OK, now where's the .PDF of individual confirmed cases of in-person vote fraud versus vote-by-mail fraud? We can't compare fractions by their numerators, you know.
The document itself admits that it is "only a sampling," which, in the absence of further methodological detail, should raise their hairs on the back of your neck.
Nobody ever said that vote-by-mail is fraud proof, only that it's good enough. Which it indisputably is, at least as implemented here in Washington state.
Well.. How about another case I just learned of today? 'Cause it kinda doesn't seem like we're even at "good enough":
> “Invalidate the election. Let’s do it again,” said Rev. Kenneth Clayton said amid reports more that 20 percent of all ballots were disqualified, some in connection with voter fraud allegations.
[..]
> In addition to apparent problems with the vote count in Paterson, NBC New York has shown video of ballots left out in building lobbies, of one voter handling many ballots, and reported on postal workers reporting finding hundreds of ballots at a time stuffed in mailboxes in Paterson – and even in a neighboring town, Haledon.
'Data' isn't the plural of 'anecdote.' What are the actual statistics? Do we even have access to statistics that haven't been cherry-picked by the Heritage Foundation, the DNC, or another interested party?
One good aspect of the vote-by-mail system we use here in WA is that the voter retains a code they can use to verify that their ballot has been counted. There is an auditable paper trail at every step that's accessible to all parties - the voter, the election officials, and the candidate. That's more than you get with many in-person voting systems, especially those involving closed-source machines made by companies with questionable ethics and engineering practices.
Yes, I'm sure it's possible to build a vote-by-mail system that is more prone to corruption than in-person voting. But the point is, it's not necessary.
The document itself admits that it is "only a sampling," which, in the absence of further methodological detail, should raise their hairs on the back of your neck.
Nobody ever said that vote-by-mail is fraud proof, only that it's good enough. Which it indisputably is, at least as implemented here in Washington state.