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

Mail-In ballots are necessary to ensure that everyone can vote safely

Question: Should Mail-In ballots be banned in the 2020 US Elections?
Position‹2 of 2: No, mail-in ballots should not be banned in the 2020 US Presidential elections.
Argument‹3 of 6›: Mail-In ballots are necessary to ensure that everyone can vote safely

In the face of a nationwide COVID-19 pandemic, Mail-in voting is the only way to ensure Americans' constitutional rights without a risk to their lives or health.

The argument

Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, there is no choice but to allow everyone to vote by absentee ballots. Traditional in-person voting is not possible this year without putting lives and livelihoods at risk, given the small enclosed spaces, long crowded lines, and shortage of poll workers. The US electoral system needs to evolve to reflect the new world we find ourselves in. The virus that causes COVID-19 is mostly spread by respiratory droplets released when people talk, cough, or sneeze. If voters were to vote in person on election day, the likelihood that they could avoid people doing these actions is slim. It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes. If people are voting in person and using the voting machines, they may very well be touching a surface that has respiratory droplets that carry the virus. COVID-19 affects all communities, but it disproportionately affects the elderly, people with preexisting conditions, those with disabilities, and people of color. Without mail-in voting, these communities who are already at high risk for getting the virus would subject themselves to even more danger without mail-in voting.

Premises

[P1]In-person voting during the pandemic risks lives through enclosed spaces, crowded lines, and contaminated voting machines. [P2] COVID-19 disproportionately endangers the elderly, the disabled, those with preexisting conditions, and people of colour. [P3] Without mail-in voting, these already high-risk communities would have to expose themselves to even greater danger to vote. [C] Therefore, because mail-in ballots are necessary to ensure everyone can vote safely, they should not be banned in the 2020 US elections.

Counter-arguments

Opponents to mail-in voting argue that everyone can stay safe while voting in person if they follow the proper CDC guidelines. They say that if masks truly work to prevent the spread of COVID-19, then the use of masks will ensure that everyone will be safe when voting in person. They say that if people wear masks, practice social distancing at the polling sites, and avoid crowding, then voting in person should pose no real threat to anyone's health nor increase the risk of spreading or getting the virus.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise treats the risk as fixed when it depends on how polling is run: masks, distancing, ventilation, extended hours and additional sites all reduce contact, and none of them is weighed before the argument concludes there was "no choice". [Rejecting P2] That the disease falls unevenly is not in dispute, but it identifies who most needs an alternative rather than showing that in-person voting had to be replaced for everyone. [Rejecting P3] Absentee provisions already existed for voters who could not attend in person, so the premise supports widening access for those at risk rather than the universal claim the argument builds on it.