Posted on 09/30/2017 6:02:31 PM PDT by rogerantone1
The proposal from independent researcher John Lott that the integrity of the election process be protected by mandating a background check for all voters is invariably met with the same response: Are you joking?
Lott is not joking, as he made clear when The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham asked him that question Tuesday before Lott presented the proposal to President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission later that morning. Lott also assured the members of the commission that he was not joking when he presented the idea — after they asked if he was serious.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ping
Two word reply to the (inept and uneducated) WaPo jokesters: They’re scared.
Why shouldn’t we make sure only eligible citizens are voting?
We don’t even make sure Presidential candidates are eligible.
They had to create a slightly convoluted cost and labor hours required argument because they were told by the editors that their original argument (”if this passed all blacks would be immediately re-enslaved”) was getting rather threadbare.
I needed a background check to join the Navy, a few jobs I have held and to exercise my RIGHT to carry concealed, why not to vote.
OR
Why not just a card for everyone to vote?
People in general just got to damn dumb to take a literacy test.
“Are you joking?”
The Washington Post Nazis are just that - Nazis.
The only thing that keeps the WP Nazis alive are the thousands of subscriptions from the federal fascist bureaucracy.
If Trump signs an executive order that bureaucrats may not spend taxpayer dollars for Washington Post subscriptions, the Nazi Washington Post dies within six months.
Background check for gun purchases, right..?
So, yeah.
Seems fair.
I’ve heard libs propose TESTS for gov’t PERMISSION to conceive a child.
Hell, throw in a 10 day waiting period for democrats.
Somebody other than the person signing the form checks to see if that person is who he says he is? The red tape of bureaucracy will strangle us all!
Same-day voter registration would become significantly less likely.
Same-day registration fraud in New Hampshire in the 2016 election looks at first glance like 5000+ out of about 6000. (Politico.com and the Washington Compost would like you to believe that they are all college students.)
The second-most obvious effect of Lott’s proposal would be a reduction in voter rolls.
Because that pesky double-checking, which is the question at hand, might catch some fraud?
Another effect? A massive amount of bureaucracy. ... the NICS program costs $2.55 per check
Try to find somebody who's been a deficit hawk for more than five minutes who will wail that that's not a good deal for an honest election.
every two years, the FBI would need to spend 1,800 years of time making sure people could vote
"Let's assume that nobody will ever come up with any legal or technological changes to the background check procedure after it's mandated to be used more often and for more people."
He (John Lott) cites costs of $55 per background check in Oregon and $175 in Washington
Lott says that the cost can be $55-$175. Why is Washington charging $175? Do any states charge a dollar? The author doesn't wonder at all. It looks like Lott is citing those two states -- and mentions no others -- because they expensive outliers.
Let’s see what happens if we take the unserious Washington Post seriously. Nah, doesn’t work.
The WAPO was slipping and releasing employees rapidly when billionaire Jeff(Amazon) Bezos bought it. He doesn't seem to care how few subscriptions or advertisers it has as long as he can use it for propaganda. It is frustrating.
The fact that WaPo and LAT are responding to Dr Lott’s proposal: CHECKMATE.
Uuuhh. Speaking of literacy, where is "damn dumb"? Sounds crowded. Hehehe. d;^)
Back on topic and kidding aside, I'm all for NICS checks on voters. If one hasta go thru it to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, why does it seem so preposterous to use it for something equally important?
Can't say as I oppose other restrictions on who votes, either. The whole "voting themselves largesse" thing has gotten a bit outta hand. /intentional illiteracy
To discourage people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.