Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud. Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it.
If it's so rife with fraud, why can't Republicans provide any evidence of such? I keep hearing this over and over and over again, and yet whenever the time comes to put up, such as in a court of law contesting the results of an election which is claimed to be "rife" with fraud, there is nothing of substance? So little even that conservative judges who are very open to the idea can't stomach proceeding?
This entire debate is conservatives saying "we just know there is fraud!" to a crowd of people responding, "ok, well, show us what you have and we'll take a look."
The process of doing so is going on.
Of course, election officials have made it impossible to verify signatures of questionable mail-in ballots after the fact. There are affidavits of individuals backdating the postmarks on mail-in ballots. There are huge numbers of ballots in one state with only the Presidential choice made; these things are suspicious on their face. Mail-in opens up the greater possibility of stuffing ballot boxes, and this is ratcheted up with the practice of ballot-harvesting.
In-person voting EXPONENTIALLY ensures that (A) it's the voter him/herself that's voting, (B) that their vote is not unduly influenced, and (C) it is harder to add to or subtract from the actual number of votes cast. This is a no-brainer. And I say this as a person with experience as a poll watcher, poll challenger, and a person who has challenged signatures on nominating petitions of opposing candidates.
As far as I can tell, Fuzzy has never believed that he's had to provide actual evidence to back up his assertions.
