No law so far ever required single form of ID to vote. All voter ID laws require some form of ID, which could be of many forms - driver license, citizenship id, passport, military ID, handgun license, special voter ID, and so on. There are many forms of ID that are accepted (and if you don't have any, as much as a copy of a recent utility bill and a signed affidavit may exempt you from the requirement). This is nowhere even near establishing a single nation-wide ID system, or even a state-wide one.
I said "require issued IDs to vote". Countering with "there are many forms of ID that are accepted" doesn't really feel like you're arguing against what I said.
What I am trying to emphasize here is that there's a difference between "a myriad of disjoined systems which can be used to identify somebody" and "a single system that includes data about everybody". The difference is a bit like being able to hire a PI to follow somebody and having everybody's whereabouts in a single centralized database 24/7. Not the same thing, wouldn't you agree?
But also...not at all relevant to the point I'm making, which is that a mandatory ID is not against the Constitution (that I know of), and that we -could- create a mandatory national ID, but there's no political will for it. That's it.
I provided an example of that, by pointing out where even the party whose stated goal is to validate a person's identity for voting (i.e., where a mandatory national ID would help with one of their stated goals; certainly, it would remove the objections the other party has) still isn't pushing for a mandatory national ID.
You commenting how multiple types of non-mandatory IDs are included in the bills that that party supports...isn't gainsaying anything I said, nor the point I was making. I'm not sure why you bothered.
