Oh so there's a database of valid signatures for all 330M Americans?
Yes, CA has a database of signatures. In order to register to vote, you need to have a signature. For most people the signature is already on file with the DMV. If you were a resident of CA you can verify this easily, just look at your picture ID... it has your signature on it.
I don't know how other states do it, this post is about California.
I flagged this article anyway, this isn't really a topic for HN (and the quality of comments shows why).
The signature at DMV on the electronic pad is hardly a representation of my real pen-and-paper signature.
I suspect you're assuming there's some sort of verification going on - but have no evidence of this.
'a signature is required when you return your ballot, which is checked against a copy of your signature that's kept on file. Wyman calls it security "at the back end."'
So basically like checking voter ID at the polls.
What more, we're then going to mail, call, visit people who's signatures didn't look like a match? How many of those people will respond?
In the 2016 election, SF dealt with 400k ballots. Assuming all 400k ballots needed a signature match, and it took a trained worker 20 seconds to match a signature, and they worked 8 hours a day, then it would take:
400k ballots / (3 ballots/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 8 hours/day) = 277 worker-days to match all those signatures.
If you can get 2400 people to work the polling places you'd probably have no trouble getting 277 people to match signatures, and would get them all matched within a single 8 hour workday. In practice it takes several days, so you'd need far less.
It doesn't seem hard to imagine how this could be done. Running elections is one of the most important things that a government does, so they've put some thought into figuring out how to do it.
Why not just scan their government issued ID from the start and be done? Why make it harder than it needs to be?
Why not scan a government issued ID? Because that would require me to wait in line and go to a polling place, and I don't want to. I'm a busy guy. I like getting my ballot and slowly filling it out as I research the issues. I like being able to drop it in the mailbox when I'm done.
You have no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud, yet because you are worried about a potential threat which we do not see in the real world, you want my voting experience to be significantly more inconvenient. If the convenient system works fine for all its intended goals, why should we replace it with an inconvenient system? Don't we want people to vote?
Why not make it online then? What could be more convenient than that?
Why not type in your SSN or Government Issued ID Number as proof of identity and vote online, while relaxing on your couch?
Why force everyone to vote with mail-in just because you find it convenient? Perhaps I enjoy the ballot box experience - feel like I've actually participated in our democracy? Perhaps it's convenient for me to do it on my way home from work. Perhaps it being on one day actually motivates people to do it, instead of procrastinating until it's too late? Maybe I don't like the chance USPS will lose my ballot?
Just because there's no evidence either direction to support or contradict claims of voter fraud - we should just adopt systems that make it trivially more simple to pull off? When do we implement a system that lets us actually measure the amount of voter fraud... or make it impossible completely so we don't have to think about it anymore?
> If you spent 20 seconds looking at the CA secretary of state page, you'd see what they do. Yes, they have a process for it. Yes, they've thought about it.
Really? I just spent 10 minutes looking and couldn't find one thing. I had to google it![1] Only to turn up a buried page about checking your Ballot status, and a bunch of phone numbers to call. Nowhere obvious does it tell you your ballot will be disposed of without notification if they can't match your signature... or feel like counting your vote.
Look at these articles[1][2] stating tens of thousands of ballots were thrown out because of a signature mismatch. Is this rampant attempted voter fraud? Or just a failing identity verification system?
What about the courts ruling it unconstitutional to just dispose of ballots[3]? So they give you an obscure way to see if your ballot was counted? Good enough? No way.
The primary driving argument against VoterID laws is economically challenged people will have a difficult time obtaining and paying for a government ID. These same people though, will have easy access to hidden websites and ample time to call obscure phone numbers to follow-up on their ballot status? Just make a basic Government Issued ID free of charge, and problem solved - everyone can get one.
Voting is supposed to be private as well. They claim they dispose of your envelope with your name on it before counting the ballot - but can you prove it? Maybe your ballot has a signature mismatch suddenly because you voted for the wrong guy?
The opportunity for abuse here is extreme.
[1] https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/
[2] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/tens-of-thousands-...
[3] https://calmatters.org/blogs/2018/11/did-you-vote-by-mail-if...
[4] https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
Does this even remotely sound like a good workflow?
How many people even know to do this? This is the first I'm hearing of it - I can't possibly be alone.
Sounds like a way to throw out a ton of ballots.
You have to be ignorant or deliberately acting in bad faith to say that signatures are an issue, because about 10 minutes of research will show you that states which do vote by mail get around these issues pretty easily.