It is a big deal in the US because the US has never had strong identity document requirements for nearly anything until relatively recently, and has been adopting such requirements piecemeal often without doing anything to help people obtain strong identity documents.

There are around 2-3 million adult citizens here without any government issued photo ID, and around 30 more million have government issued photo ID that is expired or does not have their correct name or address.

As more things have started to require current government issued photo ID the requirements to get such ID have been tightened. You typically need a certified copy of your birth certificate, but getting a certified copy of a birth certificate typically requires having a current government issued photo ID.

There are alternate ways to prove identity that rely on other documents and/or getting people with ID to swear that they know you and know you were born here and are who you say you are which can be used to get the certified birth certificate.

Those other documents are often hard to track down, for example some states accept school records as supporting evidence but often those records are not centralized, so you have to go the school district for them. All in all it can take significant time and money to gather all the documents needed, which is a serious problem for many of those without ID.

In the specific case of voting there are around 20 million voting-age citizens without current government issued photo ID and who would have trouble getting such ID.

If we decide we need to switch to checking government issued photo ID at the polls, as opposed to the current system where checks are done when you first register and accept secondary means of proof, the right way to do it is to first make it so those millions of citizens who would have serious trouble getting such an ID are able to actually get ID without hardship.

Only after that is done, so the switch will not disenfranchise tens of millions, start requiring such ID at the polls. Voter fraud under the current system in the US is negligible, so there is no need to rush this.

The current push by one party to try to rush it is because a majority of the people who would be disenfranchised are people who tend to favor the other party. That's why it is controversial.

I went to university in the US and all exams were proctored. I'm pretty sure that's the case for the majority of universities, this is the first I've heard of non proctored exam

Come really, really far south (to Australia) and you’ll find we don’t require voter ID.

Frankly it’s easy to dunk on the U.S. for a lot of things and it’s very short term gratifying to do so but don’t let yourself fall in to the trap of assuming your ‘little procedural important thing’ is universally accepted and it’s just those silly Americans who don’t get it.

The only possible reason for a school like Princeton that is drowning in cash to not proctor exams is to allow students to cheat.

Also: admissions at all these schools are heavily biased toward wealthy legacy hires, regardless of talent, and the "most determined" are the most likely to cheat.

What's next, claiming the wealthy don't steal?

"Presumably" doing a lot of heavy lifting.

“Nepo babies don’t cheat” seems like a contradictory philosophy

>Nearly 40% of Stanford undergraduates claim they’re disabled. I’m one of them

https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-st...

https://archive.ph/RPegw