If you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud by stopping 10,000 legitimate voters then would you really say that is a solution?
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that in-person voting stops any voters, let alone ten thousand of them?
If in-person voting is such an unreasonable burden, then why was it the way my state did things from the time it became a state until a couple of years ago?
Do you at least agree that voter fraud is a problem? If an honest count of the people's votes would choose candidate A, but ballot-stuffing manages to swing the election over to candidate B, would you agree that some harm has been done?
I claim that 1,000 fraudulent votes is equivalent to disenfranchising 1,000 legitimate voters. Do you agree, or do you disagree with this statement? If you disagree, then why?
It is disenfranchisement for the sake of exclusion, not actually making the system better.
Who is trying to disenfranchise voters for the sake of exclusion? Who are the voters to be disenfranchised?
Did you intend to specifically imply that I'm a liar, that I don't actually care about voter fraud but just want to disenfranchise people? If so, upon what evidence do you base this conclusion?