Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio...
by nl on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @10:10PM
(#25369169)
> Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number.
No that's not what it means. It means 2-6 were rejected.
"Signature matching" is a junk process and should be ignored.
In the AZ random sampling that the Judge asked for, 6/100 signatures were inconclusive, and this was on verified voters.
> Can you expend on how the process works in Australia. Genuinely curious.
https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/postal-voting.htm
You control the voting envelopes and ballot papers which is actually how fraud is controlled in the US too. The signature verification thing is nothing but ineffective security theatre.
The 0.02% or the more recent 0.06% rejection rate is very low. Think of it this way. Out of 1000 people taking a test that needed two signatures, that matched. Only 2-6 did not not match. Thats an extremely low number.
This is why teachers are always reminding students not to forget to sign their test, in a class of 30, and that only requires one signature.
If you worked with the general public, and you asked them to tie their shoes, I honestly believe you would have a higher failure rate than 0.02%