Interesting thoughts about signature verification in voting.
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
How the hell is a photograph any different from an iris scan or a fingerprint?
Off topic: I had to submit to a palm reading biometric identification to take my professional certification exam today. I joked with the lady about how "palm reading" has not been shown to be valid. She was not amused.
The remaining “privacy rights” we’re holding onto are holding us back as a society. The way we vote in the country is riddiculous. I don’t get it.
The biggest problem is that the next election isn't for 2 more years... Over 600 days.
And the same people will complain about signatures, addresses and location just like they did this year.
I have still yet to hear 1 credible person who was not allowed to vote this cycle that was eligible...
On a side note... With all the early voting opportunities we have now. Mail-in voting should be very minimal and under very specific reasons.
And the same people will complain about signatures, addresses and location just like they did this year.
I have still yet to hear 1 credible person who was not allowed to vote this cycle that was eligible...
On a side note... With all the early voting opportunities we have now. Mail-in voting should be very minimal and under very specific reasons.
Why do you keep going on about this? Do you really want iris scanning to vote?
What's invasive about it? It's like a highly-detailed photograph of an uniquely identifiable body part. Do you consider a driver license photo to be invasive?
With what? Mascara on their fingertips? Are you even listening to your ridiculous self?
So now people have to run out to Office Depot and buy ink trays just to vote?
No, they could early vote or show up on election day if they don't want to buy an ink tray.
Is there anything you wouldn’t support in an effort to suppress the vote?
Biometric scanners for every polling place in America is a negligible cost?
It's no different than a photograph. When you get your driver license, you get your iris scanned. Easy peasy.
I thought that you were a small government guy? Now in addition to IDs, you want finger prints and retinal scans?
Georgia couldn’t seem to get working voting machines to black neighborhoods- but you think adding iris scanners on top of that would help?
To combat an imaginary problem?
Are you one of the guys that thinks the Photo ID requirement suppresses the vote?
Im sure the same people will be complaining about it, because there will be little desire to fix something that keeps corrupt officials in power.
That you haven't seen one credible person not allowed to vote is a testament to your inability to challenge pre-conceived notions. 10 people could line up in front of you and give a first hand account of their experiences and you wouldn't hear them as being credible.
Photo IDs are totally worthless and easily defrauded, that is why I oppose them. A thumb scan I could live with.....but that too is not ‘fraud proof”,,,but the fraud would more likely be on the administrative side. And honestly, I don’t trust some states to run a fair election...there is a lot of history behind states like Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi.
I have no problem with voter ID if it’s absolutely free and readily available. In addition, commonly used documents that an ordinary person would have. Like utility bills and pay stubs. In addition, no exclusion of ID just because it’s something a Democrat would likely have, say a student ID.
Are we talking about a state college or something shady like University of Phoenix?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz