[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

Fri Jul 20 22:58:02 PDT 2012

I have to wonder if Mr Adler actually knows any conservatives, Mark. Based on his description of what he thinks conservatives believe, I suspect he doesn't. I know LOTS of conservatives, and I've not met a single one who thinks ACORN stole the 2008 election. Most of us do believe ACORN committed fraud, because they did. The facts bear that out. But I don't know a single conservative who thinks the fraud was on a great enough scale to steal the election. None. And, as I said, I know lots of conservatives.

Mr Adler accuses conservatives of ignorance but he has actually revealed his own ignorance, bitterness, and hatred with his post. It's sad.

On Jul 20, 2012, at 5:38 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:

> Those of you who are no too nauseated to engage in further discourse might note that the poll was done by a Democratic pollster and that the poll itself is not available via the link that Mr. Adler was kind enough to provide; the link to the actual poll seems to be broken. You might also note the civil tone of the comments at the Talking Points Memo webpage, with characterizations of Republicans as crazy racist idiots, along with the obligatory references to Hitler and the Nazis. What kinds of numbers might a partisan poll come up with for Democrats believing 9-11 conspiracy theories, or believing that Pres. GW Bush intentionally used Colin Powell to lie about WMD (even though the Clinton-appointed CIA director told GWB that it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMD) ? At least Mr. Adler was relatively tempered in his description of the “vast majority” of conservatives having “shockingly ignorant and conspiratorial beliefs.”
>  
> By the way, I do watch Fox News, along with CNN and network news shows, and even have (shudder!) an online subscription to the NY Times (along with the WSJ). I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a Fox News story claiming that Acorn stole the 9+ million votes that would have been needed to erase Pres. Obama’s popular vote lead. Now it is true that there is a long tradition in GOP circles of believing that machine politicians like the old original Mayor Daley could steal close state contests and throw critical electoral votes to the Democratic presidential candidate. The old story is that Nixon decided, over the objection of some advisors, not to contest the Illinois results in his race against JFK. It’s pretty clear, isn’t it, that President Johnson used electoral fraud to win at least one of his early elections (to Congress, I believe)? There is also a saying to the effect that “if an election’s not close, they can’t steal it.” But the 2008 election wasn’t close; conservatives  I know accept that, and most of them blame Sen. McCain for running a bumbling campaign (and also to some degree blame the biased mainstream media).
>  
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>  
>  
>  
> From: Ben Adler [mailto:benadler1 at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:25 PM
> To: Scarberry, Mark
> Cc: Election law list
> Subject: Re: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
>  
> "No conservative that I know has any difficulty believing that a majority of voters in New York, for example, vote for candidates who support liberal policies, or that President Obama received more votes than Sen. McCain."
>  
> I am so sick of conservative intellectuals pretending that the vast majority of actual conservatives, with their shockingly ignorant and conspiratorial beliefs, don't exist, so as to dispense with any need to defend actual conservatism as opposed to your idealized version of it. If no conservative you know has any difficulty believing Obama received more votes McCain, then either you don't know many conservatives, or the ones you know are an extraordinarily unrepresentative sample. Here's some actual data, as opposed to your anecdotal assertion:
>  
> According to a 2009 Public Policy Polling survey, a majority (52%) of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the 2008 election on behalf of Obama. See here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-gop-base-thinks-obama-didnt-actually-win-2008-election----acorn-stole-it.php
>  
> If you've watched Fox News or listened to right wing talk radio over the last few years, you'll know why this is. But I suppose you would say you don't know any conservatives who watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh either. 
>  
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> In response to Jim: Conservatives generally have no problem believing that people may act foolishly for various reasons. Conservatives tend to have a more realistic view of human nature than do some liberals. Conservatives  may believe it is foolish for people to support liberal policies, but conservatives generally are quite willing to believe that people do so in large numbers. No conservative that I know has any difficulty believing that a majority of voters in New York, for example, vote for candidates who support liberal policies, or that President Obama received more votes than Sen. McCain. Conservatives also think that there are a lot of people who benefit from a large government who are likely to vote in favor of govt expansion. Conservatives are not at all surprised, for example, that a lot of government workers would do so. Whether or not that is a foolish decision depends on the factors that it may be reasonable for people to take into account in voting.
>  
> With regard to real reasons why at least some people who support voter ID laws do so: There is a concern that fraud may occur in the future. Perhaps it is analogous to the fear that electronic voting systems may be hacked so as to change voting results. Even if there is no evidence that it has occurred, there is a system vulnerability that can reasonably be considered in deciding what action may be appropriate, in part to prevent the vulnerability from being exploited and in part to help assure voters that the system has integrity.
>  
> Discussions on this list have persuaded me that there is little current voting fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws, and that there should be more concern about absentee voting, voting by mail, and new Internet voting systems. I also have an innate distrust of non-transparent systems like electronic voting and would prefer that we use paper ballots that can be recounted manually. That does not mean that it is unreasonable to take into account other  vulnerabilities of the system that could be exploited in the future. Explanations about why voter ID laws are not needed or helpful to address a potential vulnerability will be more persuasive than data showing a lack of current fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws.
>  
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>  
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Gardner
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:08 PM
> To: Election law list
> Subject: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
>  
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> Ben Adler
> Contributing Writer, The Nation
> Federal Policy Correspondent, Next American City
> 347-463-0429
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/1f439057/attachment.html>