[kenesom1]

In 2013, the supreme court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016. [...] This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act." [0]

For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.

In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]

[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-...

[1] http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-...

[james-watson]

I can't go to a bar or buy alcohol/tobacco without showing ID.

Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?

[kenesom1]

The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non-existent [0].

[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-i...

[james-watson]

In what meta-logical wonderland is requiring ID equivalent to a poll tax?

[kenesom1]

There are fees involved in getting a photo ID.

[zimpenfish]

And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.