the Baker-Carter commission, noted the flaws in the system, but that was the point if you want disenfranchise legitimate voters,

I just don’t think that signature verification is going to be effective.

I agree it’s not likely to be TOO effective in and of itself, but that’s why it should be used as one of several safeguards rather than a definitive one. If worst comes to worst it can be a bargaining chip to be given away in exchange for allowing another methodology.

Except in the most eggregious of cases, there is simply is no objective way to do it.

Firstly, even if I granted this premise were true (and I do not) getting only the most egregious cases would still be a net positive. It’s sure as hell better than what we had in Pennsylvania.

Secondly, I [b] don’t think there is “simply no objective way to do it.” [/b] And legal precedent says I am not the only one. This is an incredibly old and widely observed science, and while like many old sciences it has gone through false starts and missteps it is still used to this day. Indeed, it is almost certainly used to help uphold convictions in almost every jurisdiction where it was disavowed for use verifying votes. Which means that the relevant jurisdictions need to be asked very pointedly if they want to apply the same standards they claim for ballots as they do to their conviction rates, and also to weigh them against those of other, foreign jurisdictions which continue to receive evidence.

Because it is rare to find a court with criminal or civil jurisdiction in the developed world (and many outside of it) that does not accept forensic handwriting evidence. It may not be accepted Across the Board, and it almost certainly is not accepted without contest, but accepted it is. Or else there would be exponentially fewer forensic handwriting expert witnesses selling their talents and knowledge around.

Now, the job is a lot harder in the context of votes both because of the smaller sample size (usually just a signature) and also the time constraints (due to ballot counting) as well as the huge workflow, as opposed to semi-leisurely examining several documents in a specific criminal case. But that just informs the problems and difficulty this field would work in, it doesn’t mean it can’t be done at all.

And we need to start pointing this out to jurisdictions claiming otherwise. It may never be our main line of defense, but it should be fought for and fought fiercely, because it is another tool in our kit, and something the public (inundated with CSI and other forensic or crime procedural shows and popcorn history or “history” documentaries) will be familiar with.

Scenario – A ballot has a signature that appears to be a clear mismatch. The Republican observer challenges it. The Democrat observer disagrees. OK, now what?

Simple. The same thing that would happen if the Republican believed the vote was authentic and the Dem didn’t, or the inverse. It gets chucked into a suspect “pile” along with the envelope for more dedicated scrutiny, at which point you start running through a check list of indicators for malfeasance or fraud starting with the lowest of low hanging fruit (such as if this person is registered to vote in our rolls at all, or if their birthday is logged as 01/01/1900) and escalating. This continues on until one side or the other persuades the others (such as the Dem coming around to believing the vote is fraudulent, or the Republican dropping their objection).

If no consensus is reached, the ballot gets chucked up for more dedicated, forensic analysis by the expert witnesses.

The problem is setting all of this up, because once it is established it will work REASONABLY well for government work. But it would involve massive scaling up of things such as numbers of expert witnesses, training observers in the new system, and so on.

You have to adjudicate something as nuanced and subjective as signature matching on a ballot-by-ballot basis?

Yes, if it comes to that you need the ability to do so. But it will likely rarely come to that because signature matching is not the only arrow in the quiver and you can use them in concert to establish a high probability of fraudulence or at least error. And because it’s adversarial it becomes a lot harder to corrupt.

With one side insisting that black is white and up is down?

Again, we deal with things like that day in and day out in the running of a civil society. Indeed, as Rufus pointed out regarding Deshowitz regarding OJ’s “Dream Team” we have some cases where we literally structure the system to have adversarial insistence. It’s the legal system, and we already have elements of it in our own vote counting.

So what you do is you get people to sign oaths on subject of perjury and negligence that they will swear by the authenticity of this ballot and the results taken to ensure its authenticity, and that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the results thereof. This imposes legal penalty, and while in practice it’d be moderately easy to beat (by simply claiming people are only human) it will impose some accountability.

No doubt supported by examples of people whose signatures look different from day-to-day?

If only we had centuries of scholarship on this very issue, as well as not a little bit of legal wraggling…. Maybe something that dates back to the 1500s?

This is quite literally one of the defining subjects of forensic handwriting analysis. Which recognizes that peoples’ signatures do vary from day to day, hour to hour, and year to year. But that the way they vary and evolve is finite and tends to develop in certain ways. And the authenticity and merit of these fields of study has been tested time and again in courts across the country and beyond and it is generally held to be legitimate fields of study and to have evidentiary merit.

As one should hope considering how many people have been convicted or acquitted on strength of that and how much of a scandal it is when an “expert” gets caught behaving badly.

With a judicial system that has repeatedly indicated that it will err on the side of not throwing out a completed ballot?

Which is fine, because to be honest that’s probably how we should hope the legal system should err, in keeping with Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

The issue is that we need to impose additional difficulties in getting it through that. We can’t afford to have Pennsylvania allowing any old scratch to go in. This is not our only effort, nor should it be our only one. And to be a honest a huge portion of the signatures detected from it will probably not be invalidated Because of it, but because of other things like the vote rolls not matching up or a dead certificate being found.

And that’s ok. Because the key is to have multiple, intertwining threads of evidence that can combine to indicate guilt or innocence. The key thing is to fight for them, and also not to get distraught because no one measure is a silver bullet.

Another issue is that many of us don’t sign our name that often anymore, and many of the times that we do it is on those stupid electronic pads at odd angles. I strongly suspect that there actually is a lot more variability in people’s signatures today then there was 10 or more years ago, simply from lack of practice.

Which is fair, and I’m one of those in addition to being someone who doesn’t really “sign” at all so much as print. And that’s been a very real subject of study for forensic handwriting. Made worse in my opinion by the reliance on many voting stations on them (for instance, I had to do one by writing it with pencil, and another by writing it on a scanner with my finger). Neither were supremely good, but both displayed some telltale traits of my signature that would be hard to fully replicate.

Let’s not assume that this stuff isn’t being studied and fought over, because it is. Indeed, we’re already dealing with legal cases on this, and frankly the answer is probably more legal scrutiny for these signatures and the methodologies rather than less. Even if – again – the threshold for error has to be set high meaning most errant signatures would get missed.

Because some standards are better than none, and they’d set something we can work towards.

There needs to be another way.

Yes, and there are. Many of which I’d focus our efforts on more such as pruning voter rolls and imposing physical ID like we see in most functioning democracies. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give up signature authentication and scrutiny without a fight, because if nothing else it’s a measure.

And frankly, if I were on the D team, I would concede signature matching and argue that it makes two-factor authentication, or other more secure methods, unnecessary.

Firstly, we’d then wallop them with cases abroad showing that is not the case.

Secondly, signature matching should not be our main focus in comparison to other measures, including two factor identification. It’s something we are prepared to give up to get a better result, not something we sacrifice to get.

I think the best political argument for the R team is to admit that signature matching is mostly worthless

This is a monumentally bad idea because in addition to undermining one of our oldest forensic sciences, it would probably have shockwaves that would radiate FAR beyond signatures. Because even if your average Richard Daley corrupt Pol doesn’t want to have criminals running on the street and wouldn’t want to translate a victory at blocking signature verification into a means to exonerate crooks, there are doubtless many wannabe Squad members and “Justice Democrats” that would. And would immediately take your admission that signature matching is “mostly worthless” to the Courts of Appeals and demand we let a bunch of convicts out.

And THEY WOULDN’T BE WRONG to do so IF signature matching is “mostly worthless.” It’s just that I don’t think for a second it is and I am pretty sure nearly half a millennia of study on the matter ratifies that.

If signature matching is not the hill to die on in terms of voter authentication (and I concede it may not be), then we barter it off in exchange for other concessions or if worst comes to worst we drop it.

and argue that mail-in balloting is currently on the “honor system.” (Which is is.)

And that’s putting it generously.

And that, because of this, we need two-factor authentication or something else that works. Perhaps add that you need two-factor authentication to check the balance of your checking account. Of course it makes sense to have the same level of security for the most important thing that we do as a democracy.

Agreed and that should be our main focus. But that doesn’t mean we can afford to let up pressure on other fronts. And it certainly doesn’t mean we should throw out hundreds of years of forensic writing research. It can and has had its uses, even if in the modern environment those uses are relatively secondary due to the limitations. And again, even getting rid of the most blatant signature fabrications is a positive.

So is flagging suspect signatures that can then be scrutinized for low hanging fruit evidence of fraud (or not so low hanging fruit). You don’t need to base the exclusion solely on signature matching in order for signature matching to be useful, like it if raises a red flag on a ballot for someone who died a week before early voting began. It should be part of an integrated system of vote security and authentication, even if it isn’t the only or main part of it.

Scenario – A ballot has a signature that appears to be a clear mismatch. The Republican observer challenges it. The Democrat observer disagrees. OK, now what? You have to adjudicate something as nuanced and subjective as signature matching on a ballot-by-ballot basis? With one side insisting that black is white and up is down? No doubt supported by examples of people whose signatures look different from day-to-day? With a judicial system that has repeatedly indicated that it will err on the side of not throwing out a completed ballot?

Another issue is that many of us don’t sign our name that often anymore, and many of the times that we do it is on those stupid electronic pads at odd angles. I strongly suspect that there actually is a lot more variability in people’s signatures today then there was 10 or more years ago, simply from lack of practice.

There needs to be another way. And frankly, if I were on the D team, I would concede signature matching and argue that it makes two-factor authentication, or other more secure methods, unnecessary.

I think the best political argument for the R team is to admit that signature matching is mostly worthless and argue that mail-in balloting is currently on the “honor system.” (Which is is.) And that, because of this, we need two-factor authentication or something else that works. Perhaps add that you need two-factor authentication to check the balance of your checking account. Of course it makes sense to have the same level of security for the most important thing that we do as a democracy.

really awful way to validate mail in ballots

I’m shocked that an awful means of validation was the only method allowed, and even more shocked that the court’s action was to require all mail in ballots to be accepted. You might think that was the intent all along, that mail in voting is intended to be easy and insecure?

Inconceivable.

Brian E – Signatures are just a really awful way to verify mail-in ballots.

They’re imperfect but they’re certainly better than what we have. Especially if we are stuck with main-in ballots for the foreseeable future. But a bigger issue I find is in who is doing the verification and who is judging them. And obviously if you have judicial or legislative fiat demanding all ballots with ANY mark be counted regardless of if they have “Lol Fraud” written in the signature, you’re not going to get far.

Even if you do computerized comparisons, there’s a significant fudge factor and a lot of variability.

That’s true, but that’s also why it is important to have the human factor involved and avoid one party dominance.

It really is a Rorschach test,

No, it really isn’t. And it’s also worth noting that the Rorschach test is and remains one of the most scrutinized and studied systems on Earth, and it still was developed something like 300 years after the advent of handwriting analysis in the Renaissance/Graphology (and that indeed might actually be a slight understatement).

which is why courts keep throwing out signature comparison.

Forgive me if I express due skepticism about this and ask to see how these courts have ruled on handwriting and signature evidence and the evidence thereof in cases UNRELATED to vote authenticity. Because I highly doubt courts in their day jobs treat handwriting analysis as a “Rorshach” test given its long pedigree. I DO believe they treat it as a jousting arena with competing experts arguing based on who pays them as well as the evidence, but that’s just modern criminology for you.

So I believe this is more of an indication in the double standard we have for vote integrity, and how legislatures and courts will allow much diminished standards of responsibility for the vote than they would ever allow for say the ballot.

(I doubt any of us here would trust a Democratic precinct worker to match our mail-in signatures, and they don’t trust us either.)

Which is perfectly good and indeed DESIRABLE because our system is meant to work as an adversarial balance of power, where no major party fully trusts the other. The issue is how to use it.

Which is why ballot authenticity and signature comparison should be done by mixed teams of Dems, Reps, Independents, and Experts looking them over. This means that the mistrust works for we, the voting public, because the inherent bias involved in any one actor will be checked by the others.

This is also why to be honest I’m coming around to the idea of “forced busing” for voter districts, with vote observers and ballot counters in a given precinct having a certain amount of their number coming in from elsewhere while some in the home precinct get sent out. This will help undermine or break the strangleholds of machine politics like those in Fulton, Cook, and previously Miami Dade and also make it much harder to have even thoroughly corrupt and politically motivated people engage in fraud.

This will likely make the counting process more cumbersome and a bit longer due to the number of eyes on it, but that’s acceptable. Indeed, we can even try pitching it to the left as avoiding more election lawsuits and another 2000 or 2016. And while I am sure the political machines and hardcore Dem Party operatives know better than to ever buy this, it might be surprisingly appealing to the rank and file.

It would be expensive, but not difficult, to come up with some kind of two-factor authentication for mail-in votes. But it would also require voters to prove their identity and obtain a token sometime before the election. And that’s why Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

Agreed, but that’s also why we have to fight tooth and nail for it.

I don’t think that fraud isn’t the Democrats priority (although I don’t think they really care how they get their votes).

I think it is A priority, and also that they are reliant on a regular drumbeat of political mobilization and fraud in solidly leftist machine jurisdictions like Fulton and Cook to be the foundation of their political strategies. This is also why I think looking for “election deciding” fraud is a trap and goal post shift, because it forms a basis of their calculations and not just an added one.

It also is why going after fraud alone is only one issue.

Democrats’ game is to turn out as many low propensity voters as possible by making it as easy as possible to vote. Anything that requires the voter to do anything more than filling out a ballot is going to be demogouged as “racist” and “white supremecist,” especially any sort of multi-step process. They have rejected simple voter registration requirements on those grounds.

I’d also add in that another core step they have is in relentless propaganda and messaging control, so that those low propensity voters don’t know much but they do “know” the GOP is the enemy, any given Republican is a Devil, and their Presidential Candidate is Literally Hitler for the duration of the elections.

It’s hard to understate how devastating this is because it allows them to get away with far, far more than they could ever hope otherwise. That’s also why I think contesting the informational space is so important.

It also doesn’t stop on election day. Just take a look at the Hamas propaganda about the Hospital and how that has spilled over, and ask yourself how this is better.

That’s the challenge. Go charging once again into the teeth of the propaganda machine or get creative.

There are many ways to get creative, not all of them effective. I’m definitely not opposed to it (which is why I propose things like turning William Bradley into something middle America knows about), but one issue we often have is lack of good old persistence and hard work. In particular we need to double down on things like signature verification, by pointing out that any court that refuses to use it for votes has almost certainly had people sentenced for capital crimes on it. In what way are our votes less important?

And also work on clamping down on and punishing leftist agitprop and smears, both financially and hopefully legally in the cases where they clearly slide into libel or slander. And at least as much, we need to seriously punish the Liz Chenys, Brian Kemps, and John McCains of the world to prevent defections or “convenient” Mavericky behavior. If political polarization be our fate, it is not something most of us would adore but so be it. Unwarranted cooperation with the Dems – especially to the point of backstabbing your party or base – needs to be something that can get you flung out of office and/or the party.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/12/green-energy-buys-itself-a-legislature/

It would be expensive, but not difficult, to come up with some kind of two-factor authentication for mail-in votes. But it would also require voters to prove their identity and obtain a token sometime before the election. And that’s why Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

I don’t think that fraud isn’t the Democrats priority (although I don’t think they really care how they get their votes). Democrats’ game is to turn out as many low propensity voters as possible by making it as easy as possible to vote. Anything that requires the voter to do anything more than filling out a ballot is going to be demogouged as “racist” and “white supremecist,” especially any sort of multi-step process. They have rejected simple voter registration requirements on those grounds.

That’s the challenge. Go charging once again into the teeth of the propaganda machine or get creative.

On the whole agreed.

Some suggestions:
There is not as much money for consultants and their enormous fees in GOTV & base activation as there is in producing advertisements, polls, think tank policy papers, etc.

Honestly this is one area where I disagree. To be sure there might not be QUITE as much money for consultants, but there is still plenty of action to be had for them. Taking a look at the sheer largesse involved when people really want it (like the consultants and advisors we sent to the Nicaraguan Opposition when helping vote Ortega out of office, though unfortunately it didn’t stick, or to the Ukrainian Orangeites) there’s a lot to be had.

Ever wonder why the same groups continue to be hired election after election despite miserable results?
Because many of them are staffed by the candidates’ family and friends, IYKWIMAITYD.

i think that’s a huge part of it, but also the political connections and graft. The regularly revolving door.

In many states, candidates can keep what’s left of their donation bank accounts even if they lose.
The Democrat National Party wants all of its candidates to win the general.
The Republican National Party actively sabotages GOP candidates they don’t want.

Largely agreed. And to be air there are RARE occasions when sabotage can be justified, like that time David Duke won the primary. But while there is a vast gulf between “Never Justified” and “ALMOST never justified” that is clearly exceeded here.

And we also saw this at hand with the GOP spiking a lot of the lawsuits, and on the more local level. Kemp should have been shunned like the backstabber he was the second he failed to denounce his subordinates for lying about Trump’s call and failed to produce the accurate recording, because it showed they were acting with his support. Which is one reason why I find cloying homages to him by the like of Bauxite to be so out of step with the reality, but not more than his coziness with Fulton and the Atlanta Machine. Comparing him to DeSantis seems so odd in large part because of how different they and their policies are, and how on closer inspection they don’t have too much in common beyond being neighboring Republican Governors who Trump supported in elections but later fell out with (and while I continually criticize Trump for his behavior towards DeSantis, I THOROUGHLY understand his reaction to Kemp).

The relationship between the GOPe as a whole and the party base has taken on a lot of the shades of an abusive relationship. I see it in things like the compulsive gaslighting, the “You didn’t really see wards turn in 202% of the vote”, the idea that the Populist wing hasn’t spent enough time in coalition building (memory holing the fact that we generally show up to support the likes of Kemp and DeWine at the ballot box and how Trump stumped for these people energetically prior to 2020), and spending more time mimicking the left’s propaganda than confronting it. Which is why I asked: Why have you not heard more of William Bradley? Because if the explanation is “It’s a big, fat loser”

A: I don’t believe you.

B: That just raises questions on WHY exactly dead men voting or “clerical errors” depicting such in humiliating fashion for Detroit are big, fat losers.

and

C: Why should we give the MSM an easier time hushing this up with a cursory “Fact Check” that raises more questions than it answers upon close scrutiny?

Ironically of all the “GOPe” figures I think can be useful inspiration, Dubya Bush’s lawyering about 2000 in Florida by forcing Gore etc. al. to try and prove every single case and admit under oath they were using uneven criteria helps. It ultimately was enough to win, and it is a much more useful metric than genteel concessions to the likes of the Chicago Machine. Especially since the Powers that Be in Chicago now make the Daley Clan look like saints.

This kind of nonsense needs to be named and shamed. Especially the conflation of cases where the merits were not examined or were covered up with “lies” and refusal to scrutinize one’s own camp.