Why It Doesn't Matter If Voter Fraud Is "Widespread" Or Not Notice how they keep using the ambiguous term "widespread"?  As if it somehow makes the fraud OK if they say it's "not widespread"? That argument is based on a false premise, which is that voter fraud has no effect on elections if it's not widespread.  Not to mention, they conveniently never define the line between what's widespread and what's not.  But that's beside the point, so moving on. The truth is that it only requires targeted fraud in a few certain counties to flip an entire election.  And we saw fuckery in such specific counties.  It doesn't have to be "widespread" to throw an election.  THAT is the issue at hand.  Don't let them change the subject because that's what they're trying to do and way too many of us are going along with it. So, why am I pointing this out?  Because when you argue with the enemy on his terms, you're making a mistake.  Don't agree to a false premise to begin with, instead call it out upfront and destroy the argument before it can sprout legs and walk.