[EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief

Sat Jul 21 19:42:52 PDT 2012

I should think that the cause of degeneration on these issues, both
publicly and privately, is the standard operation of human
reasoning...amplified.  This isn't a problem of bleeding hearts on the left
or stodgy conservatives on the right, but an insight into human reasoning
and rhetoric.

Standard analytical methods include numerous psychological disruptions that
make for the acceptance of new data, evidence, or paradigm-shifting
entirely difficult.  As Michael Shermer points out rather well in *Why
People Believe Weird Things* (like campaign finance), in making guesses
about the world, people ordinarily:

   1. Immediately form a hypothesis and look only for examples to confirm
   it.
   2. Do not seek evidence to disprove the hypothesis.
   3. Are very slow to change the hypothesis even when it is obviously
   wrong.
   4. If the information is too complex, adopt overly-simple hypotheses or
   strategies for solutions.

Observe the usual operations of confirmation bias and polarization of
opinion through likeminded seeking behavior, and everything gets clearer.
 I might fancy people speaking freely and laugh in abundance at many reform
lobby press releases I read about new boogeymen and corrupting schemes
around the next psychological corner.  But I also understand how
deep-seated fear, a need for simplicity and consistency in understanding
the world, and human refusal to change can fuel these concerns.  I suspect
those operating well left of the political spectrum might also apply a
similar model in the context of voter fraud and conservatives' concerns.
 Boogeymen are everywhere; just look under your bed.

If we feel we're above the fray on this venerable list-serve--that we're
well educated and intelligent enough to overcome these hinderances--think
again.  Educated, intelligent, and successful adults rarely change their
most fundamental presuppositions. Psychologist David Perkins has found that
the greater your IQ, the greater potential for this sort of "ideological
immunity."

As for me, I'll stick with the absolute guarantees of the First Amendment,
firmly in the* a priori* tradition.  After all, it's only in such a setting
where the tremendous human faults noted above can be overcome--that is to
say, through the robust protection of conflicting ideas, norms, and
perceptions...exercised by fat cat and pauper, conservative and liberal
alike, allowing a truly civil society to emerge.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Roy Schotland <schotlan at law.georgetown.edu
> wrote:

>  '[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
>> 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/20120721/314d1431/attachment.html>