> What, rise from a deathbed? > > >Are you suggesting the dead should be able to vote? Sounds very Democratic...

I'm using hyperbole for humorous effect, but to get pedantic, dead people are not on their deathbeds. They are buried or cremated.

I'm saying there's frail people out there who are very much in their right minds, but not physically up to a trip to the polls.

> Quit their job?

>> Polls in the commonwealth are open from 7am to 8pm. If you're in line then you can vote. Nobody has to quit there job to vote and just because it may be more inconvenient to vote earlier or later in the day or rearrange you schedule to do so is not justification alone for accepting the extra risks of those processes.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone works 9 to 5, and then is just a quick trip away from the polls. The workday and transportation itself can eat up 13 hours. Plus, some people find themselves traveling on Election Day.

> It's important to remember that when voting in America was started, only a minority of Americans qualified to vote: white landowning males. That part's important, because farm hands and factory workers mostly didn't qualify. They didn't need the time off work to go into town, because they couldn't vote. Right up until 1828, the majority of voters wrote their own schedule.

>> Yes and the people that furthered those polices were Democrats. Anything short of showing up to the polls is more likely to be gamed. Mail-in ballots can be lost, modified, mutilated, duplicated. There's plenty of issues that could happen.

I have absolutely no idea why you quoted that part of my post but didn't bother to address it, but okay. I'll move on and look at what you are saying.

>>Mail-in ballots can be lost, modified, mutilated, duplicated. There's plenty of issues that could happen.

Sure there's plenty of issues that could happen. The question is are they happening in any statistically significant numbers. And the answer to that question is no.

People don't want mail-in voting, fine. Then we need to have a couple weeks of elections, not one day, to accommodate everyone. The nation has grown too much to continue on with one-day, in person elections. It worked in 1801, but we need to modernize.

> The problem is that process is being twisted into one of those systems that prevents more rightful votes than it does fraudulent. > > >Mail-in voting is objectively less secure than showing up to the polls. That's indisputable.

Less secure doesn't mean insecure.

>> If you want to argue about how many less people would be voting then quantify it. You're just making things up without any actual statistics to back it up.

I could say the same to you. You keep saying it could increase fraud. What evidence do you have that it does increase fraud And no, I won't accept 2000 Mules. Yes, I watched it. It failed to prove its point. But I enjoyed it because I'm a big fan of bad movies.

Also, is there a point to me arguing that fewer people will be able to vote? Considering that you don't care if people are unable to vote.

>> Would it even have an impact on the outcome?

>The study found that while vote-by-mail did increase overall voter turnout by about 2 to 3 percentage points

.

>increased turnout by 10 percentage points.

>>Would the "wrong" people be voting or not voting?

.

What does that even mean? Myself, I want every rightful voter to vote. But this speaks to something I notice: so many of these steps people offer supposedly to counteract fraud seem to really be about keeping particular populations from voting. Look up North Carolina's 2018 voter ID law.

> Is this process doing us any good if a thousand citizens are disenfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented? > >>Haha. You really think it's 1000 mail-in voters that would not vote for every one potential instance of fraud?

I'm asking you what numbers you'd find acceptable. And yeah, considering the low rate of fraudulent votes, 1,000 rightful votes prevented vs 1 fraudulent vote prevented really doesn't seem out there.