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:

1. Voter fraud rarely happens (historical evidence)
2. The instances are so low that they cannot affect the election outcomes (historical evidence)
3. The cost of committing the fraud outweighs the benefit from it that people would avoid it (tight laws, time-consuming procedures - psychological evidence)
4. 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)

Concerns:

• 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.