Thank you for a well-reasoned and solidly documented response. Except for one observation about election integrity, I'm not going to rehash the argument as I think we have both made our points. We will have to agree to disagree.
About the election, you rely on studies that say dead people did not vote. But you do not deny that they were sent ballots. My point is that the system should have procedures to systematically ensure dead people do not receive ballots. It should also have a procedure where dead people are automatically stricken from the voter rolls. But it doesn't have that either. Without complete and accurate data on all districts, matched against a data base of all deaths, the studies are basically incomplete samples. They cannot prove no ghost votes were cast. The other thing to realize is that the only people who cheat and get caught in this system are amateurs. To smart people, professionals at running scams, our voting system is vulnerable.
In any event, I still don't get why people are opposed to tightening the process so the dead are not sent ballots. If you are right, it won't change the totals, and people like me will have a lot more confidence in the system.
Here's an illustration of the flaw in relying on statistics of known fraud to generalize to its overall prevalence. We only catch a few shoplifters, basically the kids who do not know what they are doing. The extent of actual shoplifting is far greater than the numbers caught. We know that because we have inventories that tell us a lot of merchandise has disappeared. We also know of cases where posting more security and targeting rings of professional criminals leads to a dramatic reduction in missing merchandise. Something similar is likely happening with voting, only we don't have an inventory process to tell us what we're missing.