You've undercut your own argument here. You said, "Of course, we both voted only once, but I could have voted twice ..." What do you mean, "of course"? In the same sentence you are implying that the temptation of that double-listing is huge, but note that you resisted it. You know why? Because it isn't a temptation to you, just as it isn't to probably 99.9% of the population. People generally are honest when getting away with being dishonest requires real effort, and that is the case when your name appears on multiple voter rolls because the bureaucracy fell behind. To take advantage of that double-listing you would first have had to have known about it, then made the effort to go to both polling places and stand in line twice. Definitely a hassle, and for what? What good does one extra vote do? The VAST majority of people would only go to those lengths if they got paid to do it, which is why you cannot remove a copy of your filled-out ballot from the polling place. Any political operator who was paying the recently-moved or recently-bereaved to double-vote would have to be doing it on faith, because they cannot produce proof that they voted as they were paid to. Professional political dirty-tricksters are not big on acts of faith; they prefer to go with a sure thing.
As I said before, simple logic should tell you that organizing enough double-voters or dead-voters to actually swing an election is way more work than necessary, when the option of a much more effective strategy also takes less effort and permits a greater degree of control: paying an insider to make sure that real ballots somehow don't get counted.
Also, ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying that working under the table or driving without a license is a good thing; only that it is possible and not uncommon among marginalized segments of society. I brought it up in answer to questions about how people function without ID, NOT as a suggestion of a good way to avoid needing one.
One thing I've noticed in this thread that troubles me (besides people thinking that I actually approve of working under the table or driving without a license), is the frequent repetition of rumors. Rumors like the one about NC student IDs are planted on purpose to convince people not to show up at the polls. Think of the reputation of most DMV offices, and how much fun they are to visit? If you've never been to one, but had heard all the jokes and complaints, would you assume that the folks there would be friendly and helpful to you?
You ask how it could be that people don't know that they need an ID, or how to get one? There's your answer: they believe the rumors that they hear that tell them that it is impossible, or a waste of time and money to go to the DMV if you don't drive. My freshman college-student son was told once by a mail clerk that he would need a court order to apply for a passport without a parent's signature, because he was under 21. Totally untrue -- the guy was just blowing smoke because he had no clue and didn't want to bother finding someone to ask. DS took the path of least-resistance and believed him until I told him otherwise. He worked at the Post Office, where they process passports -- why not believe him?
Look, try this: ask a dozen random people you encounter in the next month if it's possible to get a photo ID from the state if you don't drive. I'll bet you any money that at least half of them will either tell you no, or tell you that they have no idea how you would go about doing that. It truly is not common knowledge in most places.
Maybe we should just adopt the standard practice from Africa, and provide purple stamp pads at all the polling sites. You have to roll your thumb on the pad after you get a ballot, and it is very difficult to wash off that ink; it takes days of regular washing to fade it off. The idea is to show that you have already voted and and prevent duplicate voting. Perhaps that would satisfy those who are convinced that duplicate-voting is common.[/QUOTE]
And then they could also save $ on the “I voted” stickers.
