Had it stopped there I don't think it would have been problematic
So, then, what were you ranting about? That's what the settlement said. That's what they did wrt signature matches.
Have we now moved on from problems with the settlement?
So, as a result of Raffensperger doing a mass mailing to obtain signatures
That sentence connotes intent. Why would he do that? Later you suggest it was an unintended consequence, not intentional. So which is it?
If you don't understand and agree with this, there is really no point in continuing.
I do understand that obtaining two signatures in close proximity would make it easier for some individual to commit fraud, someone whose wife just died so he decides to vote for her. That might happen occasionally. But it's not a flaw that would scale.
But the unexplained drop from 6.4% to 0.4% is a serious problem because it was clearly caused by the change in the law.
That is, indeed, a large change. They purposely changed their procedures so a large change is to be expected. As you explained. You'd have to look at the detail to determine if there was something wrong rather than an expected and desirable outcome.
Back to signature mismatches, which, if you recall, was the topic on the table.
Despite your insistence earlier that you had numbers for Georgia's signature mismatches, you didn't. You had only total rejections. But we can make some guesses from the national breakdown of ballot rejections, which I found at your source. Over three elections nationwide, a quarter of the rejections were from signature mismatches. If we were to apply that percentage to your favorite number set, we would get a change in Georgia of not 6.4% to 0.4% but 1.6% to 0.1 for signature mismatches. That just doesn't look like such a big number or a glaring difference, not big enough do justify the outrage you're showing. Just saying...
The above required my doing some work. I've done more than enough work on this topic. |
