I have heard of all fifty states.

There's 57.

How many of those states mentioned regarding the dead voter and fraud issue had you heard of?

I haven't kept track, but I read and hear about supposed voter fraud all the time. It has not made much headline news in the past few weeks, but earlier this year it was all over the place. The most remarkable thing about those news reports is that not a single one, including the ones mentioned in this thread, offer even the slightest support for the recent voter ID laws. The more we hear from O'Keefe and other right-wing frauds, the more I am convinced that laws intended to prevent voter impersonation fraud are solutions looking for a problem.

But if everyone had ID there would be no fraud.

Except on the official side of things, which is where election fraud has always occurred anyway.

And where is your evidence that voter impersonation fraud exists?

Why does one need evidence before making a common sense requirement.

I read somewhere all dead voters are Democrats...

Just kidding

If common sense suggests that people are willing to risk long penitentiary sentences just so that they can effect an election by some small fraction of a single percentage point, then maybe it's something we should consider.

To take an example of what I mean, in an election involving 100,000 voters who are basically divided 50-50, each fraudulent vote will change the final result by about 0.001%. In return, the fraudulent voter risks 5 years in prison. Does that sound like a common sense scheme to you?

So here's the bottom line.

Do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that only valid votes are cast, even if that means some people who are eligible to and desire to vote are unable to do so?

Or do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that those who are eligible and want to vote can do so, even if that means that some fraudulent votes will be cast?

For those who remember the lesson of Watergate -- the "win at all costs/the end justifies the means" attitude -- we simply don't trust that weaknesses in the system will not be exploited, whether by those in power, those who want to be in power, or those who want to help either way.

And so long as the Acorns of the world make it apparent that the system *can* be exploited, I'm going to fall into the first group.

If someone really wants to vote, they will find the means necessary to do so. Certainly there is no reason to lay an unseemly burden on them, but I still fail to see how requiring some manner of ID (at least if it's done at no expense to the voter) is an unseemly burden. And can we be honest? If they aren't motivated to vote, ANY burden will be unseemly, and well, so be it; the unmotivated voter is only slightly better than the fraudulent one.

Moreover, registration is itself a burden, is it not? But we don't have a problem with requiring people to register. So why all the fuss about requiring that they show they are in fact the person who is registered?