For the past week, every time the topic of voter fraud has been brought up, the media has said that “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”
Why is it necessary to use the term “widespread?” This suggests that there could be evidence of at least some voter fraud. Does the use of “widespread” somehow make the voter fraud of no consequence, and thus nothing to waste any time looking into?
— Jim Lieb
Palmer
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.