See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.
Whoa, hang on a second there. I know English is your first language, so why don't you reread what I responded to. In fact, I shortened the part of your post down to one point, so there would be no mistake. You said that someone could just pick a name out of a phone book and show up and vote. I said that if that happened, it would show up like a sore thumb. If people randomly voted for someone else, with a 50% voting rate, the number of incidents of someone showing up to vote and finding that someone had already voted in their name would be huge. As that appears to be incredibly rare, it follows logically that what you insinuated happens could actually not be happening.
I'm fine with required identification - but there should be multiple ways for someone to identify themselves - a couple of bills to their address with their name on it, etc. It's been shown that it's rather onerous for the poor to obtain photo identification. If you want to switch to photo IDs, then make it simpler for them to obtain them - longer hours, or weekend hours where they can obtain such an ID. The system set up to obtain such IDs seems to have been developed by someone thinking in the point of view that they can just drive over - which they cannot do without driver's licenses.
I don't know about other states, but here in NY, I get a little post card at some point during the summer, informing me of where my polling location is. I hate to make assumptions, but the post card isn't "timely." That is, it doesn't get to me a week or even just two before voting - it arrives quite early (I received it a few weeks ago.) Presumably, this is so that if it's returned by the post office because I don't live here, (or there's no such address, etc.) they can update their records. I doubt that such a system is perfect, but I would think it's more than sufficient for preventing widespread fraud.
Another thought that I come back to a lot, is do you really think there are that many people willing to take one for the team if they get caught? You think people are really willing to risk a huge fine or jail time, just to increase the vote by 1 or 2 votes??