Democrats cheat in places where the margins are thin. Examples: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina. Pennsylvania. They're not going to waste their efforts in places where the results are known. Is Utah corrupt? I have no idea. But whether it's corrupt or not, it's going to be a red state. If republicans are trying to cheat there, I'd rather see them refocus their efforts in places like Georgia where democrat voter fraud is rampant.
You knew exactly what I meant, and you're just trying to conflate the argument. Just like you always do.
I'm not sure that's really true. Ignoring tagging a potential party with it, people cheat where they can get away with it and cheating is relatively easy.
There aren't a lot of people willing to cheat in an election. They don't stand to gain anything directly and it's cost prohibitive for candidates to pay people either with cash or with favors. So to effectively cheat, you really have to have an individual with the ability to effectively count the votes, or you have to have a lot of people that are irrationally willing to risk a criminal charge for no real, direct benefit.
The first option is much more common and I suspect the vast majority of voter fraud (or I should say election fraud, b/c it's nothing to do with individual voters). The most common form of this is probably showing up with a trunk full of new ballots when the count is going the wrong way. They are kept in the back pocket unless and until it looks like they are needed. And the only limit on this is the number of registered voters from the polling places where the extra "votes" are held. That's primarily what people mean when they say winning by more than the margin of fraud.
The second option is a lot harder. You basically have to have some combination of a group of people either without a lot to lose or that are just bat **** crazy with partisanship, and then something pretty easy to do, and relatively easy to get away with. The only time I've seen it happen is in a local election that was very contentious and involved race. I think the candidate convinced a lot of people that "they" had been cheating for years and the only way "we" would be able to win was to cheat also. They only cheated in precincts they controlled. They bused people from one precinct to the next, let them roll off the bus, and then one person read off the name and address to each person as they got close to the poll. Doing that, the precincts they "controlled" voted at around 90% turnout, where they usually did about 50% in elections for that office. A lot of that 40% increase was legitimate because the election had essentially become a race issue and people were motivated. Probably even half of it was. But even if you assume 75% of that increase was fraud, it wasn't a huge percentage of the overall vote. Certainly huge as far as the ability to swing an election, but not a big number of votes. But more importantly, the next time that election rolled around, the SOS got involved and stopped it pretty easily.
All that to say, even without voter id, it was pretty hard to do real organized voter fraud and easy to stop it if the right officials cared. I still think voter id is an obviously good thing, and does pretty much stamp out the type of fraud I saw, as while those poll workers were willing to ignore the people asking another person for their address and how to spell their name, I'm not sure they would have just ignored the ID requirement because if a poll watcher challenged the vote, they couldn't say "maybe they just moved or maybe they have dementia".
On the flipside, the mail in voting is problematic because it does make massive election fraud much easier (as does electronic voting). I'm sure it works fine in Utah becaus utah is Utah. It's like saying things work fine in Switzerland or sweden. yes, but the US isn't Switzerland or Sweden or even Utah.