, government balances competing considerations, risks, and consequences all the time.
People die in car accidents. They are then DEAD. The ultimate consequence. Regulations could be made so that people wouldn't die in car accidents. They could be engineered to have a maximum speed of 5 MPH and have thick, fluffy padding inside and out. However, there are significant enough downsides to doing that, so we don't.
Countries go to war. Soldiers and civilians on both sides DIE. The governments involved have to decide that the consequences of not going to war outweigh the number of deaths their citizens suffer and the economic costs of making war.
Economic policies balance societal costs and benefits to (hopefully) try and create the greatest good for the most people in the fairest way.
100% of voter fraud can be eliminated. The most obvious way to do so is to have no voting. Barring that, you could limit voting to the 400 richest individuals in the country and they could meet in person so that they would all know there was no fraud. However, those solutions are not acceptable to the vast majority of us.
So, there is never going to be NO voter fraud, because we cannot eliminate it without restricting the eligible voting population to an unacceptably small number. Therefore, the question is how to find the best balance between keeping voter fraud as low as possible while keeping the eligible voting population as high as possible. Somewhere in there is the best compromise, and that is what we are debating.