The social security number -- or other unique numerical identifier provided by government -- is more than adequate for identification of an absentee voter, here in Virginia or overseas. 

As a parent, I have facilitated the absentee voting of my college age children in VIrginia for 9 years.  As an election volunteer, I have worked side by side with many of the other commentators with more experience in absentee balloting and partisan monitoring of elections, both on election day and during the caucus. Currently I work as a bipartisan volunteer, each election day. obtaining answers to voters' questions on election procedures, and helping voters to fill out provisional ballots. 

With respect to place name identifiers, I note that Fairfax County refers to my street as an "RD" -- if I fail to capitalize these letters, or fail to remember not to type in either "ROAD" or "Road" or even "road" my search for the comparative real property assessments of my neighbors fails. Even if I did not include the type of street, my search fails for there is another street with the same name, but ending in "Court" or "CT". 

Also, within my family, I note that there is a disagreement about who should or should not use the numerical numbers after their names -- my father voted in my precinct for two years. Some in our family argued that he was a IV, and his great nephew a VI?  Some say he was a III.  And does it matter that the spelling of his name changed over just 100 years -- some spelled "Mac" and others "Mc".  I am thankful that he did not choose to add a numerical suffix to his name when voting absentee from his assisted living. 

Also, had he chosen to use his professional title, "Dr.", to distinguish him from others in his teaching profession who did not hold this degree, would he have been held to that usage as well when voting? After he moved to Virginia, away from his university home town, he chose not use "Dr" because he could be confused with others who hold medical degrees. Other professions, like law, use different forms of address with each other than they expect outside of their professional sphere, for example, when voting. However, some acquire these prefixes during government service, and do not lose these names when leaving the position for which the title was conferred. Should everyone who has ever been required to use the prefix "The Honorable" be expected to use this when voting? That would be a long list, indeed. 

Perhaps it would be interesting to compare voting requirements in other countries where the right to vote arose, and may still arise from inherited political rank and land ownership, matters of heritage and lineage respectively.  Although my relatives arrived from 1639 to 2008, I believe that the even the most recent arrivals, some of whom are still earning their right to vote, may be just as offended as I am by requirements to vote that relate to land rights and lineage.  Blood and tea were spilled to avoid these limitations on full participation in one's governance.     

There is no dispute that lines need to be drawn, and that these standards need to be fully and frequently communicated to election officials, candidates, and even volunteers like me and all of the others who have commented.  However, our responsiiblities to vote, and our volunteer opportunities to assist others in voting, need to be facilitated by regulation, not made more difficult by unnecessary and ambiguous standards of voter identification that relate to the past and not the present.   

On election day, imagine explaining to someone who is trying to vote that they don't know the name of the street on which they live -- lived, or will be living -- correct me if I am wrong but I recall that all three are accceptable addresses if their is a valid contract.   And I do not want to be the one to tell a voter and namesake of any age that they should change their name because it is confusing to the election board, particularly after the loss of a loved one, or the birth or even death of a child.   

Please recall the naming customs of our forebears, in this country and others, for centuries, who often used the same names more than once for children in the same family -- often names were used multiple times to show kinship with fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, uncles, etc. [male references are used to reflect the time before universal suffrage].  This was also a time when children died young, and parents who survived, would marry a relative. Cousins named for the same grandfather would become step-siblings. Even in our own times, an uncle/aunt could be younger than a nephew/niece with the same name, and living in the same household. When does the nickname "Jr." become part of a legal name, and not an "inside" joke? A sartastic retort along the lines of "Buddy Three-sticks".  

I am not speaking to the naming traditions of cultures, other than my own, but there may be even better examples of how generations may be confused, and the same person may be asked to vote more than once, or denied the right to vote, because of similar names and/or similar addresses.  The correct response is not for the election  board to ask the voters to change their names, or their addresses, but for the election board to rely on a different identifier, one supplied by government, and not the family or individual.

In summary, the electoral process needs constant attention in response to societal changes, but the board is not using technology to its full advantage in addressing the problem identified -- voter identification. Our governments already provide the technology necesary to align voters with their addresses and their voting records -- we do not need additional voter details related to historically defeated principles of lineage andheritage to ensure the validity of the vote in the 21st century. 

I would prefer that the time of the board be spent in other matters -- it took two years for one of my adult children to be removed from the roles after leaving Virginia and registering in another state. It took another two years for me to remove a fictitious name from the AB list -- a name that was a combination of a family name, and a surname of the adult male in the household.  I am often required to respond to this name, and could have changed my legal name to this one, without any challlenge from anyone including the courts, that I was doing so with any fraudulent intent.    

When invited to file an absentee ballot in this name, however, I called the election board to ensure that there had been no confusion with another person by the same name who actually did live in the County, a fact that I quickly determined with the internet.  However, this fictitious person lived on (at my address) in political databases. Because she did not have a voting record, or an email address, I received a lot of phone calls.  What was at first amusing became a matter of concern because of the actions of the board. I could still vote under my legal name, but would the real person have been denied the right to vote because she had the "wrong " address -- or would the SSN be used to determine who should vote where.  How long would it have taken -- two years? Would we each have been allowed to vote during this time period?

The SSN -- or other unique, numerical government identfier -- is necessary, and more importantly, it is sufficient.