# Whoever votes for both of these should not be allowed to vote again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 5, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620 "2014-09-05T23:33:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/1 "2014-09-05T23:33:14Z")
[http://www.king5.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/18/14029370/](http://www.king5.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/18/14029370/) SEATTLE - A new poll shows strong support among Washington voters for a ballot initiative that would require background checks on all firearm sales in the state. The Elway Poll found that 70 percent of people were inclined to vote for Initiative 594. The same poll showed that 46 percent of people were inclined to vote for a competing measure, Initiative 591, which would prevent Washington state from adopting background-check laws stricter than the national standard. **Thirty-two percent of respondents said they were inclined to vote for both initiatives in November.** Morons. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/2 "2014-09-05T23:40:33Z")
I don’t understand your problem. People who vote for both are saying that they want background checks, but they don’t want the background check requirements to be stricter than the national average. That seems like a reasonable position to me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/3 "2014-09-05T23:47:05Z")
THe first one is stricter than national requirements. It’s a universal background check. Federal law does not require universal background checks. If the second initiative passes, the first one is void, even if the first one gets more votes. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/4 "2014-09-05T23:49:14Z")
Hedge your bets ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/5 "2014-09-06T00:05:31Z")
I just want to reward all those nice young people who stand in grocery store parking lots and ask me to sign things for all their hard work. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/6 "2014-09-06T00:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Both ballot measures began as initiatives to the Legislature. The House and Senate held public hearings on both earlier this year but did not advance them out of committees, meaning voters will decide the issues in the fall. I think I see the problem here … the Legislature didn’t do their job. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/7 "2014-09-06T00:27:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > THe first one is stricter than national requirements. It’s a universal background check. Federal law does not require universal background checks. If the second initiative passes, the first one is void, even if the first one gets more votes. :dubious: How does \*that \*work? I thought if 2 (or more) contradictory initiatives were passed on the same ballot whichever had the higher yes vote prevailed. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/8 "2014-09-06T01:06:58Z")
I’m wondering about the language of these initiatives. Sometimes people know what side they’re on but are confused about which way they’re voting. Something like: _This initiative would prohibit the abolition of any amendment which would ban the overturning of any law establishing a restriction on gun control which is less than the national standard. Yes or no?_ ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/9 "2014-09-06T04:38:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m wondering about the language of these initiatives. Sometimes people know what side they’re on but are confused about which way they’re voting. > > Something like: _This initiative would prohibit the abolition of any amendment which would ban the overturning of any law establishing a restriction on **gun** control which is less than the national standard. Yes or no?_ [marked up by septimus] I’d need to diagram that sentence carefully to be sure, but since there are seven (an odd number) of negatives surrounding the key word **gun** , I’ll guess it’s anti-gun. I’d guess most voters have trouble even with two negatives. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/10 "2014-09-06T08:06:19Z")
So, Washington State also has an initiative process that’s made worse than useless by cynical manipulation from moneyed interests? Huh. I thought that was just a California thing. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/11 "2014-09-06T12:02:58Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > So, Washington State also has an initiative process that’s made worse than useless by cynical manipulation from moneyed interests? Huh. I thought that was just a California thing. That’s how we got liquor privatization, with an initiative largely written (and underwritten) by Costco. At first the Usual Suspects flocked to it, drawn by visions of more widely available — and cheaper — booze (with the added bonus that it would throw a bunch of useless gummint employees out of work). After it passed, they found that not only was it written to favor large outlets such as you-know-who over mom&pop stores, but also that the specified taxes and fees made liquor _more_ expensive in many cases. All of which was obvious to anyone who actually read the thing. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth (not to mention railing against the state government that hadn’t wanted it in the first place) ensued. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/12 "2014-09-06T12:43:33Z")
> [@OttoDaFe](#): > > That’s how we got liquor privatization, with an initiative largely written (and underwritten) by Costco. > > At first the Usual Suspects flocked to it, drawn by visions of more widely available — and cheaper — booze (with the added bonus that it would throw a bunch of useless gummint employees out of work). After it passed, they found that not only was it written to favor large outlets such as you-know-who over mom&pop stores, but also that the specified taxes and fees made liquor _more_ expensive in many cases. All of which was obvious to anyone who actually read the thing. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth (not to mention railing against the state government that hadn’t wanted it in the first place) ensued. Not to derail the thread, but: public liquor? Really? Has that state left 1940 yet? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/13 "2014-09-06T12:48:01Z")
So this is the new, angrier **adaher** we’re seeing, full of righteous bile and cranking out Pit threads for the petite outrage of the day? Not getting enough satisfaction from your election thread prognostications? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/14 "2014-09-06T15:02:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not to derail the thread, but: public liquor? Really? Has that state left 1940 yet? 17 states still oversee sales of liquor. An eighteenth, Maryland, has county-run liquor stores in three counties; the rest are private sector. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/15 "2014-09-06T16:51:23Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > So, Washington State also has an initiative process that’s made worse than useless by cynical manipulation from moneyed interests? Huh. I thought that was just a California thing. Again, it’s the Legislature that’s useless … if they’d do their job and not make the People rise up and get initiatives on the ballot, then we won’t have as many screw-ball laws. We all know moneyed interests have no sway over the State Legislators. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/16 "2014-09-06T18:27:41Z")
Back on topic (and apologies for the digression): despite **adaher** ’s indignation, I’m seriously considering voting for both. For one thing, I think injecting a bit of chaos into the system from time to time is not a bad idea; for another, I consider the whole controversy moot. If 594 passes, the NRA will be all over it like white on rice, and it will be declared unconstitutional before it has a chance to take effect. Their lawyers are very good at that kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/17 "2014-09-06T20:09:12Z")
As I understand it, the Washington State constitution has a provision for [contradictory initiatives](http://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Washington_State_Constitution): > [@](#): > > When conflicting measures are submitted to the people the ballots shall be so printed that a voter can express separately by making one cross (X) for each, two preferences, first, as between either measure and neither, and secondly, as between one and the other. If the majority of those voting on the first issue is for neither, both fail, but in that case the votes on the second issue shall nevertheless be carefully counted and made public. If a majority voting on the first issue is for either, then the measure receiving a majority of the votes on the second issue shall be law. Are these measures not considered contradictory by the state? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/18 "2014-09-06T22:46:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > THe first one is stricter than national requirements. It’s a universal background check. Federal law does not require universal background checks. If the second initiative passes, the first one is void, even if the first one gets more votes. Huh?? “Strictness” is a measure of the requirements to meet _each individual_ background check, orthogonal to the question of _whether or not_ a check is to be performed in any given case. You might argue that this isn’t the intent of the latter, but as a legitimate interpretation that preserves a meaningful application to both (if both are adopted), it’s what would result from a court challenge asserting incompatibility. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/19 "2014-09-07T02:10:48Z")
But isn’t even a _pro forma_ background check, by definition more strict than “no background check at all?” Or is that sophistry on the level of _calling-your-recipe-“no-sugar-added”-as-long-as-the-sugar-is-the-first-thing-in-the-bowl-so-it’s-everything-else-that’s-added_? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620/20 "2014-09-07T03:47:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not to derail the thread, but: public liquor? Really? Has that state left 1940 yet? Pennsylvania is worse. Wine & spirits are sold in state-run stores; beer sales are privatized, but even more bizarrely regulated. For example supermarkets can now get permission to sell beer, but are legally required to allow consumption on site. Also you can’t buy more than 2 six packs at a time, unless you walk outside & then back in again. > [@Frank](#): > > As I understand it, the Washington State constitution has a provision for [contradictory initiatives](http://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Washington_State_Constitution): > > Are these measures not considered contradictory by the state? 😕 I’m usually good at legalese, but I still don’t understand what you quoted. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoever-votes-for-both-of-these-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote-again/697620.md?page=2)