So one shouldn't have to present ID to buy a handgun either, right? I disagree. One should have to present ID to do either .
Actually, you're comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about the balancing.
My understanding of your argument is that State issued ID prevents voter fraud. My comment is that any such ID must not present a significant barrier and thus in practice exclude or preclude valid voters.
So, I've presented my balancing argument, and you cross argue gun laws.
However, let me take YOUR side of the voter ID argument.
First, that State-issued ID's are necessary stop in-person voter fraud.
In order to have in person voter fraud, (a) the person must know that the person they are pretending to be is not going to show up; (b) that they are at least of the same sex and known build as the non-present voter; (c) that they are able to forge a close enough signature to the voter rolls of the non-present voter; and (d) that none of the poll workers, who are generally from the same neighborhood, know the person who is supposed to be voting.
Only under these conditions can a State-issued ID prevent the in-person voter fraud.
Second, that the State-issued ID's are necessary to stop mail-in ballot voter fraud.
In order to prevent voter fraud on mail-in ballots, you must be able to (a) obtain the voter's ballot envelope with its identifying registration/voter-roll information; (b) forge a close enough signature of the voter rolls; and (c) know that the voter won't object or protest the missing ballot.
However, a State-issued ID will still not prevent this type of fraud, since there is no election official looking at the ID. So, in order to force them to present the ID, you must stop all mail-in ballots and drive everyone back into the polling stations. This includes all enlisted/military men, all people on vacation or travelling, all people hospitalized during Election Day, all students away at school, and all people for whatever reason are unable to travel to the polling places.
Lastly, let us not forget several things. If you reasonably presume that there is in-person voter fraud that makes it all the way through the process, then you also have to presume that it is being done by both parties. Therefore, statistically, the net gain/loss is the difference multiplied by the % of voter population of each party. And that has to be great than the margin of votes for the winning candidate.
On the scales, the amount of improvement the State-issued ID provides does not outweigh the damage done.
Further, we've done nothing to examine the qualifications and integrity of such a State-issued ID, or identity theft, or the ability to obtain false ID's, all of which makes questionable the ability of the State-issued ID to serve the function purported... to stop voter-fraud.
Aside from all of that, the basic premise of your hypothetical assumes that our voting system lacks integrity. An assumption that lacks credence or credible evidence sufficient to even change a local election for dog-catcher.