Accepting votes that do not have matching signatures, is diluting the votes that do have matching signatures.
Why should a person that voted in person, in a more secure way, have their votes diluted by a mailed in ballot that does not meet a minimum standard of security, and consequently are much more likely to be fraudulent.
1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots.
2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes.
3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.
1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots.
2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes.
3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.