And if we send such an ID to everyone for free that's a reasonable path, but if you charge people to get an ID and they have to miss out on work to go for the ID then some appreciable number of voters will be disenfranchised and doing that to try to avoid 400 mistaken voters is not worth it. 

Airport-style identity checks are by definition more cumbersome than if you didn't have to have them. We do that because we've determined that it's worth the inconvenience to avoid the unlikely but disastrous outcome of something like 9/11 happening again and because 9/11 showed that our previous security was not sufficient to avoid it. 400 mistaken voters in PA is not of a comparable severity and so I do not think we should have to put up with the same inconvenience to avoid it, and the current security in place has avoided anything of comparable severity so I'd rather just stick with what we have. Honestly I'd love to go back to being able to get a ballot in the mail and dropping it in a box but sadly I don't know that we'll ever get the convenience of the 2020 election again. 

TLDR: I disagree with your premise, Airport security does make life harder, we just deemed it worth it. 

I live in Arizona. We do have that convenience and have had it for decades. It's common in Western states. Part of that is because the big Western states are physically the size of two or three large Eastern or Southern (excepting Texas, which really should have been sectioned into multiple states either at admission or after the Civil War) states. You can fit Georgia and Florida into the same amount of area as Arizona, with enough left over for a Maryland. One of our counties would be the 42nd largest state if it were to become a separate state. Mail-in voting helps those small towners. Conversely, because Phoenix is so huge and hot, even in November,  sitting in long lines to vote isn't really feasible. And one of the tactics Republicans tried to employ in some states was to forbid handing out water bottles. There's no reason not to do mail-in ballots. Conservative crying isn't a reason to take something away from other people, especially when they've been found to be lying about it so much.

In Arizona, half of the population is composed of vast urban islands, but the other half of the population lives in the desert, hours away from those big urban islands.  Other states in the West are the same; 75 percent of the Nevada population lives in Clark (Vegas and suburbs) and Washoe Counties (Reno and Sparks, and Carson City is in this area though it's an independent city and not part of the county), but there are huge stretches of empty land dotted with small towns, and 25 percent of the population of Nevada is still close to a million people. And once you go east of I-5, California and Oregon are also sparsely populated wilderness, but in California, that wilderness still holds more people than South Carolina does. 

The TSA example only strengthens the argument against SAVE, not for. 

You're subjective to very intrusive searches by the TSA. They flash what are essentially nude pictures of you on scanners, with your naughty bits blurred out, or touch you to the degree that the authorities think they can get away with in a courtroom.  Much of it is security theater. We put up with it because once you're 40,000 feet in the air in a pressurized tube, you're at the absolute mercy of the elements and those who can manipulate that specific set of elements with weapons. In the air during the flight, the captain and crew are the absolute law, which we put up with because one disruption, even without malicious intent, can put the passengers and crew on the plane in danger. .That scenario doesn't exist in a voting booth.  There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to fly on an airplane, which means that we either agree to all of this or find another method of transportation. There is, however, a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. 

One man's hurt feelings over rejection do not constitute an argument for taking away mail-in voting or any of my other rights, nor do the vicariously hurt feelings of his supporters. Full stop. As the pro-gun people say (and I myself am a gun owner), enforce the laws already on the books.

You either missed the core of my post or are conflating security screening with identity verification. To clarify: identity checks verify credentials, not the physical contents on a person. Please take the time to read the actual argument presented rather than reacting to a misinterpretation.

If you continue to mischaracterize my points, I will simply stop responding. It is a waste of time to engage with someone who refuses to carefully read what I wrote.

You are conflating two entirely different steps: the administrative process of obtaining an ID versus the operational speed of verifying it at the ballot box. My argument is strictly about the latter. The current voting process heavily relies on manual tasks, where poll workers must slowly cross-reference paper rosters or manually type names into electronic books. My proposed system replaces this human-dependent bottleneck with automated technology. By instantly scanning an ID and flashing a confirmation light in seconds, this process eliminates human error and long lines at the check-in desk. It demonstrates that we can achieve efficient verification without adding any physical burden or inconvenience to the citizen's actual voting experience.

Ok then let's focus just on what you said. You want to have a photo id scanner at the voting station. Now these 400 people were mistakenly put in the voter roll upon getting their driver's license. So they had an ID that the system you are advocating for would have happily accepted. Your solution has no relation to the issue being cited. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/trump-overstates-magnitude-of-noncitizen-voting-in-new-jersey/

Let's try this again: You are misunderstanding where the error lies. No manual poll worker mistakenly let these people vote, they correctly let people who were mistakenly registered to vote do so. 

The 400 names were in the registered voter rolls which is what your system would use to validate that they were eligible. The manual checks were not the issue here, it's the system that put people on the eligible voter rolls in the first place. The solution could be to make it more cumbersome to register to vote in New Jersey, but this is not something I'm likely to agree to. 

Lastly, I do not agree with having ID requirements as it would not have even solved the problem, and makes voting more annoying compared to mail-in ballots with a drop box which is my preference for the sake of convenience. 

I read your post. I reject your premise, because what I said is really the core of the whole argument.

An incompetent president mismanaged the worst public health crisis in the United States in decades and lost an election. Because he is a narcissist, he could not gracefully accept the results, and now he wants to change the rules to advantage himself, especially now that he's looking at the very real possibility of a hostile Congress after January 1. One of his pet monkeys in Tennessee got primaried yesterday, after Tennessee tried to change its rules to appease him.  Trump doesn't have any accomplishments to offer going into the midterms, so he's re-litigating all of his grievances from 2020, like immigration and COVID, because his handling of those grievances cost him the 2020 election.  Strip away all of the bullshit, and that's what this is really about.

The poll workers did not make a mistake. The system made a mistake. That mistake was caught and corrected because of safeguards built into the system. It was also an error of a statistically insignificant magnitude. There is no evidence of "widespread voter fraud."

Our elections are secure. There are safeguards in place that work. Use those. I am not going to have my rights infringed because a mentally ill man cannot accept that there are a lot of people who don't like him. 

A guy I once worked with said the same thing. "It's not cancerous". Another co-worker was simply giving his opinion since their family had dealt with something similar not long before. He actually quietly took the advice and got checked out and turned out it was cancer. Just very early stage so it wasn't very obvious. He got it taken care of asap so it never became a bigger problem.

It's also proof that the system is flawed. Failing to update the system will likely lead to even bigger problems down the road. The police catch criminals, but they don't always catch them all. Should the police never update their system, failing to better serve the public in the future?

If it's not cancer as you say, then it's also not just a rounding error either.

'Luckily', I don't need to lobby. My Gov is doing that all on their own accord, and aboot half my fellow 'Countrypeople' are cheering it on as that boot squeezes tighter and tighter on their necks. So much so that the number of the other half of my people leaving and moving elsewhere, like to your Country, is growing considerably. If only the disregarded problems here hadn't stacked up and allowed for what's happening now...