And not because of massive voter fraud? There is a reason Barack Obama is urging people to vote by mail.
I think both sides will be looking to maximise their mail in votes and it is logic to assume that an amount of fraud will take place.
The trouble will be in detecting it, investigating it, charging and bringing to trial.
The danger of mail voting is not just vote harvesting of blank ballots or harvesting completed ballots and destroying those ballots that have voted for your opponent. There is a real danger that mail votes will be invalidated if the signature does not match voter records or if it has been mailed in incorrectly.
My question would be who is checking the checkers to make sure they do not apply undue political biases when validating the mail in ballots?
The media has reported that rejected ballots accounted for approx 1.2% of the ballots in 2016 and 2018. As a national average that is not that much and unlikely to swing an election, but the rejected ballots are not spread out equally across the country, they were very much consentrated in certain areas.
Did they swing elections?
Now with so many states using mail voting, all with different rules on validating them the risk will rise.
It could be that we will see millions of mail votes being rejected and that could swing the election either way.
Who is going to validate the rejected mail ballots to ensure that political biases have not caused them to be rejected?
Who is going to validate that the accepted mail in ballots have not been accepted due to political biases when they should have been rejected?
This elections result has a high risk level of being contested.