[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

Sat Jul 21 07:23:07 PDT 2012

try
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2009/PPP_Release_National_1119.pdf
H Brown

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 2008election 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
<gam zu l'tovah> It's all good
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120721/c5db5d55/attachment.html>