[SV_BubbleTime]

No. You aren’t talking security. You are talking about a rate of fraud. If I occasionally steal $5 from you sometimes when we meet, your solution to this isn’t to just meet up more and count the number of times I don’t steal from you as higher.

> I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity".

Must not have looked very hard. PA, NV, WI, MT, GA, and others and others all changed their rules about curing, harvesting, signatures required, naked ballots allowed. Changes per state. In PA the big deal is that the Gov did this unilaterally, but the PA constitution clearly defines that voting laws are by legislature only, the gov did this under emergency powers.

If you aren’t aware that many states relaxed their voting requirements along with unsolicited mail voting - you need a new news source.

[LordDragonfang]

Making it easier for people to vote (and make sure their vote is counted correctly, as is the overwhelming primary use case in "curing") is not fraud, it's democracy. The fact that one party is (and historically has been) opposed to this is not something to be proud of.

[SV_BubbleTime]

How is temporarily removing the signature requirement from the secrecy envelope, and removing the requirement for the election office to compare that signature to a previous signature making it “easier to vote” vs weakening the election integrity?

What about Covid changes your ability to abide by the election laws the legislature in the states had determined?

[LordDragonfang]

Signatures are an awful security measure in this day and age. It's compared by underpaid and overworked poll workers, definitely not by handwriting experts. There's also the problem that they're often having to compare a digital pen-and-stylis signature to a "wet" signature on the ballot.

Additionally, most people below the age of 30, and anyone without reason to spend time signing legal documents, won't have a consistent signature that matches the one on file that they provided when they were 16. It's also no coincidence to the discussion that those signatures also have a comparatively extremely high rejection rate among black people.

All of these are demographics that tend to vote a particular way, by the way, which is why you hear the other side complaining.

Once again, it's purely about expanding democracy.

[Pfhreak]

I'm aware that these changes were made.

I'm challenging the idea that these things reduce voter integrity.

You seem to think it's obvious and axiomatic that these processes meaningfully improve voter integrity. Do you have evidence that they make things more secure? Or could it be they are security theater?

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Do you have evidence that they make things more secure?

If that’s your question, where is the evidence that Krebs used?

I gave you examples that under the pretext of Covid, governors removed verification requirements that state legislatures had pre-determined. I can’t help that your hand waving away decades old requirements.

But if you’re gonna ask me for proof, where is yours? show me one way this election was made MORE secure, please.

[Pfhreak]

> decades old requirements.

Old voting requirements does not mean good or secure voting requirements. In many ways, the vote is less secure because these requirements likely exclude many valid votes.

> show me one way this election was made MORE secure

Efforts to drive voter turnout were clearly effective. Many more people voted this time than in 2016. (And yes, turnout is a parameter in election security. There are many efforts to undermine elections by depressing turnout.)

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Efforts to drive voter turnout were clearly effective.

That is in no way an answer to the question of how elections were made more secure.

[Pfhreak]

If you believe that voter access isn't a clear part of election security, you need to do more research on the space.