[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

[David A. Schultz]

The evidence versus belief issue is important and this is what perplexes
me too. Much of the voter fraud debate I think is about Weltanschauungs
and ideology and less about what social science evidence tells us.  In
general policy makers and the political process is not very good at
digesting social science evidence and in fact there is often a big gap
between what counts as (social) scientific knowledge and political
knowledge.  In terms of discussing this issue as it speaks to voter
fraud I examine this issue in my forthcoming “Is Voter Fraud Like
Littering?: Empirical and Methodological Considerations,” American
Review of Politics, (Fall-Winter 2012-13).  More generally, I examine
the gap between empirical and political knowledge in a forthcoming book
AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE AGE OF IGNORANCE.



David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors
>>> "Jim Gardner"  07/20/12 2:09 PM >>>
The lack of evidence to support charges of vote fraud raises a more
interesting and profound question: Why do people continue to believe in
it?  The answer, it seems to me, has nothing to do with evidence – so
arguing about the evidence is probably a waste of time – and a lot to do
with culture, specifically the culture of contemporary politics.  
 
I think the problem here is that many on the right have managed to
convince themselves that it is impossible – literally impossible – for
people in any kind of numbers to support liberal policies.  Since people
can’t possibly support such policies, they can’t possibly vote for
liberal candidates.  Consequently, if liberal candidates win, it can
only be the result of fraud because nobody could actually vote for such
people.  
 
This problem is cultural.  It reveals a very sad fact about our current
politics, namely that the views, beliefs, and experiences of other human
beings are so completely dismissed and devalued in some quarters that
many find it impossible to take seriously the possibility that their
fellow citizens could actually hold certain views (much less actually
take those views seriously or engage with them on the merits).
 
I hasten to add that the political valence does not always run in the
same direction.  For example, the “What’s the Matter with Kansas”
analysis holds that working class voters couldn’t possibly support
candidates who support policies that disadvantage them economically,
although proponents of this view explain it by brainwashing rather than
vote fraud.  But this explanation doesn’t take seriously the possibility
that social and symbolically resonant issues could actually be more
important than economic ones to some segments of the population.
 
Until we start taking each other seriously as political agents, we’re
not going to extract ourselves from the current impasse.
 
Jim
 
________________________________
James A. Gardner
Joseph W. Belluck and Laura L. Aswad
  SUNY Distinguished Professor of Civil Justice
SUNY Buffalo Law School
The State University of New York
Room 316, O'Brian Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
voice: 716-645-3607
fax: 716-645-5968
e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu
www.law.buffalo.edu
Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/751cd2ee/attachment.html>