Thank you for taking the time to read the piece. While the numbers you are using are correct (0.0003 and 0.0025 percent for the calculations), the percentages from the report were not indicative of actual fraudulent votes. As the report notes, those numbers were the incident rates for “errors and bad data matching practices”, which account for a vast majority of voter fraud claims. In other words, these numbers are accounting for the end result of voter fraud claims (someone reports potential “fraud”, but upon investigation, it becomes clear that the issue, was not actually a case of fraudulent ballot casting. Instead, the cases are most often attributable to clerical errors.) The truth is that the rate of actual fraud is virtually non-existent (e.g. only 31 cases of potential impersonation between 2000 and 2014). As I noted, the Bush administration, which would have benefitted from an investigation into voter fraud (they hoped to use the results of the investigation to back up their claims of fraud during the 2004 elections), came up empty handed after their government-led investigation. We want to do everything possible to strengthen our democratic republic, but we cannot do that by shutting out our own eligible voters just because they might be more likely to vote for one candidate over the other. In fact, The Economist’s 2016 Democracy Index downgraded the U.S. from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy”. Among industrialized nations, we rank relatively low on voter turnout. For example, in France’s last election, they had 74.6% turnout, the lowest they’ve had since 1969. Comparatively, that would be the highest turnout for the U.S. since 1896 (McKinley v. William Jennings Bryan). We should try to make it easier for people to vote, not harder, if we want to breathe life back into our democracy.