All well and good, from one side of the argument. But there are a few critical flaws in this thesis. First, it implied that the reason for the push for mail ballots was in order to increase Democratic turnout. That may turn out to be one result, as a collateral benefit, but the primary reason was to give people an option to be able to vote without having to risk their lives or get sick just to vote.

Second, It may well turn out that many mail ballots won't get counted. That is probably true, BUT: if people voted on election day, many of those ballots are provisional and don't get counted either.

Third, with Republican efforts to suppress voting in any way they can think of, polling places will be overwhelmed, and if everybody voted on election day it would be much worse, causing many potential voters to skip it altogether, and perhaps others not being able to vote at all. Currently Trump's Idiot Clown Posse is showing up all over, intimidating voters at polling places, slowing traffic and causing chaos with car mobs. If people vote by mail, they can't be intimidated.

Finally, the author ignores the fact that turnout, including mail, is at record, crazy highs due to early voting, of which mail voting is a huge part. Without mail voting, turnout might not be as great, and all of the ballots that Trump will succeed in suppressing may pale in comparison to the gigantic boost in the number of ballots. So it would all wash in the end anyway.

Sorry, but I think the thinking in this piece got lost in the mail.