Why would you want somebody to vote who's too stupid or too apathetic to go to the local library and get a free photo ID? The idea that increased voter turnout means participation by a more enlightened electorate is ridiculous. I'd like to see voting restricted to those who have at least a remote clue about their government and the issues at stake. In fact, when I'm President I'll pass a law that requires you to pass a small test before you're allowed to continue into the voting booth. The test will have one question on it: "Please name the branches of the United States government." You'll notice that the test didn't say "three branches." Most of the people without a photo ID don't even know that we have three branches. (And if you believe a US president can pass that law or any law, you're too stupid to vote.)
But when thinking about voter ID, consider this datum from the July 7 edition of "Commentary:" "100 percent. That’s the percentage of registered voters who voted at a number of Philadelphia voter precincts in the last several elections. Indeed, as Republicans in the state capital pointed out during the debate about the voter ID law, in many parts of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, voter turnout in contested elections routinely exceeds 100 percent of registered voters." (emphasis added) (Yes, "Commentary" is a conservative pub, but if Jeremy and Slobodan can toss propaganda from the IMF at me, I think turnabout is fair play. Oh, I forgot, this isn't propaganda. You can look it up.)
I've been away for a couple days. Now I'll have to go back and take a further look at the stuff Jeremy and Slobodan posted while I was gone.