You have repeatedly made the same ridiculous arguement. It has no basis in reality, like pretty much all your other arguements. The guy went as far as he could before commiting a crime. There was nothing stopping him from committing that crime, thus he proved it COULD be done. your attempts at muddle the issue are fooling no one but yourself.No, it didn't, since no vote was cast.
Additionally, the imposter chickened out and did not provide the required signature (which would or could have been used by the poll worker to verify his claim to be who he said he was).
You see, once again, you don't know how the system works and you wind up being confused about what is happening. Watching right wing 'sting' videos and thinking that they are telling you the full story will cause that.
No that is not what the thread is about please try to reread the OP then try reading it again. Ok now go get your mother to explain to you what the thread is about. Cause lets face it you haven't been able to figure it out for yourself. Just because YOU want it to be about the GOP plan that does not make it so. Come out of fantasy land if you are able to. Again even if this thread was solely about the GOP plan (IT IS NOT) why would offering a third option make me ignorant? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
when 2 people are arguing [...]
While you may be arguing, you're not arguing about the topic at hand -- which is, GOP efforts to implement a widespread requirement for state-issued photo ID be presented when trying to vote (see, since the term "photo voter ID" confused you, I have simplified it for you)... even if your identity and eligibility have already been determined, often by other methods, when registering to vote (and since I have to cover all the bases for those that refuse to inform themselves prior to trying to 'argue', in general terms you have to be registered in order to vote).
That is what the GOP is trying to do, and that is why O'Keefe is running around making juvenile videos to support their efforts, which is why we have threads like this.
So while I HAVE been arguing the topic at hand you have been going off on wild semantic contortions.
Can't wait to see how you pick and choose which part of my post you will once again completely misunderstand.