Ugh, this is both-sides-ism at its worst. The impact of actual fraud on elections is nil, whereas the impact of subtle disenfranchisement is easily election-swinging. Both are anti-democratic, but that doesn’t mean they are equally bad.
That's just false. In what universe does fraud not have an impact on anything it touches, much less voting?
I can point to many occasions when voter fraud had an impact on outcomes (but was caught so it did not in the end). But the problem with this is that voter fraud is only heard about when it fails. You obviously have no idea how much actually successful fraud has occurred. This is generally true for all crimes, except voter fraud is an actual victimless crime (at least in terms of the victim being able to know that a crime was perpetrated against them), so you can't even estimate scale by victim reports like you could with something like assault or robbery.
my understanding is that fraud on elections is close to nil. So while OP is slightly hyperbolic, it isn't far off
Not a lot.
Regardless, the main point still applies. That's only the fraud we know about. The amount of fraud we don't know about that people are getting away with is an unbounded number that we literally can't even estimate given the nature of the crime. Again, this isn't identity theft or robbery where there is a clear victim to tell you "hey a crime has been committed against me" even if you never catch the perp. In the case of voter fraud, there will never be a smoking gun if you don't catch them first.
Regardless, it's fairly obvious that less ID verification / policies that result in less of an audit trail make fraud easier to execute without getting caught.
Followed the link on an oregon one.
“At the time of the election, (Robbins) was suffering from kidney infections which impacted his cognition,” said Oregon Department of Justice spokeswoman Kristina Edmunson. “He does not remember voting two ballots, but acknowledges that he did and is extremely remorseful.”