My experience in politics is that when electoral rules change, the party making the change sees an electoral advantage of some kind.

The Democrats lose the high road when they refuse to consider voter ID at the voting station. They know many of their supporters don't have driver's licenses. So while they claim ID will result in voter suppression, they don't want to lose THEIR votes. It's not hard to see that some of the poll closures in D districts are tit-for-tat politics.

We implemented voter ID in Canada about 20 years ago. It took about three federal/provincial cycles to work the bugs out and get voters used to bringing in their ID.

The ten or so states that mail out all ballots to all voters are setting themselves up for voter fraud. But the other states seem to have good rules in place for mail-in ballots.

And you are right in that electoral commissions are reluctant to overturn results. It is so hard to prove allegations and how much damage they could have caused. The commissions are more likely learn from experience and have better rules and processes the next time.

Keeping a voters' list 100% up-to-date is next to impossible. Rather we should be looking at a 95% accuracy. Blaming partisan interests is too easy.

My political experience in Canada was that the general elections were usually well run. In most federal and provincial constiuencies, the margins are wide enough that a little cheating won't change the outcome. And when we instituted voter ID, that cut out most of the cheating. But the parties manage their own internal elections with no outside oversight--and I have stories to tell. I suspect the R and D primaries are more corrupt than the general election.