It’s not a non-sequitur. The thesis behind the push for in person paper is predicated on the idea that it makes it prohibitively difficult to steal an election.

It’s not a non-sequitur. The thesis behind the push for in person paper is predicated on the idea that it makes it prohibitively difficult to steal an election. That’s demonstrably untrue based on current and historical examples. As another example, you don’t have to swap the ballots at all. Somewhere in the chain of custody, someone could just “lose” ballots for a region that is projected to vote against whoever they’re trying to fix the election for. They could forge or lose some other accompanying paperwork that was to manage those ballots, too. Or they could not bother doing that either because what are you going to do, redo the election? Cooking up examples is sort of pointless. There are always going to be new and unexpected ways to commit fraud. The actual root issue isn’t technological. It’s sociological trust.