> Why would you not want the most rudimentary election security?
Why would I want a solution with negative trade offs for a problem I'm not convinced exists? Even if I believed it was a problem, I wouldn't just accept a solution that was "rudimentary" without considering the trade offs and alternative solutions.
Why do you put locks on your car or your house? I bet you've never been broken into. There's not a high chance of it either. Why do you want your email encrypted? No one's sniffing around your personal life, so why do you want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
Remarkable how people distort their principles when it gets in the way of a political symbol.
Concerted coordination between countless conspirators is required to commit the kind of vote fraud an ID requirement corrects and is quite certain to be detected and can be corrected.
A single burglar can change my life forever regardless of the fact that it will be detected.
> Remarkable how people distort their principles when it gets in the way of a political symbol.
Which principles and what symbol? You seem to have me shoehorned in to some political pigeonhole. I'm used to that, but I'd be curious which one it is this time.
Why would I want a solution with negative trade offs for a problem I'm not convinced exists? Even if I believed it was a problem, I wouldn't just accept a solution that was "rudimentary" without considering the trade offs and alternative solutions.