And at some point can we agree that maybe SOME effort is not unreasonable for a voter to exercise a franchise? We are almost at the point where voting is so easy that real dead people could probably accomplish it.

You're thinking that voting should be at least a little work so that people are selected for minimal motivation, and that's reasonable. But you also know, surely, that a means-test like a poll tax is a poor way to ensure motivation--it's a nonlinear filter that imposes almost no barrier to those with plenty of money, and an inordinate barrier to those with little of it. You end up with disengaged and ill-informed suburbanites voting on a whim or whatever the last ad shouted at them, while lower-income people who might care enought to have studied the issues don't vote.

Oh, wait, I just realized: That's the formula for a Republican victory. Silly me, what was I thinking? I understand your point of view completely!

This isn't the only example. Democrats have historically been against ANY form of anti-fraud.

No (but I understand you needed a partisan slam to stay in the game), it's just that the Republicans and Democrats historically have favored different dodges to give their constituencies more power. Democrats want minimal economic and systemic barriers to voting because their base is disproportionately low-income; and of course, since it works against you, Republicans have denounced the practice as shady. Republicans, on the other hand, have tended to favor influencing centers of power, using gerrymandering when they have legislative majorities (e.g. Texas outrageously), playing games with voter registrations lists when they have executive power (e.g. Florida under Jebbie). And, of course, by owning the companies that make voting machines...talk about a center of power! ;-)