It's ridiculous to assert that it doesn't exist in practice due to lack of evidence when in reality pretending to be someone else to vote leaves virtually no evidence. You can't even begin to analyze the problem so its laughable for you to assert such things.
If it's happening at any significant rate, without perfect knowledge of which eligible voters won't vote (or have someone else try to steal their vote, which is just as bad for the prospective vote thief), it leaves quite tangible evidence in the form of people presenting themselves to vote under names that have already voted.
The absence of this occurring fairly strongly indicates that vote stealing by impersonation isn't a thing that happens at any meaningful rate.
If there was more than what vote theft operation in the same area, you'd still expect them to have collisions.
> 2 out of 3 people don't vote.
Wrong. A majority of the voting-eligible population votes in Presidential elections.
> If you have ever volunteered at a precinct you would know that it's literally just an excel sheet of names
A printed paper sheet, sure. Whether Excel is used in making it or not is immaterial (I assume it's generated straight from the voter database, which I hope isn't Excel.)
> and you're supposed to check someone off.
California state law requires the actual voter to sign in on the list; I would think that this is normal.
> It's very easy to check the wrong line
If it was a just a check off, maybe it would be easy.
> It's very easy to check the wrong line and your failsafe is easily explained away as a mistake instead of raising any sort of alarm.
Even if it was just a check box, you'd also need to have extremely lax procedures that all the poll workers and any observers were all in on for this basic integrity check to be routinely ignored.
Given the political factions interested in selling the idea of rampant voter fraud, you'd expect them to raise a ruckus if there were actual instances of this going on routinely.
You'd also have to either randomly mark off some non-voter (potentially creating a new instance of the problem) each time this happened or turn in a tally sheet where the count of marked voters didn't match the ballot count. The former would magnify the visibility of the casual disregard of integrity, the latter would definitely raise an alarm in counts.
Also, here in Russia, voters put a signature in the voters registry when receiving a ballot.
It's especially ironic.
How often do any of these things actually happen? It’s all public record. The data is there for analysis. And yet nobody can point to more than a handful of examples.
The common reply to this is that you need these documents anyway to work, to drive etc. This is true but ignores all the peripheral people you don't see. People whose roles in their family are support or who themselves are in need of support because of illness. Not all of them drive or work and they are citizens too.
It seems to me that the easier solution is to make public records free. Let the taxes you already pay serve to pay the salary of the peon at the printer. Then the people clamoring for us to check ID's to keep the "illegals" from voting can be happy and those people can be enfranchised.
You don't need to show ID to vote at a polling place in Australia. And you don't need ID to enrol to vote.
I can't comment on the countries in the picture you've linked. I'll guess that most or all of them make it both easy and required to have a national ID card. That is not the case in the United States.
Consider a working class non-driver who has never travelled overseas. What is their ID?
Would you propose a new state or federal ID card? Great. How likely is it that the state or federal government will produce a system for issuing these that is easy to access, widely available, free, quick to issue IDs, etc? How likely do you think it is that politicians will attempt to modify the system for issuing these IDs so that their opponents' voters will find it more challenging to receive them?
If your answer is "likely" and "unlikely" respectively, you are naive to the history of voter disenfranchisement and vote-system-gaming in the United States. Much of it is based on race.
ID is required in some places like Northern Ireland. Iirc, the UK poll card isn't 'typically' or ID required in England, Whales, Scottland)
But as of 2018 that's changing when some districts required ID for the first time. Although last I heard, laws suits on that were still going on.
Your list is also without sources and presenting an oversimplification of laws to the point of being presented in bad faith, with intentional misrepresentation of the original data. Your list is a lie of checkmarks, intended for propaganda and not to inform the reader.
Tell me more about Canada, this implies you may be mistaken. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&do...
> Option 3: If you don't have ID
lays it out pretty clearly:
> You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
No ID needed, anywhere in Canada, ever, to vote. Period.
And I made no assumptions whatsoever in my post. It is your graphic that is full of false assumptions.
Canada very effectively requires ID to vote, sorry that offends you.
> That person needs ID to be assigned to their polling station to vouch for you.
That is absolutely not true. The site says,
> The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions).
Nothing about ID. Just "prove their identity and address", which does not require ID.
> Canada very effectively requires ID to vote, sorry that offends you.
This is false. I am not offended by facts, or by your lies.
Canada does not require ID to vote. You are spreading lies by continuing to state that it does.
Have you ever lived there? Do you know anything about Canada from experience? You are lying and citing false information to claim falsehoods that are extremely dangerous.
Canada does not require ID to vote. Period.
Without a massive outreach program intended to reach all voters and supply them with convenient, free of charge voter IDs, and a system that can continuously and quickly resolve errors, such a "strong voter ID" would be unconstitutional (for good reason).