[CapricornNoble]

>>>You'll notice that the comment you link was not posted by me.

You are....100% correct. My mistake to attribute that to you.

>>>The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections.

Less than 600 votes decided the 2000 Presidential election. In the aggregate that seems tiny, but in swing states in particular, with close elections, the potential implications are massively outsized. And that's to say nothing of the State & local elections where even smaller absolute numbers are impactful ("all politics is local").

>>>But you have to acknowledge the fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in practice.

Today's news: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-cal...

Even one of the winning candidates said the election was trash, partially due to mail-in ballots. And it's not a bunch of minority-oppressing white Republicans in that article who are complaining about the election either (not saying that's your position, but that particular strawman has been brought up elsewhere in the conversation).

[ciarannolan]

>Fair enough. But again you're basing your argument on conveniently skipping over the real question which is not "was there at least one fraudulent vote in America in the last 41 years?" (the question you're trying hard to answer over and over with "yes!").

>The question is whether it's a problem that has a material impact on our elections. Basically, is it really a problem? 1,285 instances over 41 years (and how many _billions_ of votes in that time period) makes the answer extremely obvious.

>It's funny because I am in favor of voter ID on principle alone. But you have to acknowledge the fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in practice. There are better arguments to make in favor of election integrity.

We're just going in circles here. Have a nice evening :)