On the contrary, I suspect that is the most likely explanation. See, if there were any other explanation then the government would go out of its way to provide people without identification with the right identification.
> There has to be some way to prove your identity
There are many ways, for instance in some countries several citizens themselves in the possession of valid identification go together with you before a judge and swear on the penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are.
> and people have tried to impersonate others.
Yes, and guess what that valid ID is meant to reduce?
> Is there a way to offer that kind of system while avoiding the concerns about identity theft?
Well, given that we have fingerprinting and biometric information these days it is hard to think of what else - short of DNA - we could give up to offer 'that kind of system' but don't worry, it will still happen and probably in your lifetime.
I like that approach. I wonder if there's some way to campaign for it here in the US.
It seems more likely that the lack of this system is just what you get with lowest-common-denominator governance, so there are probably ways to change it for the better. If we could think of a way to add economic incentives to implement it, then it might have a chance.
Just like snow equipment is mandatory to have in your car but nobody cared until you cause an accident or traffic jam because you didn't put chains on.
> The term "compulsory" may have different meanings and implications in different countries. Possession of a card may only become compulsory at a certain age. There may be a penalty for not carrying a card or other legally valid identification (a passport, for foreigners); in some cases a person may be detained until identity is proven. This way the police can identify fugitives
On the list are 14 out of 28 EU countries if my count is correct. And a few more European non-EU countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_ca...
I know there are other cases where you must prove your identity, but in the case of voter impersonation fraud, to pull that off at a scale large enough to affect a major election requires a massive logistical effort. You must:
* Obtain the registered voter rolls for every polling place. This is the easy part.
* Know a priori which registered voters will and won't vote on election day. Why? Because if you show up and say you're John Doe, and the polling place has marked that John Doe has already voted, you won't get to vote. If that happens enough times—especially if it happens to the real John Doe, after a fake John Doe voted on his behalf—alarm bells are raised.
* Shuttle your team of voter impersonators across the city or county or whatever N times so that they can each fraudulently vote enough to tip the election in your favor.
This enormous scope is why almost all known cases of voter impersonation fraud are in elections for offices like "dog catcher" in a rural town: the scale is small enough that you can tip an election with a handful of your closest friends, and you might also know a corresponding handful of registered voters around town who have said they're not planning to vote. Laws that require a photo ID to vote are malicious at worst, and wrongheaded and pointless at best.
A case was just before the Supreme Court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws...
Is there a way to offer that kind of system while avoiding the concerns about identity theft?
EDIT: After thinking it over, I guess identity theft isn't a big concern. It seems pretty unlikely that someone would actively exploit this system to get someone's ID, then their birth certificate, then somehow get a loan in their name, or something along those lines. I hope someone with more experience can chime in either way.