Voter fraud can be difficult to prove. Voting in most parts of the country is optimized for anonymity and voter convenience at the expense of security.
I care about evidence, I believe it is absolutely possible to commit voter fraud and not leave any evidence of it, and I also do not believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud. All of these things can simultaneously be true.
I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
How much do you know about how elections are managed and secured today? How often have you interacted with election staff outside of casting a vote?
44 states have laws to run post-election audits, sampling the ballot pool and checking for statistical anomalies in the result [0]. This is one thing, and it's certainly not a complete solution to voter fraud...but I didn't know about these regular, legally mandated audits til I searched for election audit information. I do know about other things that help reinforce election security, like poll observers. From past jobs that occasionally provided IT support to local governments, I also have exposure to the physical security controls around ballots and polling equipment.
If you're well informed about election security, it might be more effective for you to bring up the specific challenges you feel need to be solved or gaps that need to be filled. Otherwise it's chasing shadows of threats and vulnerabilities that may or may not exist.
If you're not that informed, get involved with your local election office. They probably want volunteer pool workers and you'll learn a lot about the behind the scenes parts.
I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
It isn't necessary and it does statistically disenfranchise legal voters.
If there is virtually no voter fraud why are you so set on 'making our elections more secure'? These pushes are always started by people who know the truth - they aren't solving an election security problem, they are solving the problem of making people who vote against them have statistically more difficulty to vote.
Again, show me the problem this is supposed to solve.
Also they aren't free in the US and they aren't always easy. Sometime you have to make appointments at DMVs and you have to get there as well. There are different fees and different durations per state.
If you think about someone living in a city where they can take the bus and they don't own a car, they might not have a license. Then they might not get one just to vote in an election every four years that will just go the same way the state always votes (of course they end up not voting for everything else on the ballot).
Then maybe you shut down some polling places, split some up, move some around. Maybe you expire people's registrations early.
This is how you bend statistics to your side. It isn't about one person technically being able to navigate every obstacle. Every time the bus goes around a corner some people fall off and that's the point.
You are falling into the exact type of thinking that the people who create these situations want.
The problem is that people can vote multiple times in the same election currently if an ID isn't checked. If you are required to prove your identity before you vote, you can ensure that every voter only gets one vote.
Prove it. You keep saying that this is a problem but you haven't given any evidence.
There isn't much doubt from people that care about evidence.