Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

Mail-in ballots make it much easier to commit voter fraud, I don't see how anyone could possibly argue to the contrary.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...

[citation needed; editor rejected source as unreliable]

A Heritage Foundation paper from the White House website. What a reputable source....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/26/review-tr...

Many states already do mail-in ballots and they're much more secure than the sketchy voting machines currently in use: https://qz.com/1783766/these-voting-machine-security-flaws-t...

If you actually skim that document, the vast majority are simple single-vote "pleaded guilty to the charge of knowingly voting while ineligible" scenarios. They had to go back twenty years to find a thousand of these, out of billions of votes cast during that period.

It's got nothing to do with voter fraud which is another conspiracy tagline for his base to hang their propaganda on. His whole intent is to make it harder to vote and reduce voting % as much as possible in order to amplify his rabid base votes who will move heaven and earth to vote and keep their racist dear leader in power.

This isn't news to anyone, he's openly said Republicans would never be elected again if it was easier to vote.

So you're telling me that The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, set out to prove how rampant an issue voter fraud is (as this is a seeming tent-pole of Trump's push to delegitimize any election that goes against him) and they came up with a whopping 1,285 cases across the entire US?

What I see is that they've proven that voter fraud is not a problem in the United States. And, by extension, that there is no problem with mail-in-balloting leading to voter fraud. Looking at two states that only vote by mail, they have 27 cases of voter fraud in THE LAST TWENTY YEARS.

Voter fraud, whether in person or by mail, IS NOT A PROBLEM. It's simply Trump working to sow the seeds of insurrection should he lose in November.

"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!"

The claim is not that it's easier to commit fraud. The claim is that allowing vote-by-mail compromises the integrity of an election. That's why it's important to show that voter fraud is quite rare (your link includes cases back to 1990 at least) and has a fairly high chance of being detected. Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah conduct elections entirely by mail. Trump voted by mail!

Trump himself votes by mail, as does most of his family. Should we throw out their votes as well?

Well I read that document you've provided as strong evidence that mail in voting is safe. You've sourced a document that is from the "mail voting is unsafe" team, and they've only been able to find a very few number of such cases, spanning thirty years (it goes back to 1990 at least), and almost all of those cases were caught before the votes affected the outcome.

Can you maybe explain your thinking?

Have you done the math? The document you reference is absent of impact analysis, even vague on the numbers. 1,071 incidents but how many actual votes? How many votes were actually cast? How many were caught before they were counted? Let's take Alabama. 14 reports, but actually first four are all the same incident. So 11 reports. Not off to a good start there. Nine of the remaining were single instance voting. Two were a conspiracy. One conspiracy was caught, in 1994 when it occurred, but is labeled as "Disposition: 2005", which I initially assumed meant that they were caught in 2005, and had gotten away with it. But in fact they were caught at the time because they submitted 1,400 votes in a county of 7000 people. The one that got away with it was caught at the time, and earned the role of a city commissioner of a city of 68,000 people. And yet the person was elected anyway, despite the evidence. So you've got "14" incidents, that are really only 11, and only 1 that got away with in a small city election where even they were caught yet allowed to win. So with just this one state, of the 14 claimed, there was only 1. So for 1071 that's 76. Over 30 years. There are 20,000 cities in the usa. So ~600,000 elections of all sizes they found 76 instances of successful fraud, and only in non-state-wide elections. And that's just me spending thirty minutes with your primary document.

What's interesting is that the Heritage Foundation didn't publish that math. Didn't get into detail.