There are many reasons people are unable to get to their polling places and need to use mail-in ballots.

 

OH REALLY

 

THANKS FOR THIS BECAUSE I HAVENT HAD FOUR OTHER PEOPLE QUOTE ME AND SAY THE SAME EXACT THING

---

Yeah another rant. Blind grandmother, disabled veteran, Stephen Hawking and many more who might not be physically able to produce a consistent signature should refer to 101.661 section 1 and apparently the part you missed section 2. Did I win with facts Dad?

 

I got news for you, son, describing actual situations isn't a rant.

 

You presented irrelevant facts. In none of those statutes is "consistent signature" even mentioned. I'll type the following sentences slowly, just for you.

 

The point is not about requiring assistance to vote, it's about verifying signatures. Neither I, nor my grandmother, require assistance in writing our signatures, but in both our cases it can look very different depending on the situation. In fact, my signatures often look similar enough, but not quite close, so as to look like an attempted forgery.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

nobody here knows how strict the criteria was for a "matching" signature.  i would think it would have to be REALLY different for any reasonable person to throw it out.  and that's probably what happened, but we dont know.

---

nobody here knows how strict the criteria was for a "matching" signature. i would think it would have to be REALLY different for any reasonable person to throw it out. and that's probably what happened, but we dont know.

So what's the big deal? You can make allowances for no signature why can't you make the same allowance for unmatching signatures?

---

All this mistrust of government, talk of voter fraud and rigged elections, yet simple blind trust in the law and process when it suits an agenda.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

All this mistrust of government, talk of voter fraud and rigged elections, yet simple blind trust in the law and process when it suits an agenda.

The same can be said about the people that think government intervention in healthcare is awesome, but complain that they are too inept to figure out if two signatures match or not.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

nobody here knows how strict the criteria was for a "matching" signature.

And that's kind of the problem. It's an arbitrary standard with no transparency that can easily be manipulated to benefit the person doing the interpreting.

---

And that's kind of the problem. It's an arbitrary standard with no transparency that can easily be manipulated to benefit the person doing the interpreting.

 

for all you know they are pretty generous in their interpretation of what "matches" and your outrage is misplaced

 

what could also be easily manipulated is the entire mail-in process.  there needs to be some kind of proof that whoever is sending in the ballot is who they say they are.  how else do you suggest they do that?

---

All this mistrust of government, talk of voter fraud and rigged elections, yet simple blind trust in the law and process when it suits an agenda.

 

what agenda?  for all you know most of these votes went to Trump...

---

So what's the big deal? You can make allowances for no signature why can't you make the same allowance for unmatching signatures?

 

When you forget to sign it, it shows a lapse of judgement and they send you notice. They give you another chance. When the signature doesn't match, I'd argue that it wasn't a lapse of judgement.

 

Would you approve of a bank that discovers unmatching signatures on one of your checks but allows them to cash it anyway? Of course not. You'd raise hell if they did that. 

 

And that's kind of the problem. It's an arbitrary standard with no transparency that can easily be manipulated to benefit the person doing the interpreting.

 

Not every single part of government work can be transparent at all times. Why does unmatching signature need a specific code to determine their legitimacy?

 

I imagine you'd be able to identify two different signatures, and my bet would be that if they were too close to tell, you wouldn't call them different. I agree that there's potential to use this arbitrarily, I doubt it happened 23,000 times by multiple groups over different parts of Florida. I couldn't confirm it, but I think the canvassing board (like every thing else in elections) is made up of people from both major political affiliations. 

---

honestly it sounds like giving somebody a second chance on the SAT to spell their name right

 

you blew it buddy. maybe next time.

---

honestly it sounds like giving somebody a second chance on the SAT to spell their name right


you blew it buddy. maybe next time.

Well it is all good. Judge made the right call.

---

for all you know they are pretty generous in their interpretation of what "matches" and your outrage is misplaced


what could also be easily manipulated is the entire mail-in process. there needs to be some kind of proof that whoever is sending in the ballot is who they say they are. how else do you suggest they do that?

Maybe the way they currently do? Verification of address and personal info before sending the ballot? Maybe a little identity check to make sure said person hadn't reported identity theft or, you know, died. Banks do it all the time. Why aren't we using their system?

---

Not every single part of government work can be transparent at all times.

Then it should be reformed in such a way that it is transparent *or* safeguards are built in to prevent abuse.

---

The same can be said about the people that think government intervention in healthcare is awesome, but complain that they are too inept to figure out if two signatures match or not.

 

Anything can be said, but it doesn't make it a valid counter argument. I never said they were inept, but hyperbole is fun!

 

I just voted this morning, and asked the poll worker if the signature on my drivers license matched the one on my voters registration card. Her answer was they were similar but not exact, but they verify by comparing the picture on my id with my face, then verify my address, not signatures.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Anything can be said, but it doesn't make it a valid counter argument. I never said they were inept, but hyperbole is fun!

 

I just voted this morning, and asked the poll worker if the signature on my drivers license matched the one on my voters registration card. Her answer was they were similar but not exact, but they verify by comparing the picture on my id with my face, then verify my address, not signatures.

 

They can compare pictures when you vote in person. That is impossible if you vote by mail.

---

Anything can be said, but it doesn't make it a valid counter argument. I never said they were inept, but hyperbole is fun!


I just voted this morning, and asked the poll worker if the signature on my drivers license matched the one on my voters registration card. Her answer was they were similar but not exact, but they verify by comparing the picture on my id with my face, then verify my address, not signatures.

Hyperbole is almost as much fun as just making stuff up as you go along, considering I never said you were the one saying that, did I?


It's a good thing they were able to verify that you are you though other means besides your signature, wonder how they are supposed to do that when no one is there with verifiable identification? Should they just accept it without question?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I guess they could send out a letter to the voter's address saying their original vote was thrown out cause sig didn't match... but how would they receive it? even if that letter were to be mailed on time?  they're ABSENT, right?

---

I guess they could send out a letter to the voter's address saying their original vote was thrown out cause sig didn't match... but how would they receive it? even if that letter were to be mailed on time? they're ABSENT, right?

Apparently they didn't get the letters that were sent out saying their signatures should be updated either. I mean it's obvious that they are just trying to screw someone out of their vote...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I guess they could send out a letter to the voter's address saying their original vote was thrown out cause sig didn't match... but how would they receive it? even if that letter were to be mailed on time?  they're ABSENT, right?

 

Obviously if that happens the voter needs to know, but nobody can do anything about it after the fact. Voters don't get a second chance.

 

I don't understand your question. "Absentee" means they voted by mail, so obviously the voter has a mailing address.

---