Even if on its implementation free and open ID is available and quick to get it might not stay that way into the future. It is a common strategy to under fund institutions to undermine their ability to function. Opening up to ID where there isn't sufficient fraud to warrant it simply opens up another mechanism for abuse by those in power. This sorts of changes should be rejected by default by the populace especially if they aren't shown to be genuinely necessary as political opponents may very well misuse them in the future with little awareness from the public.
What point are you getting at, here? The generalization in your comment isn’t true, for starters [1, 2], and it doesn’t address the premise of the parent comment that there may not be sufficient fraud to warrant stronger ID requirements. From what I can tell (correct me if I’m wrong), that assumption of insecure elections is what underlies the laughability of the situation.
Reading that quite short list, it seems like Australia, Canada, UK and the US are the only ones which do not require IDs. I wonder if it has something to do with old British legal system, that they kind off share.
This distinction isn't quite so clear-cut. At least in Ontario, any form of documentation listing the voter's name is sufficient [1], which they explicitly state can include a credit/debit card. The more stringent voter ID laws in some parts of the US (e.g. Texas) tend to concern government-issued photo IDs [2].
EDIT: Note, in particular, that a utility bill (e.g. a gas bill as mentioned in an ancestor comment) is sufficient in Ontario. For the purposes of this comment thread, this would fall into the (allegedly) laughable situation of lacking voter ID.
I didn't go through the entire list, but it does seem like a lot of those countries either use a standard national ID, or have a nationally issued voter ID.
Unfortunately, federally assigned IDs are a weirdly hot-button issue in America. Whether it's the libertarian insistence that national ID leads to authoritarianism[1], or the evangelical strain that sees it as a potential Mark of the Beast[2].
National ID is certainly not a requirement for voter ID, and there’s no reason I can find so far that state/local ID couldn’t be mandated instead. While you’re correct that most countries that require voter ID have a national ID card, I would guess that’s more of a correlation due to a latent variable that underlies both of these: possibly some sort of trust in a national authority (relative to local authorities), ease and necessity of international travel within Europe requiring convenient proof of citizenship, etc.
State IDs being used for voting means that who gets to vote is controlled by individual States ID laws, and we don't generally trust other States to get it right.
In U.K. there is no need of any whatsoever id to vote.
I would agree that requiring a gas bill to vote is laughable but probably for reasons at the complete antipodes than yours.
Careful about drawing generalizations about voting in the developed world.
In Canada, my grandmother didn't need any "ID" to vote, period. All she needed was for me, who had acceptable ID to vouch that she was an eligible voter, voting in a riding that she was eligible to vote in.
Somehow, the country has not yet devolved into an orgy of lawlessness.
Thats not what they have in the US. I can literally come up with a common name, say Ben Levi, and vote on Ben’s behalf. If Ben decides to show up, he’s in trouble, not me.
In Canada you are typically required ID. If you lied about your grandma and the real Ms. vkou shows up to vote, she’ll have ID proving who she is, and Elections Canada has your name written down to throw you in jail for lying under oath.
