shockedcanadian
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2012
- 29,992
- 27,259
I saw this on Fox News so I wanted to look into it further. I've also heard of some locations accepting as low as 40% accuracy signature matching. A bank requires a far higher % I'm sure, but voting for the president of the U.S does not?
There is a famous dataset in Machine Learning referred to as the MNIST dataset. It's a series of hand writtern numbers, approx. 70k of them from I think the 1950s, and they were used to help current banking software "learn" deposited cheque numbers etc. They probably use more updated datasets, and many more of them; but, this one the most famous one.
I've worked on the dataset myself, as have countless others and if someone said they achieved even 75% accuracy, people would either tell them to make some simple tweaks to their model, they would laugh at them, or, remain silent, not knowing how to respond to such a low accuracy % for such a classic dataset.
The point I'm making, is that current A.I software can easily hit over 98% accuracy using a Convolutional Neural Network to provide accurate results, and that is for numbers. For an election to choose the president of the U.S, some won't require signature, or, such a low bar of 40%, that abuse won't just be rampant, it will be invited. How can anyone argue differently? It's shocking to me that this would be acceptable.
Key battleground states don't require signature-matching on mail-in ballots
Election rules in multiple key battleground states permit voters to submit mail-in and absentee ballots without having their signatures checked to ensure the vote is valid.
Five states that have historically been competitive in presidential races — North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire — do not require signature-matching for mailed voting forms.
In some cases, state officials have explicitly codified that rule. In August, Karen Bell, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, wrote in a memo to all local county boards that a voter's siagnture "shall not be compared with the voter's signature on file because this is not required by North Carolina law."
"County boards shall accept the voter's signature on the container-return envelope if it appears to be made by the voter," she continued, "meaning the signature on the envelope appears to be the name of the voter and not some other person."
"Absent clear evidence to the contrary," she added, "the county board shall presume that the voter's signature is that of the voter, even if the signature is illegible."
In other cases, signature-match rules have been struck down by jurists. Judges in New Hampshire and Iowa in recent years both struck down provisions of state laws mandating signature-match policies for absentee ballots.
In New Hampshire in 2018, a judge struck down a state law ordering election officials to match a voter's signature on the application for a mail-in ballot with the voter's signature on an affidavit accompanying the ballot itself.
There is a famous dataset in Machine Learning referred to as the MNIST dataset. It's a series of hand writtern numbers, approx. 70k of them from I think the 1950s, and they were used to help current banking software "learn" deposited cheque numbers etc. They probably use more updated datasets, and many more of them; but, this one the most famous one.
I've worked on the dataset myself, as have countless others and if someone said they achieved even 75% accuracy, people would either tell them to make some simple tweaks to their model, they would laugh at them, or, remain silent, not knowing how to respond to such a low accuracy % for such a classic dataset.
The point I'm making, is that current A.I software can easily hit over 98% accuracy using a Convolutional Neural Network to provide accurate results, and that is for numbers. For an election to choose the president of the U.S, some won't require signature, or, such a low bar of 40%, that abuse won't just be rampant, it will be invited. How can anyone argue differently? It's shocking to me that this would be acceptable.
Key battleground states don't require signature-matching on mail-in ballots
Key battleground states don't require signature-matching on mail-in ballots
Some signature-match rules have been struck down; others repealed by election officials.
justthenews.com
Election rules in multiple key battleground states permit voters to submit mail-in and absentee ballots without having their signatures checked to ensure the vote is valid.
Five states that have historically been competitive in presidential races — North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire — do not require signature-matching for mailed voting forms.
In some cases, state officials have explicitly codified that rule. In August, Karen Bell, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, wrote in a memo to all local county boards that a voter's siagnture "shall not be compared with the voter's signature on file because this is not required by North Carolina law."
"County boards shall accept the voter's signature on the container-return envelope if it appears to be made by the voter," she continued, "meaning the signature on the envelope appears to be the name of the voter and not some other person."
"Absent clear evidence to the contrary," she added, "the county board shall presume that the voter's signature is that of the voter, even if the signature is illegible."
In other cases, signature-match rules have been struck down by jurists. Judges in New Hampshire and Iowa in recent years both struck down provisions of state laws mandating signature-match policies for absentee ballots.
In New Hampshire in 2018, a judge struck down a state law ordering election officials to match a voter's signature on the application for a mail-in ballot with the voter's signature on an affidavit accompanying the ballot itself.
Key battleground states don't require signature-matching on mail-in ballots
Some signature-match rules have been struck down; others repealed by election officials.
justthenews.com