Zach is basically a troll, but a fairly interesting one in his approach and worth engaging with now and then. But the obtuseness is willed, I believe.

Talk about magical thinking.

“Nothing to see. Nothing to see. Move along. Move along!”

The 52 rejected by the election workers were probably the worst matches. Of those, most were cured. But just because they weren’t cured doesn’t mean they weren’t valid votes. The other 106 that the auditors thought should have been rejected were probably closer matches, and there is no reason to believe that the vast majority weren’t also valid votes. Georgia went the extra step in 2020 and actually contacted the voters. They found all the mismatched signatures were by valid voters.

Brian E: This has nothing to do with curing.

It has everything to do with curing. If ballots were rejected for mismatched signatures, but most of them were cured, and many of the rest were probably curable because they were valid voters, it means that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

Ballots were rejected for “three main reasons: the ballot was received or postmarked after the election closed, it was missing a signature, or the signature on the ballot did not match the voter’s signature on file. State law requires these ballots be rejected; the latter two reasons may be cured by the voter.”
The average rejection rate for all Washington counties was 0.72%. The sample size the auditors used was 7,257.
7257 x 0.72%=52
But after running the ballots through automatic signature verification software the number was 542, after review was 201, and after more review was 158. That’s the number that should have been rejected for mismatched signatures.
The conclusion is more signatures should have been rejected for mismatch than were– something between 2.12% and 7.5%.
This has nothing to do with curing. What this shows is that an additional number of ballots– between 52,000 and 244,000 should have been rejected than were.

That’s right, and we can reasonably presume that these were the worst matches. Yet, most of these ballots were cured, meaning they were actually valid voters. Nor does this imply that the uncured ballots were not valid voters. It’s not always convenient for many voters to find the time to cure their ballots. (ETA: Georgia actually investigated voters with mismatched signatures and found they were all valid voters.)

In addition, people’s signatures evolve over time, and illness specifically can often cause a signature to change significantly. So, more than likely, many or most of the remaining ballots were valid voters, even if they were rejected due to the signature match.

“This sample was drawn from 16 counties that use envelope sorters, which take images of the ballot signature and store them in VoteWA. (The remaining counties do not keep images of ballot signatures.)
The ballots from these 16 counties made up 86.8 percent of the total ballots cast during the 2020 general election. We used a stratified random sample to obtain signatures belonging to particular minority groups and a mix of urban and rural voters.
After obtaining the signature images from the Secretary of State, we ran the image sets of ballot signatures and the signatures on file through automatic signature verification software called SignatureXpert, created by Parascript. We manually reviewed all signatures where SignatureXpert made a determination that differed from that made by the counties, as well as all signatures that it warned could be a forgery. Parascript recommends manually reviewing all signatures the software deems forgeries.
The audit team members then used information from the signature verification training provided by the Washington State Patrol (the same training county signature reviewers take) to conclude on whether a signature was accepted or rejected appropriately on a sample of 7,257 signature pairs out of a population of 3,602,353. Each signature pair was comprised of the signature on the ballot envelope and another signature on file (or multiple) from VoteWA.
First, we identified ballots that were inconclusive or where a trained reviewer would need to use more judgment when deciding if the signature on the ballot envelope matched the signature on file in VoteWA. These inconclusive signatures are where we considered it was possible that unconscious bias could affect whether the reviewer accepted or rejected the ballot.
To do this, two or more audit team members reviewed each signature pair. If at least one audit team member made a decision that conflicted with the county’s decision we determined that the signature pair was inconclusive. We identified 542 inconclusive signature pairs.
Second, we determined the signature pairs we ultimately disagreed with. If two audit team members disagreed with the county’s decision, we forwarded the signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office for review. When two auditors disagreed with each other, a third auditor reviewed the signature and made the determining decision. Using this process, auditors disagreed with the decision made by counties on 201 ballots. Two employees with experience in reviewing signatures also reviewed the signature pairs.
They ultimately disagreed with the counties’ decisions on 158 signatures.

Actually, the overall statewide rejection rate was 0.72%. From the sample size of 7,200 the audit team found 542 inconclusive mismatches, using automated signature matching software. That would be a rejection rate of 7.5%. After repeated auditors compared the signatures, they found 201 they found didn’t match. That would be a rejection rate of 2.7%, well above what was actually rejected by the counties. That’s a difference between 2% to 6.8% that would have been rejected using the automated signature matching software. After a third round of inspection, they ultimately disagreed on 158 signatures. That’s at best a difference of 1.5%.

What that indicates is that out of a vote of 3.6 million, there were at best 54,000 votes that should have been rejected, and possibly something between 72,000 and 244,000 votes that would have been rejected had we been using automated signature verification software.

Also the auditor’s found this tidbit: “County election officials were sometimes inconsistent in how they counted late ballots and entered them into the database. For instance, we found one larger county that had no late ballots in the data when such ballots usually account for a significant portion of rejected ballots.”

Three or four paragraphs of truisms followed by I’m an island?

So clean up the Sound political machine and then talk to me ( I live in your own home town). You don’t need any voters from east of the Cascaded I guess. Or are you moving to FL or TX?

Regarding cars and CA, IIRC the feds had something to say about CA establishing more stringent requirements (wink, wink, nod, nod).

Regulatory capture (look it up).

Being in the minority, or having a razor-thin majority guaranteed to advance no conservative policy or idea thanks to the RINOs, suits them just fine apparently. There’s tax money to appropriate after all and all the Congresscritters agree on how important that is.

At some point some of us ask just how many more times we plan to be fooled. What Democrats do with ethnic minorities, Republicans do with conservatives. Except that Democrats occasionally deliver for ethnic minorities–conservatives are much cheaper dates.

It’s a two party system. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.