Florida struggles with elections like an alligator struggles to swallow a moose. This was established in 2000 and re-affirmed with a vengeance in 2018. As this is being written, the race between Rick Scott and Bill Nelson has gone into a recount. To make matters even more theatrical, Rick Scott has, without evidence, accused Nelson of trying to commit fraud. Trump and his Grima Wormtongue Lindsey Graham have also been, also without evidence, making accusations of voter fraud.
To be fair to those worried about voting shenanigans in Florida, Broward Country (the epicenter of the controversy) has a long history of election issues, including an incident in 2012 in which 1,000 uncounted ballots were found a week after the election. In another incident in 2004, 58,000 mail-in ballots were not sent to voters who requested them; although the matter was eventually addressed. As such, voters are right to be worried about whether their votes will be properly counted or not. But, the situation in Broward seems to be more a matter of incompetence as opposed to a brilliant Machiavellian plot to rob Scott of the election. At the time I am writing this, no evidence of fraud has appeared—but that could change.
While I certainly hope Rick Scott loses, I believe in American democracy and hold that a legitimate election requires two conditions be met. First, that every citizen has the opportunity to vote and that the vote is properly counted. As such, I oppose voter suppression and disenfranchising felons (although I do support disenfranchising those guilty of treason). I am also obviously for competently run elections. The denial of the right to vote is an attack on the foundation of democracy and destroys political legitimacy, as I have argued in other essays. Second, that those who are not legitimate voters are not permitted to vote. As such, I am obviously opposed to voter fraud. However, as I have argued elsewhere, the methods used to combat fraud must be directed at actual fraud, must be effective against fraud and must not deny legitimate voters their right to vote. Based on the best available evidence, voter fraud is like the harms of excessive exercise—it does occur but is incredibly rare. In contrast, efforts to suppress and deter voting are like obesity—a real and prevalent problem. As such, I worry far more about voter suppression than fraud—but I do worry about both.
The situation in Broward, as of this writing, does not seem to involve any fraud on the part of voters. However, the history of this county and the current situation both provide grounds for worry. As such, I have no opposition to an objective investigation of the counting of votes to ensure that there are no shenanigans. While I hope Scott loses, I do not want this loss to come through voter suppression or fraud. While a utilitarian argument could be made against my view, I would rather Scott win a completely aboveboard (no suppression and no fraud) election than lose due to fraud committed against him. I do, of course, think that Scott has, as governor, been suppressing voters (the most offensive and egregious example is his arbitrary and Kafkaesque tribunal for restoring voting rights to felons). As such, there would be a certain poetic injustice in his finding his suppression efforts defeated by fraud. One could make the argument that if the Republicans are already engaged in voter suppression, gerrymandering and other shenanigans, then the Democrats would be justified in engaging in their own shenanigans. The Republicans cannot, obviously enough, argue for any principles about fair elections and the will of the people—they do all they can to rig the elections in their favor. To use an analogy, the Republicans are cheating at cards and crying because they might lose despite the cheating and claiming this is because the other person is cheating.
The moral problem is, of course, that fighting suppression with fraud would derange the electoral system even more—though, as noted above, a utilitarian argument could be made in favor of using morally problematic means to achieve the desired consequences. One could also argue that without voter suppression in Florida, Scott and other Republicans would almost certainly have lost—there are about 1.5 million voters who have been disenfranchised for being felons and, as the Republicans know, they would tend to vote for Democrats if they could vote. As such, whatever the Democrats might be doing, they would at worst merely be making the game “fair” by offsetting the voter suppression with voter shenanigans. While this does have some appeal, it is also morally problematic—it is not known for sure how those votes would have been cast, so “voting” for them through fraud would not be counting their votes. The morally correct solution is, obviously enough, to prevent both suppression and fraud.
From a legal standpoint, Scott has the clear advantage in this situation: voter suppression is, in general, perfectly legal. For example, while disenfranchising felons was developed as a weapon against black suffrage by white supremacists in response to the 15th Amendment it is still the law in Florida and some other states. Likewise for other shenanigans like gerrymandering, voter ID laws, restricting polling locations and days and so on. It, of course, helps that the Republicans, in general, write the laws that make these legal. In contrast, voter fraud and election fraud are (and should be) illegal. So, if Scott can find evidence of voter or election fraud in Broward, he can use this to his advantage. This leads to the matter of why he is already crying fraud without any evidence.
One obvious explanation is that this is a stock talking point for the Republican party and is used as a justification for voter suppression. By crying fraud and scaring people, he builds support for policies and laws that suppress voters. Another explanation is that he is hoping to turn public opinion in his favor as part of a strategy to deal with the possibility that he lost the vote. If he can cast enough doubt on the election, he could win in the courts what he could not win at the ballot box. Unfortunately, the history of Broward does lend his accusations a degree of credence. But, by making accusations without evidence, he is also damaging democracy and potentially undermining the already weak faith in the electoral system in America.
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/11/13/federal-prosecutors-reviewing-altered-election-documents-tied-to-florida-democrats-695299
Mike, democrats have admitted they’ve been cheating, and for decades. What do you say to operatives, caught on hidden cameras saying they rig elections and have been doing it for a long time? Are they grandstanding? Bragging of their prowess at cheating, while really playing by the rules?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html
There has been no deep attempt to investigate these charges. Why? When someone admits to a federal crime on camera, and the FBI does not interview them, a reasonable person can believe that this is happening because democrats want it to happen; they want fraud and they want no investigations.
As you note, there are no allegations of rule breaking against Republicans in this matter. Only that the laws are not good. Am I to assume that the Dems are not gerrymandering? The US is not the only country that does not allow felons to vote, and it’s not a new law. Central and South America have voter ID cards. Is that “voter suppression?
The easy way out of this is “Both sides are cheating. Everyone does it.” It’s also the wrong way. The political culture of the the Democrat party is the political culture of the Left. The political party of the Left is rooted in Marxist and neo Marxist ideology. One of those ideologies is that cheating is ok if you’re fighting “fascists and racists”. For instance, here is the neo Marxist Herbert Marcuse, former Columbia and Harvard professor:
“Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and blocked if they are by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”
So we can see, when democracy cannot be used to make people leftists “undemocratic means” are entirely ok.
I believe this is why leftists seem to mesh so well with Islamists. “there are rules until we don’t like them”, otherwise known as Taqiya.
I’m really confused here. It would appear that when Republicans try to implement regulations about voter registration – like asking for ID or an address, this is seen as a … how did you phrase it? “brilliant Machiavellian plot” to disenfranchise voters based on racism or xenophobia or whatever else you might want to concoct –
If the Republicans make accusations, or even allegations, of voter fraud – this leads to page after page of Google hits of ridicule and dismissal –
“Trump’s bogus (so far) claims about Florida”
“The Republican Strategy to Discredit the Florida Recount”
“Republicans Fan Unfounded Worries About Voter Fraud”
So OK, we all know that deductive reasoning would indicate that if there is no evidence discovered, then it doesn’t exist, right?
But then there’s the whole Kavanaugh thing – that someone makes an accusation without evidence, and this leads to a tribunal that nearly destroyed a man’s life and that of his family – and that accusation/allegation was absolutely true. Even despite the outcome, half this country still despises the guy, because, well, we know all about him, don’t we?
So why is the Republican effort to establish some rules about voting clearly “Racism”, while the Broward County coincidental “discovery” of thousands of Democrat votes simply a matter of incompetence? Why is it not even a possibility that the Republican efforts to ensure that only those who are American citizens might be a good idea that doesn’t go far enough, but is immediately regarded as a Machiavellian Racist plot?
And is Trump’s question – “Howcome there are never thousands of missing Republican votes somehow “discovered” in some back-room somewhere?” not a legitimate question? It seems like it should be – while it doesn’t offer any proof of anything, it’s at the very least, a little suspicious.
And, of course, there’s the matter of that Acosta video. There is an allegation, backed up by “video experts” that the video was purposely altered. There is also the counter to that allegation, also backed up by “video experts”, that compression errors could easily account for the timing changes.
So how do we “know” (and we do know – it’s apparently an absolute fact), that not only was the video altered, but it was altered specifically to sway people’s opinion, and that the White House, including (and maybe especially) Donald Trump himself, were complicit in making and/or authorizing and/or approving and/or being fully aware of that alteration so they can use it in their own sinister ways.
It’s very clear to me now what is true and what is not …
Voter Fraud: totally false
Institutional Racism and Disenfranchisement: yes, of course
Unfounded accusations of Sexual Misconduct: True, every word of it
Unfounded accusations of video manipulation: True, every frame
Unfounded allegations of purposeful mishandling of votes: Absolutely false. Are you kidding? Us?
Three-frame change in the timing of a video: TOTAL White House attempt to defraud the American public!
So I do have a pretty good handle on the truth – I’m just not very confident of my ability to discern what’s true and what’s fabrication. I used to think I could maybe find a pathway through “Critical Thinking”, considering the evidence, considering things like “provability” or “logic” or “deductive reasoning”, but apparently those methods are passe these days and there’s a new and different way of arriving at the real story.
Maybe someone can help me out, and teach me the methods or the formulas being used currently. I’m kind of at a loss here.
Oh, and one more thing –
It is duly noted, that within the context of your recent essay about “civility” and how Trump is leading a Republican charge to destroy civility entirely in matters of public discourse, that you referred to Lindsay Graham as “Grima Wormtongue”.
Nice. Very civil. Very professional. Good that you can take the high road here, just like Jim Acosta and CNN.
But evidence does exist. Notice the power of merely saying something. There’s plenty of evidence it exists. Besides, 15-20% of people will cheat at anything, even meaningless things.
What evidence? Saying there is evidence isn’t evidence.
Sure, people cheat at things, but that does not prove voter fraud.
Lack of found evidence does not entail a definitive lack of evidence.
Problems with ballots in 4 Florida counties now referred to federal prosecutors. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416662-florida-election-officials-referred-irregularities-to-federal-prosecutors
“Email exchanges released publicly on Wednesday by the Department of State suggest that the altered affidavits may be tied to the Florida Democratic Party”
Is any of this “evidence”? Or do we have to wait for someone to go to jail? Because, when do politicians actually go to jail?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/broward-county-stole-my-vote-in-2000-and-brenda-snipes-covered-it-up
This is not evidence of voter fraud; but it does provide one example (assuming the claims are true) that this voter was unjustly disenfranchised. This does not, however, prove the claims by Trump and Scott about widespread issues in the vote count in 2018.
I do agree that Broward has a sketchy voting integrity history; but this seems largely due to incompetence rather than being a clever plot. But, I am certainly open to evidence that backs up the claims made by Trump and Scott. As I noted in my essay, I would rather that Scott win a fair election than lose a rigged one-that would, after all, be democracy in action. I do, of course, hope that he lost a fair election.
True, otherwise most of the Trump administration would be in jail by now.
Well, to me, the issue is painfully simple. We are so invested in our tribes in this country that we will believe anything at the slightest suggestion if it supports our preconceived notions.
The partisan divide is extreme. Half the country will believe with all their hearts that a guy like Kavanaugh is totally guilty of everything he is accused of and more – but will ridicule the President of the United States at his suggestion that voter fraud might exist.
Whether Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty, or whether voter fraud exists or not, or whether there is some sinister White House plot to tamper with video or if it’s a compression error all are far less meaningful to me than the willingness on the part of Americans to “look no further, we have what we need!”
it’s a constant theme in all of my posts – the complete lack of any kind of critical thinking, any kind of detached analysis of facts, or even the assessment of truth vs. fiction.
There have been many posts here by Mike about logical syllogisms and deductive reasoning, what can qualify as a valid argument and what does not. It’s interesting philosophy – but then some issue comes along with the “Trump Sucks And Here’s Why” stamp on it, and all real thought goes right out the window. Where did I leave my torch? Is my pitchfork still out in the barn?
But honest, Leftists don’t promote breaking laws: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10307
Some do. But it is not that breaking laws is itself wrong or blindly obeying them is right.