Truth,

"IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven"

I agree with you.

Congress should pass a law to audit state election records (only audit) to see if all laws are being followed.

Yes...system fraud at state level should be proven or verified none found.

Truth,

When I refer to "fraud," I'm not only talking about fraud committed by individual voters.

I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.

Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.

I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

Truth,

"A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate."

I don't believe a total ban on mail-in voting would ever stand a chance.

Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it.

So why are you even bringing up a total ban to me when I have never proposed one?

(This is a message about mail-in ballots...comparing the moving of files over a network to moving paper ballots, in simplest form)

In the world of networking, data is transferred from one computer to another using different protocols (or rules) depending on what the application requires.

TCP/IP transfers data while keeping track of what was sent, what arrived, what didn't arrive, and retransmitting what is missing. TCP is called a Connection Oriented Protocol.

UDP/IP sends the data without establishing that same end-to-end confirmation. It does not, by itself, acknowledge each delivery or retransmit what is missing. It also does not have the same built-in controls as TCP for confirming that everything sent actually arrived. UDP is called a Connectionless Protocol.

That's the analogy I'm making.

Traditional requested absentee voting is more like TCP. A specific voter initiates the transaction by requesting a ballot, that request is verified, a specific ballot is issued to that voter, and there is a defined transaction to track from the beginning.

Universal mail-in voting is more like UDP. Ballots are broadly sent out first, without the voter initiating the transaction by requesting one. Not every ballot mailed out will necessarily be returned because the voter may decide not to use it and vote in person instead.

That's the distinction I'm trying to describe. One process begins with a specific voter requesting a ballot, which adds a verification step before the ballot is issued. The other begins by broadly distributing ballots before knowing which voters will actually use them.

I'm not saying the technologies and voting systems are literally identical. This is a rough comparison, but I just want people to generally see the difference between the two systems that use mailed ballots and why that difference matters.

Both mailed ballots may look alike when they come back, but one began with a verified voter request before the ballot was issued and the other did not. That extra front-end verification means the system itself is already doing part of the work before the ballot ever goes out.

In my view, that should improve the integrity of the election results while requiring less manual work later, because part of the verification and control is built right into the system processes from the very beginning.

Truth,

"Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?"

You mean requiring people to show ID and vote in person?

Is that the suppression you are referring to?

The answer to your question is voter fraud.