Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are the people checking the signatures handwriting analysis experts? Todays Photo ID's have a watermark in them to show they have been tampered with. Verifying the photo and address is a better method. Besides what about a person that suffered a stroke or other issues where it could change the way their handwriting looks since they registered to vote?
Will your average poll worker be capable of distinguishing a phony photo id from a valid one? I doubt it.
Will your average poll worker be capable of distinguishing a phony photo id from a valid one? I doubt it.
Yes, because like I said, there is a watermark that will become visible if the plastic is lifted up and a new picture put in. If they had fake docs to get it to begin with, there is nobody that could tell.
Yes, because like I said, there is a watermark that will become visible if the plastic is lifted up and a new picture put in. If they had fake docs to get it to begin with, there is nobody that could tell.
With all the counterfeiting that occurs do really think that average poll worker, with very little training, working what 2 days out of the year max, will be able to tell fake ids. Maybe they could eliminate some bad attempts, but most likely not any concerted effort.
With all the counterfeiting that occurs do really think that average poll worker, with very little training, working what 2 days out of the year max, will be able to tell fake ids. Maybe they could eliminate some bad attempts, but most likely not any concerted effort.
Ughhhh. If they can't see a GIANT watermark across the entire front of the ID that say VIOD or something to that effect, then they shouldn't even be working the polling place. How would they even be able to match up signatures?
Ughhhh. If they can't see a GIANT watermark across the entire front of the ID that say VIOD or something to that effect, then they shouldn't even be working the polling place. How would they even be able to match up signatures?
The fake license features an address of his choice, a fake birthday, his photo and all the credentials of an authentic ID card including watermarks only detected by the black light, he said.
The fake license features an address of his choice, a fake birthday, his photo and all the credentials of an authentic ID card including watermarks only detected by the black light, he said.
Fake ID's are always going to be around. So are people who can write like other people. All in all, it is harder to get a fake ID that holds up under scrutiny than it is to sign a signature close enough to pass. The signature you have to match is sitting right next to where you have to sign, so it's not like you can't see it before signing away.
Fake ID's are always going to be around. So are people who can write like other people. All in all, it is harder to get a fake ID that holds up under scrutiny than it is to sign a signature close enough to pass. The signature you have to match is sitting right next to where you have to sign, so it's not like you can't see it before signing away.
The book I sign when I go to vote does not have my signature. The best they could do is check it later if the suspected something wasn't correct.
Yes, fake IDs have been and probably will be always around. Therefore requiring them for voting, most likely will not guarantee a more secure election process. It will just make some people feel better about the process. Sort of like the security questions the airlines used to ask? They will not stop any organized effort to provide fake voters with false ids. Would the ids stand up under scrutiny? Probably not. However they would probably pass the scrutiny of the average poll worker.
The book I sign when I go to vote does not have my signature. The best they could do is check it later if the suspected something wasn't correct.
Yes, fake IDs have been and probably will be always around. Therefore requiring them for voting, most likely will not guarantee a more secure election process. It will just make some people feel better about the process. Sort of like the security questions the airlines used to ask? They will not stop any organized effort to provide fake voters with false ids. Would the ids stand up under scrutiny? Probably not. However they would probably pass the scrutiny of the average poll worker.
Using both Photo ID and signature checks would solve most of it. Photo ID's are better than signature checks, especially when they aren't even checking them at the time of voting. But both would be even better.
The book I sign when I go to vote does not have my signature. The best they could do is check it later if the suspected something wasn't correct.
Yes, fake IDs have been and probably will be always around. Therefore requiring them for voting, most likely will not guarantee a more secure election process. It will just make some people feel better about the process. Sort of like the security questions the airlines used to ask? They will not stop any organized effort to provide fake voters with false ids. Would the ids stand up under scrutiny? Probably not. However they would probably pass the scrutiny of the average poll worker.
fine..then let's go with the mosre expensive biometrics
but something has to be done..some ACCOUNTABILITY has to happen..some RESPONSIBILITY has to happen
I really dont understand why the issue with showing ID before you vote...what are you hiding????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.