Wouldn't those be only of anyone who was brought in and had to have their fingerprints taken though? Unless you take everyone in the county/country's fingerprints that's still a relatively shallow pool.
Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
Trump spent months calling mail in ballots fraudulent. Of course his voters wouldn't be using them. Duh.
Compare it across other areas of the country though. Is this extraordinary difference evident in other areas? If not, why not?
Gotta love Razorfist
Out of every criminal in the counties history? And in the FBI database it never matches? The FBI database that has every criminal on record in it?
At it is at these times, does anyone else feel like they are a drifter who found some sus sunglasses in a church? Or is it just me, and nada anyone else?
I don't get the references
I was referencing "They Live!", I would have expected that most people here saw it, being in the proper demographic.
Perhaps, but isn't that still better than something as inherently variable and selectively evaluated as handwriting?
(Two fingerprints can be semi-objectively said to have X points of similarity. While such an analysis can *technically* be done with handwriting as well, this kind of detailed expert analysis is simply impossible on the scale required for elections -- signature matching is an "at a glance" level comparison by minimally trained comparators, and it's *really* not realistic to say "well then hire bona fide handwriting experts".)
I would also argue that given the limits of signature matching, voters must be immediately notified if there is a signature match, and must have an opportunity to "cure" the mismatch by providing alternative identity confirmation. States in which a signature mismatch simply allows for the vote to be discarded as compromised with no opportunity to "cure" are completely unacceptable.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
There's a fair argument there. In this digital age, signatures are increasingly ill-practiced and unreliable. Signatures as proof of identity were standardized as a practice before the industrial age, much less the digital age, and while they aren't useless, they have not kept up well.
I would absolutely support requiring that for Absentee Ballots, the relevant electoral office be required to notify you promptly that a sealed vote envelope with your name and signature on it has been received, and whether or not it's been accepted. This both helps prevent the vote from being discarded because of the issues with signatures, and lets you alert the office if you have not in fact sent such a ballot in, and that someone is attempting fraud in your name.
Of course, given how useful such a measure would be for preventing fraud, the DNC will fight such a thing tooth and claw.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
True, signatures are even worse; I was just pointing out that fingerprints are far from an ideal replacement.
I found out mine was accepted so. It happens
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I understand some areas do this; I'd certainly favor making it a national standard for Federal elections.
I recently learned that this isn't just because handwriting is less popular. It's actually vastly harder to generate a consistent signature with a cheap modern ball-point pen than with a fountain pen, because both the way of holding a pen that is generally taught and the actual cursive style were both designed for fountain pens. The ink mechanics of a ballpoint pen require a more upright angle and substantially greater tip pressure, but due to handwriting falling out of popularity by the time ballpoints became common, a proper ergonomic grip for ballpoints was never actually invented, much less writing styles optimized for its writing characteristics. In other words, it's really hard to have a smooth, flowing penmanship with a ballpoint because the ergonomics are all wrong.
I actually agree with you 100% on this one.
My signatures rarely match. I have crappy penmanship and it's different every time.
My votes probably get tossed out routinely. It's a shitty way to verify identity.
They're a perfectly ideal replacement.
Every criminal in history since we started recording them is in a database, and we haven't found a match yet.
That database holds more than criminals too. People may have gotten fingerprints taken for other things and added to that database.
No matches yet.
They are unique enough, that even if there was a duplicate here and there they'd be exceedingly rare and could be accounted for.
It's wayyyyyyy more reliable than what we do now.
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
Same here. When I had an epileptic seizure, the part of my brain responsible for fine motor skills was left without oxygen for a while. As a result my fine motor skills with my fingers worsened somewhat. As in not impeding daily life, but still noticing it sometimes. And as result, my signatures never match each other. So to verify votes via signatures for obvious reasons is flawed at best.
DarthOne
☦️
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
-Abraham Lincoln
The whole argument that "fingerprints are unreliable" is stupid. Courts accept them as evidence and financial transactions are routinely authorized by millions worldwide with fingerprint sensors on their phones. I think they can be a perfectly valid way to verify ballots.
