>>>Why is this bad? Aren't ID's cheaply had and necessary to cash checks or buy beer?
>>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356530/
>>
>>I can't imagine a really good argument against this. I read the article and saw the part about the democrats feeling it might cause them to get less votes, but I missed seeing any good logic about why that should be the case.
>>
>>As we all know, I'm a dyed in the wool pinko lefty liberal, but jeez people. What's wrong with proving who you are when you vote? Unless of course, the photos are like driver's license photos which normally don't bear any resemblance to your actual, real life, face.
>
>I think it is a real problem - there are millions of people who don't drive or can use other things that require photo ID.

A photo ID card that is just a photo ID card shouldn't require anybody to drive.

>How are housebound people to get an ID?

How do housebound people get anything at all? How do they vote? To the best of my knowledge, we do not currently have phone-in or internet voting. If they don't vote, they won't need the card, and if they do vote, how do they go about it?

>How are those who don't drive (or drive anymore) to get in ID?

They same way they get around anywhere at all. Either with a friend who drives, or by cab, or by some sort of public transit.

>What are the very poor to do?

I'm assuming the photo ID card won't cost an arm and a leg. In fact, they should be free. I don't see why anybody should be allowed to scam elections just because they are poor.

>
>All this requirement can do is to reduce the numbers who vote - which will be used as 'proof' that there must have been voter fraud going on befor.

I don't see how.