many places use simple ink-on-finger from fingerprinting the voter. I believe they're more common in less-developed places. Other places simply accept non-photo id. In Canada most people just present their voter card, which is mailed to them - it doesn't have a photo on it. However even without the voter card, other non-photo id options are acceptable.

For those who insist on it, why is photo-id neccessary? Why is the photo-id level of assurance the bar that needs to be crossed? Any system can be cheated, but some are simply good-enough, and they balance the drawbacks of higher-security systems.

I don't have the same kind of lock on my front door as the bank does to their vault. The lock on my front door isn't perfect, but it's good enough for the threats it's likely to face, and avoids the drawbacks that having a bank-vault lock on my front door would.

I'm also genuinely curious why the people who insist on photo-id for voting believe the threat of voter fraud is high or likely enough to warrant that level of assurance compared to a slightly simpler system without the photo. Do you really live in a place where you'd expect enough voter fraud for it to have a material impact on how your democracy functions?