That is the left-wing position. There's nothing inherently wrong with IDs, but having to pay for them is really just a convoluted form of poll taxing, which is illegal, especially considering that many poor people have no other reason to own an ID. And if you believe all people should own IDs, then why not make them free?

I've never heard a lefty say they're fundamentally against identification at voting stations, maybe some 15-year-olds on Tumblr are, but I don't base my views on what some kid says online. What the left actually says is that mandating IDs while IDs cost money inherently ties voting access (ease) to economic status.
Which is precisely why poll taxes were made illegal.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx Not exactly, but every state has different laws about what you need to bring with you, so the procedure is very complicated in some states and quite easy in others.

Well, they need i.d. to buy alcohol, why not use that?

IQ test

No, the solution is to accept any form of ID and not inflate the prices. I mean comeon, an ID should not be more than 5$, it's just piece of plastic. If you don't care enough to have an ID maybe you shouldn't cast your stupid vote.

That is correct yes, and that is exactly what the entirety of the left is saying. Except Republicans refuse to do that because then (mostly black,) poor people could vote more easily. So instead just keep increasing the "voter fraud" regulation.

Sidenote: voter fraud is actually a massive non-issue. Because a singular vote or even a few hundred votes are worth ***-all in American Politics, yet the punishment is extreme. Every research into it just comes back with insanely low numbers:

- In 2014, a study found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast.

- Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012.

- Another found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent.

And all of these were done before Republicans pretended it was an issue so they could stop black people from voting.

What? This is barely even a response to what I said. You're immediately shifting the goalposts.

Your argument is like saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer because you can get cancer without smoking and you can smoke without getting cancer.
We're talking about increased chances across millions of people, not the vaccine guaranteeing safety for all and not being vaccinated guaranteeing immense Covid suffering.

But okay, I'll explain:
1. I already have a decreased chance of getting Covid so starting off with both of us being sick is already a biased question.
2. The vaccine's primary strength is not necessarily reducing your chance to "have" the virus, but it's symptoms, so I have a massively reduced chance of sneezing at you, even if we both have the virus.
3. The vaccine also increases the speed at which you fight of the virus. So maybe some unvaxxed guy and I both have it, but we don't see you until next week. Statistically speaking, I'm more likely to have already overcome the virus, so when I sneeze on you, you won't get Covid.

So yes, technically, if both of us have Covid (which I have a smaller chance of getting), and both of us are equally symptomatic at that exact moment (even though I am less likely to get equally severe symptoms and my illness will be shorter), and both of sneeze at you, you are AFAIK equally likely to get infected.

That does not change that outside of your made-up examples which includes a lot of assumptions and conditions, a.k.a. in the real world, vaccinated people are far less likely to infect people than unvaccinated people.