[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

Sat Jul 21 09:30:39 PDT 2012

'[T]he debate here degenerate[s]".  Couldn't agree more with David, re both "vote fraud" and much of the earlier exchanges on disclosure.  
      What's happening? 

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of David A. Schultz
Sent: Sat 7/21/2012 8:22 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

I will concur with Brad on the point of saying the the public is badly informed on so many points and that so much of our policy and political debate is poorly informed by good (social) scientific evidence.  DellaCarpini and Keeter in WHAT AMERICANS DON'T KNOW ABOUT POLITICS well captures this point.  Too much of what goes for political and policy debate in this country seems more captured by ideology and myth than by facts.  Sadly, as one of the first members of this listserv years ago, I  have witnessed the debate here degenerate in the same direction.  So much of the listserv is political positioning or Trojan Horses for parties, positions, and litigation that I often feel that I feel the dialogue here has been captured by same interest groups and ideologies that exist in our society.

I half-kid with my students and say the world is divided between those who believe there was a second shooter in 1963 and those who do not.  I am of the latter.  

For anyone who wants to read about my latest thoughts on paranoid and il-informed politics, please see:

The Paranoid Style of Michele Bachmann

http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-paranoid-style-of-michele-bachmann.html

I note two wonderful quotes here.

"In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists."
    -Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950.

"Information has recently come to light that raises serious questions about Department of State policies and activities that appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
    -Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 2012.

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

>>> "Smith, Brad" 07/21/12 6:55 AM >>>

In recent years it has become a bit of a liberal parlor game to take polls of conservatives to show their "shockingly ignorant and conspiratorial beliefs" on various issues. This is not a game, however, that people on either side should want to play. 

Why? Because those of us who deal regularly with public opinion and knowledge, as many on this list do, know that the public has "shockingly ignorant and conspiratorial" beliefs on an amazing array of subjects, and that this is not limited to either side of the spectrum. For example, one poll found that 35 percent of Democrats believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 in advance (only 39% disagreed). http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

. In fact, polls have long shown that Republicans tend to be better informed than Democrats about political issues (see one of the most recent examples here: http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge <http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge,> ), <http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge%29,>  which I mention only to point out how silly Mr. Adler's comments are, not how well-informed Republicans are.

The voter ID debate is a very sad debate for me to watch, because I think the people who ought to be opinion leaders have, and again I'm referring to both sides, put out lots of bad information and rhetoric about the issue - the extent of voter fraud on one hand, the impact of ID laws on voting on the other.

BTW, significant minorities aren't terribly well informed on many non-political matters, too: for example, a 1999 Gallup poll found that 18% of Americans throught that the sun revolved around the earth. But to our credit, we did better than the Germans and the Brits on the question. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Ben Adler [benadler1 at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:25 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 <http://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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120721/2139716b/attachment.html>