It's actually a bit more complicated. My state doesn't require ID to vote, but some do. Some require a full photo ID and others don't. Photo ID is optional at the polls in about half of US states:

https://www.usa.gov/voter-id

Where I live you just show up at the polling place, sign on the line next to your name and address, and that's it. Separately, here's how to vote without ID in California:

https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_California

In the US, your voting district maintains a voter roll, which in turn is updated based on voter registration. Registering to vote means proving that you're eligible to vote, and your name and information is checked against the voter roll when you do vote.

In other words: in many places, you don't need to present an ID because you've already been identified. But it's a big country, and that's not the case everywhere: lots of states and municipalities do require you to present an additional ID, or at least to present your voter registration (and just your name and address).

But couldn't you just claim somebody else's name/address (such as your neighbor's) when you go vote? Or is a photo stored on the voter roll?

The voter roll includes your name, your address, DOB, and maybe a few other identifying points. Depends on the state.

Assuming you know all of those things, you could go vote as your neighbor. But there are strong incentives not to: if your neighbor votes either before or after you, the double-count will be noticed and audited. Your neighbor will be able to prove who they are, and you'll have walked into an incredibly easy-to-prove criminal charge. Similarly, for in person voting, you run the risk of being identified when you come in to vote the second time (presumably you aren't going to vote just once, since there's no point in the crime if it counts the same as your ordinary vote).

Adding photo IDs would not meaningfully change the security model here, but would give pollworkers pretext to exclude lawful voters ("you don't look enough like your picture").

Edit: and, to be clear: this all makes sense because studies have consistently shown individual voter fraud to be virtually nonexistent in the US.

You don't need an ID to vote in Australia either. It works fine. What's hard to imagine? You get checked off on a list which includes all enrolled voters for that electorate.

Yeah and how do they verify that you are who you are? You come to a polling place, say you are X, and they just.....trust you? That's the part that's hard to imagine for me.

Yes. You’re ticked off a list, so that you can’t vote twice, and that helps spot anyone who does attempt to impersonate another voter.

It’s not 100% foolproof, but it turns out voter fraud by impersonation is very rare, so it’s good enough.

When you think in terms of “make sure every vote we count was legitimate”, then “not completely foolproof” becomes a solid argument for voter ID.

Instead, if you take a wider view and think in terms of “getting the best quality estimate of the will of the voting population”, the argument against requiring ID (in the US at least) is that it would distort the results of the election far more than a tiny amount of undetected impersonation fraud does.

This will vary by country. In the US, there are barriers to getting ID for some groups (you need to go in person during business hours, pay and wait an unknown amount of time, and this needs to happen weeks ahead of election days; this is a barrier to someone without transport juggling multiple jobs and childcare, for instance.)

Other countries see the trade off differently, or use different fraud prevention approaches. For example, I know India uses indelible ink stains on fingers to prevent multiple voting, and in the UK, there is no ID requirement (yet) but the ballots are serialised and the secrecy of the ballot can be broken to investigate fraud allegations. Neither of these approaches would be culturally acceptable in the US.

it's compulsory to vote. If people start rocking up and it says they have already voted, it will be caught pretty quickly.

Australians are also fairly trustworthy

I don't know about Australia, but in America our lack of voter ID has led to contention in the past:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168

Personally I think voter ID makes sense even if only to quash allegation of voter fraud. Voter ID enjoys overwhelming (>80%) bipartisan support from regular Americans. The main obstacle to new voter ID laws is the Democratic Party establishment. They calculate a marginal decrease in electoral margins if new voter ID laws were to be enacted. Of course then they wind up faced with fiascos like January 6, but politicians are nothing if not short-term planners.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/voter-id-election-la...

Support is strong when you ask a one-dimensional question ("do you, in general, support voter ID?").

The poll linked from the CNN article demonstrates this: there's also overwhelming support for making voting easier, but voter IDs (without free and accessible ID services) will make it harder. And that's the crux of the common Democratic position: voter IDs are perfectly fine if we ensure access to IDs. But that needs to happen before or with any restrictions on voting, to prevent disenfranchisement.

Right—I'm for it if we had universal free national IDs and services to ensure everyone had one. It'd actually solve a ton of other problems, too, so yes, please, do that and then check IDs at the polls all you like.

But that's a topic the Democrats are very divided on, and the Republicans really don't want, so it's never gonna happen. The result is that I'm not against IDing voters in principle but am in practice, given the current political situation and lack of demonstrated urgency or need that might justify the down-sides of doing it absent universal national IDs.

How hard is it to get a driver's license or state ID, which again, people already need for a long list of common tasks? Go to the DMV once every five years. Make an appointment online if your DMV does that, in and out in under an hour. I agree that it should be even easier, but it's not exactly a major obstacle.

It’s enough of an inconvenience that I don’t have one. And I have a cushy job!

How do you respond when the bartender, grocery store cashier, 7-11 clerk, or movie theater attendant ask to see your ID?

I have a NYC ID, and a federal ID (Global Entry) when that doesn’t work.

> They calculate a marginal decrease in electoral margins if new voter ID laws were to be enacted.

So what you're saying is that voter ID will result in some citizens not voting. Personally, that seems like a fair reason to oppose the measure.

> The main obstacle to new voter ID laws is the Democratic Party establishment.

Propose voter ID laws that include provisions to make sure that it is easy and free for eligible voters to obtain the necessary ID and Democrats won't object.

> Personally I think voter ID makes sense even if only to quash allegation of voter fraud.

I guess I just wonder how likely it would be to quash allegations of voter fraud. When we humans distrust a process, we seem to be able to come up with all sorts of wild stories to justify our fear and anger.

You have to register to vote in the US. Your name and signature are already on a list at the polling place. You can bring your voter registration card.

Voter ID laws are a hard sell in the US because of the extent to which they have been used for voter suppression. There is a recent North Carolina (??) example where the court striking down the law were about 1 inch from using the word "racist" in the ruling.

You pinky promise that you're eligible.