It’s rather ironic that many conservatives think that ID issues with physical voting is an important source of voter fraud in this day and age. So far, however, not a single in-depth investigation anywhere has found that it is. But, as you rightly notice, strict ID requirements are proven to disenfranchise the poor and various minorities very effectively.
I disagree that conservatives "think that ID issues with physical voting is an important source of voter fraud" I think that for too many it is just a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise anyone they consider to not be like them — white, late middle aged or older, and at least here in Texas, clinging to the illusion they are still the majority when in truth there is no social, racial, ethnic, nationality, that has 50% or more of the states population. (The is one majority group, Straight, but the vast majority is not concerned about that any more.)
Originally Posted By: alternaut
In marked contrast, absentee voting systems are wide open to massive and cheap fraud, as in many cases all that’s needed is ID info that’s floating around on the internet by the hundreds of millions (e.g., from the latest Yahoo hack). Interestingly, I haven’t heard much if anything about that from the ‘concerned’ electorate.
However, given right wing 2d Amendment advocates and Trump supporters are promising openly armed patrols around polling places in "suspect" neighborhoods (read that as "minority") supposedly outside of the "no electioneering" zone but placed to screen anyone arriving at the polls on Election Day, mail balloting is a d#$% sight safer. It has crossed my mind that if those threats are carried out the entire election in the state could be ruled illegal. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General (all three are fighting criminal indictments) might like that. It would give them the excuse they want to secede from the Union. Of course any legal right Texas had to do that was signed away with the terms of surrender at the end of the Civil War, but they conveniently overlook that fact.
If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?
