I’m not convinced it has to be that complicated. (However, I’m still a fan of nationalized ID in general.) For example, Oregon has had mail voting since 1981 wi

I’m not convinced it has to be that complicated. (However, I’m still a fan of nationalized ID in general.) For example, Oregon has had mail voting since 1981 with bipartisan trust in the system. I’m not aware of any cases of voter fraud worse than any other voting systems we have. Why does it get bipartisan support in Oregon, a state known for intense partisan demonstrations and showdowns? Because it’s so much easier that you’ll never want to do it another way. Mail-in voting has a lot of benefits: - It’s automatic. You’ll get a ballot every election at your home, so you don’t need to remember about elections. - You get a pamphlet with statements from each candidate and supporting organizations. This helps you get informed about everyone. - You have time to send it back. This allows you to make a more deliberate choice. - You don’t have to take time off or go anywhere. - You can verify via a web portal that your ballot was received and counted. Is voter ID actually solving any real problems with the system? To my knowledge, fraud is normally sniffed out and prosecuted. I think a well-oiled mail voting system provides so many clear benefits to voters that we should be encouraging it in more places. From what I understand, signature-based validation is secure enough to prevent most fraud problems. At least to the extent that it’s not much different from any other voting system. Again, I support federal ID, but to me that’s separate from voting. Maybe I put my federal ID number on the ballot, and then states can ensure it was only used once.