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.
