Background Check to Vote?

[Thor]

Economist Calls for Adapting Gun Background Checks to Prevent Voter Fraud

I am interested to hear the arguments/justification about how this will suppress voter turnout but isn't a hindrance to gun ownership...or how these rights are fundamentally different.

 

[HoughMade]

If one is going to take the position that a historically accurate reading of the Second Amendment, original intent, means there are to be absolutely no restrictions on firearms ownership or carrying, how this be supported?

If one believes that there is something somewhere that makes constitutional that allows felons are barred from gun ownership, why not background checks for voting? assuming you are in a jurisdiction where felon status restricts the right to vote.

 

[T.Lex]

After 2016, I am open to the argument of background checks for voting. Particularly in the primaries.

 

[HoughMade]

After 2016, I am open to the argument of background checks for voting. Particularly in the primaries.

You said "background checks". I think you meant I.Q. tests. Amiright?

 

[T.Lex]

You said "background checks". I think you meant I.Q. tests. Amiright?

Tomato, tomato.

 

[churchmouse]

You said "background checks". I think you meant I.Q. tests. Amiright?

Well, would that fix stupid or just expose it.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, would that fix stupid or just expose it.

Assuming a truly accurate measurement of intelligence (as opposed to education), which is a big ask.....don't care. At least stupid couldn't vote.

I'll even throw in the caveat that those who don't qualify by the test can alternatively qualify by showing a Soc. Sec. statement that indicates employment meeting or exceeding 50% of the time since their 18th birthday by them or their spouse.

It's a pretty low bar, and empowers the stripper and bikini barista voting block, but hey, I'm magnanimous.

 

[Thor]

Or show that you are a net tax payer not making a profit off the tax code. No more voting for free stuff as those paying would be doing the voting.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Or show that you are a net tax payer not making a profit off the tax code. No more voting for free stuff as those paying would be doing the voting.

I recall that suggestion from Neil Boortz. You had to show you were PAYING taxes, not taking more in credits than you pay out.

He used the dinner guest analogy. Lets say you are treating 5 people to dinner. Who gets to say where you go? Should you, the one paying the bill have the choice, or should those 5 be able to say "Uncle Thor, we know you suggested Outback, but we really like a good steak. So we say you are taking us to Ruth's Chris instead. And we took a vote, and its 5 to 1 so if you want a choice, your choice is which RC location to take us to."

Why should those with no skin in the game be driving things? I think this is far different than the rule of old saying only those who owned property could vote. Thats not fair. If you are paying taxes you should get a vote, not necessarily if you arent.

Now I dont necessarily agree with his idea that the more taxes you pay the more votes you get.

But given the above, I dont think our current system is all that bad. The only thing I would prefer is the finger in the ink trick. absolutely elimiate bussing voters around committing fraud.

 

[jamil]

If one is going to take the position that a historically accurate reading of the Second Amendment, original intent, means there are to be absolutely no restrictions on firearms ownership or carrying, how this be supported?

If one believes that there is something somewhere that makes constitutional that allows felons are barred from gun ownership, why not background checks for voting? assuming you are in a jurisdiction where felon status restricts the right to vote.

It seems there'd be at least more direct support for background checks for voting. The constitution does specify who may vote. It's reasonable then to pass laws to enforce that. Are you really 18? Are you really a citizen? I could see a type of background check for that. Not that I want that. Possibly people should be careful about suggesting crazy legislation to show how crazy other legislation is. What if we actually got that?

 

[Denny347]

Kind of off-topic but I always LOVE the "proof of citizenship" part. How does one prove that when asked? Um, the NCIC check does not PROVE citizenship OR age. Only that you are not a felon, on the terrorist watch list, or previously deported (or something like that). What are the stats for verified voter fraud, felons voting, under 18 voting, illegals voting. With such a dismal voter turnout, I don't see a lot of kids lying to vote, nor felons giving a crap enough (although the thought of felons voting doesn't really bother me if they cared enough to WANT to vote)? I've heard the fear of illegals voting but I haven't seen any verified numbers.

 

[MCgrease08]

Kind of off-topic but I always LOVE the "proof of citizenship" part. How does one prove that when asked? Um, the NCIC check does not PROVE citizenship OR age. Only that you are not a felon, on the terrorist watch list, or previously deported (or something like that). What are the stats for verified voter fraud, felons voting, under 18 voting, illegals voting. With such a dismal voter turnout, I don't see a lot of kids lying to vote, nor felons giving a crap enough (although the thought of felons voting doesn't really bother me if they cared enough to WANT to vote)? I've heard the fear of illegals voting but I haven't seen any verified numbers.

College Park to allow non-US citizens the right to vote in local elections - Story | WTTG

 

[Denny347]

College Park to allow non-US citizens the right to vote in local elections - Story | WTTG

I saw that, interesting. We'll see how this plays out. I have the feeling that much of the "voter fraud" that prompted Trump to form a commission to investigate it, is mostly hype. I think the FEAR of fraud is greater than the actual fraud that is happening.

 

[MCgrease08]

I saw that, interesting. We'll see how this plays out. I have the feeling that much of the "voter fraud" that prompted Trump to form a commission to investigate it, is mostly hype. I think the FEAR of fraud is greater than the actual fraud that is happening.

On this I agree. In person voter fraud is very rare.

 

[ChrisK]

I feel that every citizen has a right to 1 vote. That being said, I see nothing wrong with a tax payer on the + side get a additional vote. I pay Income, Sales, Property and Taxes on fuel to the amount of over $50,000 per year. Should I have more of a say than a person that just takes from the coffers? I think so...

 

[Cameramonkey]

I saw that, interesting. We'll see how this plays out. I have the feeling that [STRIKE]much of the "voter fraud" that prompted Trump to form[/STRIKE] all commissions to investigate [STRIKE]it[/STRIKE] anything, is mostly hype and never results in any real change or punishment. I think the FEAR of fraud is greater than the actual fraud that is happening.

FIFY

Congressional investigations, testimonies, etc are just a dog and pony show. I cant remember the last time an investigation ended up actually punishing wrongdoers even with overwhelming evidence. Thanks partisan hacks. Every single one seems to result in nothing but the offender(s) being forced to sit uncomfortably in front of the committee for a day or two.

I'd love to be able to get out of real punishment and get scolded by a judge and jury for 12 hours in lieu of jail time/fines/etc like the likes of Hillary, etc.

 

[2A_Tom]

I recall that suggestion from Neil Boortz. You had to show you were PAYING taxes, not taking more in credits than you pay out.

He used the dinner guest analogy. Lets say you are treating 5 people to dinner. Who gets to say where you go? Should you, the one paying the bill have the choice, or should those 5 be able to say "Uncle Thor, we know you suggested Outback, but we really like a good steak. So we say you are taking us to Ruth's Chris instead. And we took a vote, and its 5 to 1 so if you want a choice, your choice is which RC location to take us to."

Why should those with no skin in the game be driving things? I think this is far different than the rule of old saying only those who owned property could vote. Thats not fair. If you are paying taxes you should get a vote, not necessarily if you arent.

Now I dont necessarily agree with his idea that the more taxes you pay the more votes you get.

But given the above, I dont think our current system is all that bad. The only thing I would prefer is the finger in the ink trick. absolutely elimiate bussing voters around committing fraud.

Heeeey... I just posted that in the articles comments and I didn't steal it fron you. Great minds think alike.

 

[HoughMade]

On this I agree. In person voter fraud is very rare.

How do we know? Because it is seldom investigated and seldom prosecuted?

 

[MCgrease08]

How do we know? Because it is seldom investigated and seldom prosecuted?

Fair point. But what is reported and investigated show the occurances amount to a statistical zero.

Number of voter fraud cases (link is external) since 2000: 44 cases out of 1 billion votes cast
(8 of which involve more than one ballot affected)

Rate of voter fraud: 0.0000044%

Number of states with active voter ID laws: 32

Number of laws passed to tighten voting laws (link is external) since 2001: Over 1,000

2012 voter turnout: 129,085,403

Approximate number of 2012 voter fraud (link is external) cases: 4

By the Numbers: Voter Fraud | Washington Week

 

[Thor]

Seemed pretty prevalent and unprosecuted when I was in WI a decade ago. The lefty press would laughingly write up stories about it because they knew it wasn't going anywhere.