"Most secure way to vote."

And the easiest to suppress. Were all the bus lines running? Any construction on the main routes?

And did it take you less than an hour to vote, or more than four hours to vote?

All are by design.

" I could have filled her ballot out the way I wanted it and mailed it on her behalf. True voter fraud that would never be detected."

Her date of death is a recorded fact. If the ballot was mailed AFTER passing, you're going to be arrested.

Also: do you believe instances like this-

Are ONLY done by Democrats;
Are ONLY done by Republicans;
Are done by both, equally; or
Are done mostly by one side.

If the last choice, a follow up: which party does it more, and how much more are you suggesting: 10% more? 25% more?? 50% more???

You choose.

" if you're found to engage in voter fraud, the penalty is pretty severe."

True. The ROI sucks.

" I'm not opposed to mail voting as long as the ballots are by request and not just automatically mailed out to everyone."

Which leads back to #46. What's your answer? (And there are no wrong answers; I'm just trying to figure out what you actually believe.)

" Given that blue states have the most lax voting standards my answer is the last one of your scenarios."

So ... you believe Democrats do it at a 50% rate higher than Republicans??? Is that your belief?

"How much fraud actually gets discovered? How much goes through undetected?

You have to believe Texas is no slouch when it comes to investigating and convicting

They've had 27 convictions for illegal voting over the last 40 years. That's less than three votes every four years.

Thanks Texas just really bad at catching folks, or are they completely inept?

" Is it 50% more? I don't know. Probably not quite that much."

Okay, let's say 33% more. That's still A LOT, and based on the Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud website, probably not correct, but I'll happily accept it, to make my point.

If one group does it 4 times compared to 3 times for the other ...

... it would take 700 cases of vote fraud to NET 100 votes.

" What I do know is that any time voter verification and security measures are proposed Democrats scream bloody murder."

What a coincidence.

What I know is any time voter verification and security measures are proposed, it suppresses more legal votes than thwarts illegal ones. And every time that FACT is pointed out, Republicans scream bloody murder.

27 illegals voting in Texas over the last 40 years. Feel free to explain how the security of the vote has been compromised.

"as you pointed out, it thwarts an insignificant amount of illegal votes. Do we know it's suppressing a significant amount of legal votes?"

Compared to illegal votes thwarted? Absolutely. And anyone with a room temp IQ or higher can see every attempt to "protect the vote" would suppress more votes in, say, Virginia, than the ONE ILLEGAL VOTE in VA per DECADE.

And in Texas, further ID requirements would doubtless suppress more than 3 votes per 4yr election cycle.

Finally, look at Nevada: a claim of over 15,000, initially. When NV demanded names, the claim dropped to 185.

And when investigated, ALL 185 were LEGAL voters who cast LEGAL VOTES. All of them.

Which begs the question: How many additional barriers should Nevada put up, to thwart ZERO illegal votes???

"But I'd like to see an estimate.......and real estimate..."

Then start googling HOW, WHEN, WHERE, and WHY votes are suppressed. Construction, long lines, bus line disruption, heavy police presence, and additional barriers are ALL additional barriers, and the folks in that profession can tell you how many less votes they'll be for each option.

IN EVERY CASE, adding an additional barrier to voting acts as an additional barrier to voting. And IN EVERY CASE, more legal votes are thwarted than illegal votes.

In VA, for example, it's a no-brainer. ONE illegal voted PER DECADE. There is no possible way an additional barrier wouldn't suppress more.

"perhaps a real election where legal votes being suppressed cost an election."

Look for a close race with "certain" voters having to wait 3x longer than others.

That's not by accident.

How long did it take YOU to vote?

"comparing it to an insignificant number doesn't make it significant. That's my point."

Then your point is stupid.

The fact the illegals number is so close to non- existent IS THE POINT. So ANY amount of suppression is magnitudes more than illegal votes thwarted.

The "over 15,000" claim regarding Nevada just shows how willing-to-be-wrong the government currently is.

Even with a 99.99% accuracy rate (impossible, I know) it would take VA over 4000 years to protect as many votes as they'd thwart IN ONE ELECTION CYCLE.