Signatures have always been used for two purposes: to show our authorization of a transaction, and as a means of identification. That second function — identification — is now an unnecessary fudge-factor — at least with regard to voting. Prior to the creation of Social Security, there was no national registry of citizens. Signatures were all that we had and all that we needed for voter identification. After all, we almost always voted in person, right in our own neighborhood.
We use facial ID or fingerprint ID to get into our bank accounts, so why not require this match to vote. I guess absentee ballots would need something comparable. Maybe a finger print which could be matched when arriving at the election center.
Nice analysis as usual, Joe. I have always been amazed at the Democrats' arguments against voter ID requirements. They seem to be saying that blacks and other minorities are just too stupid or simple-minded to get an ID. If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
They also claim that many elderly people don't have IDs, but how can that be? You need an ID to receive Social Security payments, and you need an ID to open a bank account to deposit or cash those payments. How many elderly retired people are NOT on SS? Not many, I would venture to guess.
And then there are the other government benefits and freebies. Don't you need an ID to receive those? If blacks are too stupid to get an ID, does that mean they are not receiving any government benefits? Does that mean they only work for cash and then keep it all in their pocket or at home? Yeah, maybe pimps and drug dealers operate that way, but not many law-abiding people do.
The whole signature-matching thing just takes it to another level. Who in their right mind actually believes that signature matching should be the only check on millions of ballot-harvested votes when the signature checkers probably have no more than a few seconds to spend on each ballot? And even if they had all day, it is obviously very subjective unless the signatures match very closely.
We use facial ID or fingerprint ID to get into our bank accounts, so why not require this match to vote. I guess absentee ballots would need something comparable. Maybe a finger print which could be matched when arriving at the election center.
Nice analysis as usual, Joe. I have always been amazed at the Democrats' arguments against voter ID requirements. They seem to be saying that blacks and other minorities are just too stupid or simple-minded to get an ID. If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
They also claim that many elderly people don't have IDs, but how can that be? You need an ID to receive Social Security payments, and you need an ID to open a bank account to deposit or cash those payments. How many elderly retired people are NOT on SS? Not many, I would venture to guess.
And then there are the other government benefits and freebies. Don't you need an ID to receive those? If blacks are too stupid to get an ID, does that mean they are not receiving any government benefits? Does that mean they only work for cash and then keep it all in their pocket or at home? Yeah, maybe pimps and drug dealers operate that way, but not many law-abiding people do.
The whole signature-matching thing just takes it to another level. Who in their right mind actually believes that signature matching should be the only check on millions of ballot-harvested votes when the signature checkers probably have no more than a few seconds to spend on each ballot? And even if they had all day, it is obviously very subjective unless the signatures match very closely.