Should Mail-In ballots be banned in the 2020 US Elections?

Absentee voting is valid, but mail-in voting is not

Question: Should Mail-In ballots be banned in the 2020 US Elections?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, mail-in ballots should be banned in the 2020 US Elections.
Argument1 of 6›: Absentee voting is valid, but mail-in voting is not

Absentee ballots are safer because limited to specific individuals, with each registered long in advance. All Mail-In voting is more dangerous.

The argument

President Donald Trump has defended absentee voting while criticising mail-in voting. Specifically, he said: "Absentee Ballots are fine because you have to go through a precise process to get your voting privilege. Not so with Mail-Ins. Rigged Election!!! 20% fraudulent ballots?" Even though absentee-voting and mail-in voting are both terms that refer to exactly the same thing, due to this misleading messaging, critics of mail-in voting believe it is more prone to fraud.

Premises

[P1]Absentee voting requires voters to go through a precise verification process before receiving a ballot. [P2] Critics argue that mail-in voting lacks this safeguard and is therefore more prone to fraud. [P3] A voting method seen as vulnerable to large-scale fraud should not be used in a national election. [C] Therefore, while absentee voting is valid, mail-in ballots should be banned.

Counter-arguments

There is no distinction between absentee voting and mail-in ballots. Both terms refer to the same type of voting.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise treats one of two names for the same thing as a distinct system. Both refer to a ballot delivered and returned by post, and both run through the same verification — the voter must appear on the roll, the ballot is issued against that record, and the returned envelope is checked by signature, barcode or witness requirement depending on the state. The argument's own body states that the terms are identical. [Rejecting P2] What critics are in fact distinguishing is application-based from automatic distribution, which is a real difference between states but not the one the premise names, and it removes none of the verification steps. The figure of 20 per cent fraudulent ballots quoted in the body has no source and is contradicted by every audit conducted; states that have run universal postal voting for years record detected fraud in the low tens of cases. [Rejecting P3] The principle is unobjectionable and the premises do not satisfy it. No vulnerability specific to the method has been identified, and any such vulnerability would apply equally to the absentee voting the argument accepts — which is what shows the distinction to be verbal rather than procedural.