If you had anything to prove it with you would post it. The proper thing to do is just admit you have nothing.
... a radical consent decree that intuitively would effectively eliminate signature match as a thing by deeming any signature that happened to be on file a match, no matter who actually signed the document
Well, you're right that I have nothing. Because I can't find anything that speaks to your assertion. If I can't find anything, I can't validate your assertion. But I also have nothing to post to prove it is invalid. The only basis on which I can contest it is that 1) I can't confirm it and 2) it is so conspicuously ridiculous and no rational person would entertain it. Ergo the assertion is not valid.
It's true that the matching procedure called for matching against any signature on file for the voter. So, if the signature on the first document, say the voter registration card, looks a bit off, you check the one on, say, the drivers license rather than cavalierly rejecting the ballot. Duh.
So what are you saying? I assume by "the document" you mean the ballot. Or are you thinking that someone else might have signed the driver's license? What are you suggesting there about accepting a ballot that has been signed by someone else? If it's a match, it was signed by the voter and you count it. If it's not a match, you don't count it. You put it aside on the pile of things to investigate. If the procedure were to be to count it regardless of match, as you say, then there would be no point in doing the match in the first place yet they do. You have no logical place to go with this. |
