" if someone can't vote from their sofa, we're told they're being disenfranchised"

What excuse did you give last time, so you could vote by mail?

"Yet somehow, if someone can't vote from their sofa, we're told they're being disenfranchised."

If you don't understand ANY further parameters suppress LEGAL votes, you don't understand the concept of macro dials. Also, you're refusing to address the rarity of vote fraud, and the pretense the cases which exist would've been thwarted by stricter Voter ID controls.

You failed all three elementary tests. Sorry, but it's off to the little kids' table for you.

"They have the same right to vote as anyone else and must fulfil the same requirements as everyone else."

Not true. You want to add ADDITIONAL barriers to voting. And you want to pretend they won't be additional barriers to voting.

Can you name ONE SUGGESTION of yours that doesn't suppress more legal votes than thwarts illegal ones?

"Look up the meaning of disenfranchise. No one is denying anyone the right to vote."

Making it harder for the legal voter to cast her or his legal vote is, BY DEFINITION, voter suppression.

A well-placed construction site on the main thoroughfare to the sole remaining voting precinct will suppress more votes IN ONE CYCLE than your home state has had fraudulent votes since records have been kept.

"...the hammer brought down on inadequately verification of mail-in voting.."

Will there be LOTS OF claims, but NO actual examples, as usual?

=====

Which reminds me: we're almost to the six-year mark. Have ANY victims come forward complaining of purloined absentee ballots in the 2020 election? ANY???

Because if your theory was about anything larger than farting in a windstorm, there'd by hundreds, if not thousands of folks singing your song.

Instead...silence. NOBODY has come forward claiming a housemate stole their mail-in ballot.

Why is that???

"This is completely illogical."

...And I can't wait to enable MORE of this!!!

At least finish the thought honestly: if the election were held today, you'd vote IN FAVOR of Trump's enablers.

" Was that for breaking the law?"

Depends. Are you conflating a criminal law with a civil tort?

Tell us where defamation would fall.

I just searched the Texas records on the Heritage Foundation's Fraud Website. I went back starting after the 2010 election. It was 51 instances,

4 were judicial findings.
13 were Campaigns, including 4 convictions in a school board race where there were accusations of trading cocaine for votes.
15 were Cullers, where folks "helped" others with absentee ballots.
2 were Canvassers (...usually a higher percentage, since their pay is based on signatures.)
2 were Poll Workers, who facilitated an absent daughter's forged ballot. (They each got one day in jail)
1 was a Postal Worker who gave names and addresses to a campaign.
4 were votes from non-residents at a public meeting on a Utility Revenue issue.

Before I get to the voter fraud (as opposed to VOTE fraud), I'd like to point out NONE of the infractions above would've been affected by stricter Voter ID laws. Except maybe the Utility Bill issue.

So from 2012-present, TEN convictions for voter fraud:
1 gal voted in a Democratic Primary when she didn't live in that district. She got 5 days in jail.
1 guy voted both in TX and MN. He got caught when he announced it on Facebook. $4k fine.
2 folks, husband and wife, voted after falsely claiming residence. 24 months probation, $500 fine apiece.
3 Felons voted and got caught. Jail sentences were 2-10 years.
3 Illegals voted: 2 had stole IDs, both got deported. The third voted in two elections, then was caught lying in court about her knowledge of non-citizenship. The verdict? 8 years, then deportation.

THAT'S IT.

"The public also needs a system that is secure, accurate, and trustworthy."

We already have it, and you have ZERO proof otherwise. Your goal isn't to "protect" the vote. It's to put up barriers so it's harder for "certain" people to legally cast their legal votes.

"A good voting system has to address all of those needs."

Again...ours already does. You have no proof, only innuendo and lies. In your own home state...ONE VOTE PER DECADE.

Any pretense you want to "better" that system is just that: PRETENSE.

"If a state offers early voting, I don't see that as voter suppression at all."

Except some states only allow CONDITIONAL early or absentee voting.

And some states are closing polling places in "certain" areas, where it will doubtless make lines longer and voting more difficult.

"Calling that "suppression" is illogical."

Nonsense. It's observational. Folks who run elections KNOW longer lines in "certain" areas will suppress the overall vote total in those areas.

And again...every method you've proffered of "protecting" the vote leads to many more legal votes suppressed than illegal ones thwarted.

For example...your home state of VA averages one voter fraud incident per decade. How many votes are you willing to suppress, to protect against THOSE TWO VOTES?

And why are you pretending ONE FRAUDLENT VOTE PER DECADE is a problem in need of fixing?

"With fewer than 400"

IOW, maybe it was 4.

Right now, they're probably counting folks with the same name and birthdate as "possibles". Folks named Josephina Hernandez (3/19), or Patrick Kelly (3/17), for example.

Tell us, LHT:

How many legal votes are you willing to suppress, so you can thwart TWO illegal votes?

"New Jersey actually agrees with the 30,000 number."

Registered, not voted. How many falsely voted?

"...the only people who refuse to concern themselves with non-citizens voting in our elections are silly progressives."

On the contrary, progressives admit the fraud is so rare as to be meaningless. It's SLURPERS who are concerned with non-citizens voting, especially since THEY CAN'T FIND THEM.

"An unspecified error failed to send a large number of records to applicants' home counties, where the applications are processed and verified."

So ... programming and data entry, rather than nefarious criminal intent.

"What is your threshold whereby the number of non citizens voting becomes unacceptable to you ?"

Well, first is those making the claim distinguish between criminal intent and institutional errors. No suppressionist has even TOUCHED that salient distinction.

Second is you actually FINDING a problem. VA has had ONE voter fraud conviction PER DECADE in the last 20 years. Where's the problem??

Third is the unmistakable fact any additional barrier to voting WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL BARRIER TO VOTING.

Your turn: how many legal votes are you willing to suppress, so you can thwart TWO illegal votes?

"I'm no imbecile."

Sure, Fredo.

You're smaart.

Not like, dumb.

Smaart.

"Now he needs to do something about protecting our future by tightening up our voting."

Since Bill can't ever find actual voter fraud by illegals, he's clearly referring to suppressing LEGAL voters.

"is protect citizens vote"

Oh, gee: look who can't tell the difference between being on a voter roll, versus having actually cast a false vote.

"How do you know? No one knows"

Sure they do. Utah checked, and found ONE illegal registered.,,and he hadn't voted. And idiots keep getting suckered in by human error, while ignoring the near-total lack of criminal intent.

"He's willing to have citizens votes discounted just to maintain his ego."

Wow. You lie very nonchalantly. Rather sick trait.

In truth, I've merely pointed out EVERY SINGLE method suppressionists want to enact, will suppress more LEGAL votes than thwart ILLEGAL ones.

You know...Actual Math.

What kind of Math are YOU using?

"I'm going to have the best health care plan."
~Donald Trump

"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."
~Also Donald Trump.

"is it the subsidy? they shouldn't qualify for it but lied about their income or something like that"

I'd be interested to see the breakdown, what is income, and what is ineligibility due to citizenship status.

And whether or not the errors are due to computer and industrial snafus, or wanton criminality.

On another thread, there were THOUSANDS of folks improperly registered...mostly due to programming and data entry errors.

Headline screechers usually bury that last part.

"...because of software glitches and clerical errors made while processing their driver's license and state ID applications"

So...NOT because of some nefarious election-stealing scheme. Got it.

Wanna bet most folks "registered" had no idea???

Whatever the Vegas line is...I'm taking the over.

"Data shows as many as 30,000 non-citizens"

"...as many as..."

And that's possibly REGISTERED, not actually VOTED.

So, based on what the prior claims turned out to be, we're probably taking about a few hundred votes. Out of hundreds of millions of votes cast.

Remember Kansas' Kris Kobach? He claimed he had "over 100 cases" "ready to file" of illegals voting when the KS legislature empowered him. Four years and millions of dollars later, he'd found ONE illegal immigrant vote. And eight others: 3 addled elderly, 3 folks who'd moved and "forgot", and 2 cases of a surviving spouse returning a mail-in ballot after the voter had died.

When Trump enlisted Kobach to find illegal votes, they came up empty-handed.

"Would this be around 4% of the enrollees?"

Yep. 1 of every 25. Staggering, isn't it?

And what do you believe the error rate is on this claim???

"...based in part on "fraud" claims predicted by an AI model..."

GIGO at its worst.

The prompt was probably "find at least 3/4ths of a million".