Why California is still counting votes and how long it may take to finish

I&#x27;m particularly curious about this sentence:<p>&gt; Signatures on mail ballots must be verified, and if they don’t match the signatures on file, county election officials are obliged to try to contact those voters to verify their signatures.<p>What does signature verification entail? Is it automated? I&#x27;m imagining there must be some sort of manual judgement at some point, but that seems dicey.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;6sX2O" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;6sX2O</a>

I think federal elections should be run by the federal government, not the states. Dramatically increase the number of voting locations, and have the federal government manage all of that under federal rules. That would be the safest and most secure way of doing federal elections. This thing of leaving it up to states and local communities introduces to many opportunities for fraud and mismanagement. Countries the size of California seem to have no problem counting their votes in one night. Delays are not healthy for democracy and there is never enough transparency.<p>I guess Congress could pass a law that every state must have their votes counted within 72 hours, or votes after that will not count.

How is it that California does it so much slower than other states?<p>There&#x27;s not a single thing mentioned in the article that other states aren&#x27;t doing, and &#x27;more people ya&quot; also means &quot;more functionaries&quot;

Sounds like they&#x27;re doing it right to me. Let&#x27;s not succumb to populist voices that complain paper ballot counting is &quot;archaic&quot;, &quot;expensive&quot; and &quot;slow&quot;. In fact, it is all three of these—plus, when done correctly, it&#x27;s also &quot;reliable&quot;, &quot;trustworthy&quot; and &quot;provable&quot;, none of which can be said of online voting.