Hacker News Reader

Comment by dukeofdoom | Hacker News Reader

Banks not accepting monopoly money also disenfranchises poor people. If banks did start accepting monopoly money, real money would become worth less. Having even a basic standard of verifiability and security is where the worth of money comes from.

Also rights come with responsibilities. If you can't sing your signature in a consistent way, than maybe you should not vote by mail in ballot. Vote in person.

Most up to date stats on the rejection rates that I found. 0.6% vs 6.4% in Georgia.

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Analysis_of_...

View on HN

Others have previously responded to you reposting this link with this commentary, noting that the numbers included there are the result of a tabulating error.

Continuing to attempt to use it to push misinformation after being informed is not acceptable.

Ballot tabulation website has an update date of today. Fact check article is from November 20th.

The election results have been finalized/certified. Therefore its reasonable to assume that the number of rejected ballots is now known. (How could it be otherwise. ) So I'm going to go with the Tabulation website over a fact check article from last month.

As others have already told you, the article [1] specifically addresses the distinction here. The "6%" is total rejections, including those that are from, for example, ballots arriving late. Nothing is out of date about it.

The total number of rejected ballots is not known because it isn't necessary to count rejected ballots to determine the election result (ie: they are simply not included in the count).

Again, stop spreading misinformation. Continuing to do so would be malicious.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejecte...

Fact check article is BS.

In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN

Page 5 aND 6.

"Georgia argues that the “[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged” as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20- cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) (“Wood”). Georgia Br. 4. Georgia’s reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti"

"Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/2020...

No, it isn't. It states the issue at hand and gives the facts available to us.

The item you've linked (the filing by the Texas AG against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin) is weird.

It seems to think there's some serious difference between mail-in and absentee voting in GA. In GA, the term absentee voting encompasses both early voting and mail in voting. The only absentee voting that has signature verification is the mail-in component (IDs are checked instead for early voting).

And it appears to make the same "error" you've continued to make: it conflates rejection for signature mismatch and rejection for all reasons, when the signature mismatch rejections are a subset of all reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com