Ok, why does it all over sudden have to be addressed?

Show you a measure? The measure has been all over the news for several years. The legitimacy improvement involves showing positive identification when voting. You don't have to make a lot of money to have personal identification.

If you admit there might be a problem, why would you delay fixing it?

Clearly it doesn't or it would have been.

Nice to see it finally getting some attention.

For a viable, trusted election there must be a balance between security and availability.

I'm all for proper ID and purple finger. Would love to go around with a purple finger like a Christian with lenten ashes. I recognize that's not for everybody.

If you want me and my ilk to have faith in an election then you have to provide me and my ilk with some assurances that only eligible voters, vote.

Why is that a problem?

I dunno.

But some people believe the world is flat, the check is in the mail, and only qualified voters, vote.

Ok, why is that only people on the right side of the political spectrum think it's a problem?

The purple finger works only when voting is mandatory, like in most European countries. Is that what you want?

Damned if i know.

Maybe because they're right?

Just kidding, just kidding.

It was a problem for me before it became popular. I will not disdain popularity from a single source if it serves my aims.

I'm not kidding. The article posted by the OP is about new laws that are beyond voter identification, that they are putting in place. Even that I can see and understand the need for voter ID, those new laws look to me to serve only one objective: they disenfranchise one voter group that would vote most likely democratic. Looks like state organized voter fraud to me.

You could be right, I dunno. I expect if you are right that the people will bash the pendulum swingers in the next election and it will sway the other direction.

It's probably an age thing, but my outrage gauge has a badly worn bourdon tube.

It's why I have wished we had more strict voter ID laws for nearly 50 years, have mentioned it a few times in my monthly advice column to my elected members of Congress, but have yet to lose sleep over it. Apparently my elected members of Congress have been sleeping okay, too.

It doesn't. That is why proof of eligibility has always been required in every jurisdiction, except for a couple of screw ball places that apparently had no voter ID requirement at all. The problem is not with requiring ID. The problem is with ID requirements that have the purpose and/or effect of excluding certain groups of people who are believed to generally vote against Republicans.

That's a solution in search of a problem, IMHO.

Your telepathy organ is to be revered.

Well Said! The key is indeed balance, but it MUST be legitimate.

It doesn't.

I'd like to see fair and reasonable ID rules put into place, and now.... not 2 months before the next election.

If the D's had any sense, they would write their own version of voter ID laws which don't have as many negative consequences to their voter base....

Was voting mandatory in Afghanistan and Iraq? I didn't know that.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!!!