Your characterization of who voted for Trump is way off [1]. 42% of female voters, 36% of voters 18-29. Your post also implies that older generations supported Roe, but it is widely accepted that the precedent established in Roe was legislation via the judicial branch. It was an undemocratic law forced upon them, rather than something they chose. Three quarters of states had laws criminalizing abortions at the time the amendment used to justify Roe was added to the constitution [2].
I won’t defend gerrymandering or voter suppression, but I will point out that it cuts both ways. In my own, left-leaning, state, no ID is needed to vote, so anyone can vote as anyone else so long as they know their address. There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being mailed to dead people, etc. I perceive both parties as trying to rig rules around elections in order to favor their parties. The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so.
I’m also curious what you mean by “this fascist assault”. What are you referring to as being a fascist assault and why?
There were fraudulent ballots cast for both candidates [1]. I'm not accusing anyone of widespread collusion; I'm just saying that it happens.
Either way, I think "is not a crime" is a low bar; "is morally correct and aligns with democratic principles" seems more correct in this case. Our system is founded on the principle of "one person, one vote". Anything that isn't in accordance with that (e.g. mailing a ballot to a dead person), even if it isn't illegal, seems like something our society should minimize or have fail-safes to prevent.
> The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so.
Can you expound on how it is easier for people not eligible to vote to do so?
A trivial example is like I mentioned above. In Massachusetts, since there are no voter ID laws, I can walk into my local voting precinct and cast a vote on behalf of anyone whose address and name I know. I could do that as many times as I wanted to, for as many people as I know. I could vote a dozen times as a dozen people with ease. Someone who isn't a registered voter could do the same.
Instances like above probably don't have a direct impact on the outcome of elections (then again, neither does anyone who voted for the losing candidate, no matter how plentiful), but they undermine trust and faith in the democratic process, lower voter efficacy, reduce turnout, etc.
Voter suppression is actively trying to deny the rights of citizens, while 'enabling' (no I.D., easy to vote) is just a side effect of allowing people to exercise their constitutional right without having to get a government ID.
You have every right to feel the way you do, but to me it seems like a lopsided comparison. When one party is trying to remove a right and one party is allowing access to that right (even if a few people take advantage of it, but I am not convinced this occurs), this strikes me as evidently 'one wrong, and one right though a little sloppy'. Comparing the two as on equal footing doesn't seem honest.
> There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being ...
"There are stories", up there with "People are saying".
When you've got some "stories" that will (a) stand up before a judge (b) are about actually illegality (c) would make a difference in the outcome of an election, I'd really like to hear them.
I won’t defend gerrymandering or voter suppression, but I will point out that it cuts both ways. In my own, left-leaning, state, no ID is needed to vote, so anyone can vote as anyone else so long as they know their address. There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being mailed to dead people, etc. I perceive both parties as trying to rig rules around elections in order to favor their parties. The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so.
I’m also curious what you mean by “this fascist assault”. What are you referring to as being a fascist assault and why?
[1]: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020
[2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf