Many will. Others will not. That's what the GOP is counting on, or the whole thing would be a waste of political effort for them. This has nothing to do with fraud. It's all about trying to deter the "wrong kind" of citizens from voting by setting up obstacles. It's the same reason the GOP consistently fights against attempts to make voting easier, even unrelated to any supposed fraud-prevention (like in the 90s, when they fought the motor-voter effort, because they didn't like it being that easy to register to vote).
I don't mean to excuse the unwillingness of people to put in some extra effort to be able to vote. But the question is why should we erect that hurdle?
One exercise I've tried, to get right-wingers to see this with fresh eyes, is to get them to imagine other hypothetical voting "reforms" that would impact other people... people that right-wingers actually give a shit about. For example, picture that (nominally to prevent voting fraud) all votes would have to take place with special biometric measures to assure the person voting was really the eligible voter, and to allow computerized cross-referencing to eliminate duplicate voters. And picture that these systems were expensive enough that they'd only be set up in a few locations in the state -- just in the city halls of the biggest cities, but with extended voting that allowed those handful of facilities to accommodate everyone in the state who is willing to make the trek to vote.
In that hypothetical, every eligible person
could vote, if he were willing to make the effort. But the amount of effort that would involve would vary based on whether the person lives in a big city or not. The expected outcome of this reform would be to drive down rural voting a lot more than urban voting. It might even increase urban voting, thanks to the convenience of those extended voting periods. Someone living in Miami, for example, would find it very easy to vote, while someone living out in a rural part of the Florida panhandle might have to invest several hours of drive time to do so. The expected impact of this would be to skew election results towards the Democrats, since they're disproportionately favored by urban voters, while hurting Republicans, who have strongholds in rural areas.
Now, imagine that hypothetical "reform" were really the one on the table. You might object to the plan because of the way it imposes that pointless inconvenience on many voters, and causes an unnecessary expense for the government. You might, sensibly, point out that this was a dumb plan that isn't really about addressing the non-existent problem it references, but rather is about gaming the system for the benefit of Democrats by trying to suppress rural voters. If you made that point, and I responded "why do you think Republicans are the only ones too stupid, confused, or lazy to travel to one of the voting centers," wouldn't you immediately see how imbecilic my rhetoric was? Wouldn't you laugh at my stupidity? Wouldn't you laugh even harder if I then started babbling about Republican voters objecting to it because they were involved in criminal activity and were afraid that if they traveled outside their rural precincts they'd be identified, or some such crazy-ass bullshit? Well, now you see why I laugh at dummies like you.
And yet I pointed out how wrong you were. And study after study has shown how many voters don't have ID, yet are surviving in the modern world just fine. In Wisconsin, for example, 300,000 didn't have it. As of 2005, about half of all voting aged African Americans and Hispanics in that state lacked driver's licenses.
http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/Voter-ID-Talking-Points-for-web.pdf
Your conjecture about what's needed to survive in the modern world is simply contradicted by the data.
Yes you can.
Yes you can.
True. Lots of people don't drive, though. I know that's unthinkable for someone who lives outside a big city, but for urban Americans (and also, sometimes for students and the elderly), it's just not an issue.
Sure you can. I go to bars all the time without showing any ID. It would have been more difficult when I was in my 20s, but no longer.
Sure you can. I linked you to both the TSA and the NYT, confirming that.
True. But a large percentage of Americans don't travel internationally.
, you have to show one to identify yourself to a police officer if asked
No. If you don't have state-issued photo ID and a police officer asks to see it, just tell him you don't have it and offer to show him whatever you have in your wallet that might identify you (like a student ID, for example, or a Social Security card). There is no legal requirement that people have government issued photo ID.
Yes, you can. I linked you to evidence.
What planet are you on? I use my credit card all the time with no photo ID.
Apparently, the millions of Americans who get by without government-issued photo ID just don't have to go to those particular government buildings.
I'm not advocating the use of payday loan centers and the like. But many do, in fact, use them. Your assertion was simply wrong. Again.
I read my link. It said they'd work with those who don't have photo ID. And you don't need photo ID to open checking accounts:
http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,20,00.html
No. I offer verifiable facts, with links to back them up. You offer blind assertions, with no evidence backing them, then whimper and whine when your claims are disproved. Step up your game!
Nope. That's just your low IQ producing garbage summaries again. Try harder.