If someone used my card information illegally, then the card isn't fraudulent as you said. But, the purchase is. Just like the vote.
To continually see you refer to
fraudulent "votes" and
fraudulent "ballots"
without evidence that there was fraud by the voter, in the votes cast, or the ballot that was used seems like a tortured use of both language and logic. The evidence regarding improper collection was the issue and the point at which the word fraud would be applicable.
I would agree that if an unqualified voter cast a ballot then both the votes cast and ballot used would be fraudulent. Extending the use of the word fraud to include everything connected to the act of illegal collection seems a stretch. The ballots that were rejected were printed and sent to the voter—because those were later fraudulently collected mean that they should be described as fraudulently printed and received ballots? After fraudulently being collected, they were deposited in a mailbox; does that mean the mailbox is fraudulent now as well? How far up and down the line do you want to use the
label of fraud? The evidence of the crime of fraud was in the collection process; not the printing, receipt, or voting of a ballot.
The ballots could have been printed in the fraudster's basement. So in that case, it's like the credit card never even existed. Just like the vote. Your argument is still tortured logic.
Well, something is being tortured. Rather than speculate regarding what may have happened to the ballots
before or after collection, how about presenting some
evidence as to what happened to them and how many were affected by some sort of fraud that extends beyond how they were collected.
