.

In the first post you grabbed, i said this:

"Im not de facto opposed to mail in voting, but getting there is a process that takes years, not a snap reaction to a virus. We were not ready for this by any stretch of the imagination for this election."

I agree but voters in lines at polls would most likely result in super spreader events and probably lower voter turnout. Many of the states simple were not well prepared for mail voting which resulted in long waits to get election results. In many states, laws did not allow vote counting of mail-in votes till election day.

Maybe and maybe not. That is an assumption at best.

The same people that can't figure out simple logistics of keeping people distant and keeping things clean so people can vote in person can figure out how to secure a massive expansion of mail in voting in a few short months.

In any case, the security of elections should come before any of those considerations.

Workers at polls are mostly part time older workers and volunteers with very limited training and little or no supervision. That is not the case in election offices.

Security of elections is rather meaningless when most people are not voting. The need to keep elections very secure is the guise that so called democratic governments in 3rd world countries hide behind to insure that their elections are neither fair nor democratic.

Now election security is a guise of 3rd world nations? Wow.

Lets look at the EU. These are not 3rd world nations run by strongmen I think we can agree.

Voting Fraud Is a Real Concern. Just Look Around the World

If concern about voter fraud with mail-in ballots is delusional, it is a delusion that is shared by most of the world.

www.newsweek.com

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country.

Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting "without evidence?" It is not as though people in these countries haven't heard the same arguments about the importance of the ease of voting—or about how photo ID requirements will, as one professor in the U.K. explained, supposedly "lead to people not being able to vote."

"These countries have learned the hard way what happens when mail-in ballots aren't secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange."

All countries in Europe that do not allow mail-in voting with the exception of Greece, France, and Belgium allow mobile voting (online voting) which has significant security risks. All forms of voting including in person voting carry risks but by far the greatest risk to democrat elections is voters not turning out to vote.

Special Voting Arrangements (SVAs) in Europe: In-Country Postal, Early, Mobile and Proxy Arrangements in Individual Countries

www.idea.int

The voters not turning out is up to the voters.

The layers of security exist for a reason. Mail in voting is outlawed in many countries for a reason, as there have been issues with it.

I could go on, but obviously we're not going to agree on this, so Ill simply leave it at that.

Mail voting is practical in the US because of services provided by our postal system which are not provided by many countries. For example, non-forwarding requests prevent ballots from being forwarded, a security measure that is necessary, door to door delivery which allows ballots to be received and mailed from home is an important feature of mail voting but not available in all countries, free home delivery s disappearing in many countries, and the availability of special delivery services from post offices needed by election offices are not necessary available in other countries. In many countries today, mail delivery services is an option you pay for which makes all mail voting impractical.

As I have said before security problems exist in all voting system. 38 states do not require photo ids for in person voting. In most states with in person voting, a poll worker decides who get's to vote which means the poll worker can allow anyone to vote. In several states that require photo ids, the poll worker can allow people they know to vote without ids. In nearly half the states there is no audit trail for in person voting. If the ballots are forged, destroyed or stolen, there is no backup. In every major elections there are many complains about violation of elections laws at the polls.

Obviously you do not consider turnout important so making voting more difficult is acceptable.

Again, for the third time now, I do not have an overarching problem with mail in voting. I do have a problem with slamming through in months something which realistically should have taken years, using a pandemic as an excuse and acting as if election security is unimportant, as is/was the case here.

This was foolish, at best.

The decision on allowing mail voting for this election was made by each state. By far the major security threat in going to mail voting in 2020 was mailing ballot to all voters, whether requested or not. Only 5 states, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, and Vermont mailed ballot to all voters. One other state sent ballots to voters who had voted in the last 2 federal elections. The rest of the states handled ballot requests the same as absentee voter ballots. requesting ballot and proving identity at the time of the request or when the ballot is cast.

Sending ballots to all voters in states that do not do all mail voting is a major risk because voting rolls in these states are not purged throughout the year. Thus there are many thousands of ballots sent to bad addresses. In states that do all mail voting, voter rolls are updated when drivers license addresses are change, deaths within the state, post office receives change of address notices, ballots returned to election office do to a no forwarding request, a voter registering in another county, or the voter changes his address with the election office. Some states are getting address changes from various state agencies. The scrubbing of election files results in only about 1 in 10,000 ballots going to the wrong address and most these are returned by the post office.

People forging signatures on ballot of people they do not know will generally be caught by signature verification. Forging signatures when with a sample signature is certainly possible but it does take practice. Successfully forging signatures without a sample would be very risky.

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org