Voter Fraud: What are the counter-arguments and Could the Premises be Wrong?
As the US elections 2020 wraps up, allegations of voter fraud are being raised by the GOP. A number of defensive arguments use the following premises:
- Voter fraud rarely happens (historical evidence)
- The instances are so low that they cannot affect the election outcomes (historical evidence)
- The cost of committing the fraud outweighs the benefit from it that people would avoid it (tight laws, time-consuming procedures - psychological evidence)
- Biden got more mail-in votes because he encouraged it as part of the social-distancing commitment. Trump didn't do that so got what the walk-ins could bring. (logical evidence)
- Just because it happened rarely in the past cannot guarantee it cannot happen massively in the future
- If the benefit could be greater and the act made securer through loop-hole exploitation and strategic coordination, why wouldn't massive and systemic power-abuse become possible?
- How is it possible that all or almost all of mail-in ballots favored the same party?
Let' see if the US is able to assure the world that its elections have been totally corruption-free.