I think you're replying to a different point than the GP was making -- the "major party" you are (I assume) referencing is also the party that backs Voter ID laws, which the GP was explicitly pointing out as a solution to the problem.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/d...
And then there's just the standard phone survey stuff, where you up-multiply based on (once again, self-reported) attributes to match population demographics, causing everything to be wildly out of whack.
This level of obfuscation of methodology is pretty high even by the standards of regular polling.
Millions of these people do exist. I've had family members in this boat. Renewals, name changes (especially for women), DUIs, homelessness (which encompasses much more than literally not having a roof over your head), lack of mobility, a DMV that's 30+ miles away, and the simple fact that successfully voting isn't exactly high on the list of priorities for people facing these issues--these are just a few of the myriad random barriers that conspire to hold back people from voting. I've personally seen them among acquaintances; if you haven't, consider yourself fortunate.
I don't see why it needs to be denied. The level of effort the state should expend to address these issues, what sort personal investment and initiative we should expect of people, and such burdens relative to the risk of fraud--these questions are worthy of debate. But nobody wants to argue these things fairly because, for better or worse, the facts are uncomfortable, especially if you cling to the principle of universal suffrage, which we're all expected to do. And maybe that's unfair--it is difficult for certain political perspectives, such as that we should recognize some aspect of voting as an earned privilege requiring some modicum of initiative, to be voiced these days. But that's no excuse for denying facts.
What you typically see is a Voter ID go into effect, and then whoops, the state budget is too tight this year so we're closing down a whole bunch of DMV locations and restricting hours on the rest.
In-person fraudulent voting is one of those problems that basically doesn't exist. People have looked for cases of it happening and have come up empty handed. Attempting to solve that problem is a waste of time. The only point of these laws is to suppress voting blocks.
I'm not a Republican, and I'm not advocating for a legislative majority for any party. You're not participating in good faith.
> In-person fraudulent voting is one of those problems that basically doesn't exist. People have looked for cases of it happening and have come up empty handed. Attempting to solve that problem is a waste of time. The only point of these laws is to suppress voting blocks.
Maybe. It's probably an order of magnitude easier and cheaper to implement some basic voter ID reqs (you know, like so many Europeans enjoy) than to continually validate that voter fraud is a non-issue _and_ persuade the country that it's a non issue. The idea that these laws only exist to "suppress [legitimate] voting blocks" is absurd; many countries have them, including those enviable European countries. How can securing our Democracy be a bad thing, any way? Recall which party was paranoid about foreign meddling in the last election, after all.
Someone is posting this link about one dmv being opened only 4 days a year for some reason but the population of that place is ca 3000 people. In Europe you don't have a dmv in a village and you get it done after every ten years at some bigger city or town.
[1]] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-... Almost every single one of which is either illegal, or very difficult to do without an ID.
There are a lot of people for whom the 'small' barrier to entry of dealing with state bureaucracy is much larger than it is in your world.
Voter ID would be important, but unfortunately, the Republican Party has repurposed the concept as a tool of oppression rather than a way to secure the vote. People are rightly wary of the idea because of this, and will continue to be wary of it until free and no-hassle IDs are available to everyone first.
> However, for most people in America I would wager that this is not the case at all
Most? Probably. But "most" doesn't matter. Voting is a fundamental part of the democratic process, and "most" still leaves millions of people in the lurch. Make it "all" and then I'll stop being upset about it.
From TSA's website[1]:
>In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.
[1] - https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
On the other hand, unless you are one of the 538 electors, you don't have a constitutional right to vote for the president.
So if "constitutional rights" is the determining factor, it's the ID requirement for guns that you should be fighting against.
Also this topic isn't limited to presidential elections, so that Electoral College logic loophole doesn't apply to all elections.