One, when they do checks on whether dead people voted it's extremely rare. So that's a method for fraud that can retroactively be confirmed as not occurring at any meaningful rate. Checks this year on the few alleged examples confirmed they were mistakes and the person who voted was alive.

And two, if you have voters who consistently don't show up, systematically voting in their place is awfully hard to pull off at scale. The more people you try to fraudulently vote as, the greater the risk that it gets caught. You have to know that the person you're trying to vote as: hasn't already voted, because then the fraudster will get caught, and isn't going to show up later with ID that alerts people to the fraud. In this election, how many people who hadn't voted since 2008 or 2012 showed up this time? Probably five or ten percent of the overall electorate given how high the turnout was. So if you targeted those people who were still registered to vote but hadn't for a long time, maybe 1 in 5 of the fraudulent votes will get flagged as suspicious and 1 in 10 or so of the fraudsters in person will get caught and arrested. On what was a pretty narrow margin of 10,000 votes in Georgia, do you really think the outcome can meaningfully be affected with that kind of approach? There would have been hundreds of people caught doing this and potentially thousands raising alarm bells that someone voted in their place. Yet I didn't hear a single example in Georgia and I think only one total in the entire country (a Nevada woman claimed someone voted in her place).

I get the urge to reassure people about fraud, but if you're going to make voting a greater inconvenience (even if the approach seems reasonable) I'd like the arguments to be based on reality and not unfounded suspicions.

Edit: Hi Hoodafan! If you get to the end of this post, hit "Like"
[Post edited by CMUHoo at 02/02/2022 3:42PM]