The most common refrain I hear against the possibility of widespread voter fraud is that demographers and pollsters would catch such malfeasance, but in practice when pollsters see a discrepancy between voting results and polls they seem to just assume the polls were biased. Is there a better reason besides "the FBI seems pretty competent"?
This is another case of "people arguing about scope of a fuzzy problem RATHER than how to define/measure the problem or analyze cost/benefit of mitigations". Almost everyone deeply involved in this has a political/culture-war preference, and it seems to be the case that proposed changes seem to shift results in one direction or another, SEPARATELY from whether it reduces fraud.
In fact, it's ludicrous to believe that zero fraud happens, as it's ludicrous to believe that most outcomes are driven by fraud (as opposed to non-fraudulent bullshit reasons l... (read more)
Maybe? I was not trying to answer the object level question either way, but instead just pointing out what sort of evidence there might be that could answer this.