Its a strange argument twisted with politics.
I agree that the argument here has become terribly twisted with politics. There's a clear choice here between requiring ID, and thereby deterring a huge number of voters, and not requiring it, and thereby allowing a small number of ineligible votes to slip through. Between the two, one skews the election massively more than the other. So, obviously, reasonable people will prefer not to require ID. But that simple exercise in reason has gotten twisted by the strange partisan obsessions of people on the right.
yet you are saying a voter ID would prevent more Democrats from getting to the booth?
A voter ID requirement is likely to disproportionately deter Democrats from voting. This isn't because Democrats are uninformed. It's simply because the demographic niches most likely not to have qualifying ID are demographic niches that tend to favor the Democrats -- including young people and urban dwellers. That is the whole reason Republicans back voter ID. If the demographics were reversed, they'd oppose it.
A simple way to think about this in a way that puts the political shoe on the other foot is to think about absentee ballots -- which are, after all, a vastly more practical way to try to steal an election (since a fraudster can send out thousands of them anonymously, with no chance of getting caught, as opposed to having to go from precinct to precinct making a few votes in person, at extremely high risk of apprehension, for in-person fraud). What if I were to propose a rule that said that all absentee ballots must be duly notarized in over to be valid? This would be a relatively small expense, but it would be a meaningful inconvenience. And so it would depress voter turnout among absentees. And it would be particularly likely to depress turnout among military personnel serving abroad, where it could be more difficult to line up a notary than simply having it signed by a witness. This reform would skew the game a little bit in favor of the Democrats, by reducing the absentee balloting that typically goes for the Republicans. Thus, of course, the Republicans aren't pushing for this reform, even though it would address a far more practical form of fraud than in-person fraudulent voting. This isn't about addressing fraud. It's about trying to alter the demographics of the voters in a way that favors a particular party. That's why patriotic Americans oppose it.
I don't care who votes or who doesn't or whether they are Democrats or Republicans, lets get the voter id implemented.
Why? You're talking about a significant taxpayer expense, a significant inconvenience for many citizens, and a significant negative factor in voter turnout, all to address a problem that appears so rare that the chances of it EVER changing an election result are near zero. It would be profoundly un-conservative to implement such a sweeping and problematic change for no good reason.