I am 67 years old and was a registered Republican from 1972 to 2016. I am appalled at the ongoing circus surrounding the 2020 election and the outrageous behavior of the president and far too many elected officials. It is disgusting. I will remember the names of the few who had the spine to speak against this dangerous ploy, and those who aided and abetted the president. I would guess that 99% of the latter don't believe any of it. Their only motive is preserving their place in Congress.
No one with an open mind can deny that there are always some issues with voting. But to believe in fraud on a scale large enough to change the outcome of the last election is like believing that every stunt you see in an action movie could actually happen in real life.
If we don't start teaching critical thinking we're doomed as a country.
I’m not going to be breaking any news or plowing new ground here. It’s the comments section, where no useful information has ever appeared. But I can provide logical critical thinking.
Firstly, it’s important to understand that “the court threw it out” doesn’t mean “nothing bad happened.” In many of the dismissed cases, even if wrongdoing had been proven, there was no path that the court could have taken to provide a suitable remedy. Without a remedy, the court won’t engage the case.
Secondly, limiting the inquiry only to “widespread” or “large-scale” incidents is wrong. Even if this isn’t the mafia “delivering Chicago for JFK” by getting votes from dead people, you can see how small unorganized actions may add up.
I know my coworker in New Jersey got three ballots, one at his current residence, and two at previous houses he hasn’t owned for years. That’s a problem. It’s just hard to prove that thousands of motivated individuals cast two ballots.
And even if you could prove that someone cast two or three ballots, once those secret ballots are in the mix with the other secret ballots, it’s impossible to distinguish them from legitimate votes.
I’m just saying, it’s easy to see how this election was messy. Databases were messy. Counting was messy. And if “my guy” won, it’s tempting to say, “no problems!” But that’s not an honest accounting.
Sorry, but the envelope is checked with the signature when it comes in. It is marked and notated if someone's ballot was received. So it's highly unlikely that multiple ballots are going to be returned that are from the same person.
And again, anecdote is not evidence. People come out of the woodwork to claim "my neighbor, or my friend got several ballots, yet never provide that evidence when it counts. Pretty sure that people that got several ballots would call their election office, the media, make a video, etc. Especially those that are supposed to care so much about this issue. Yet, somehow, they never do. They just have nebulous "stories". Stories ain't evidence.
And just a quick question - how would your coworker know he got ballots at homes he no longer owns? Do you see how quickly your own story falls apart with just a couple of questions?
I can tell you have never worked an election in your life. If you want to get a real understanding of just how hard it would be to steal an election in this country, become a poll worker.
Um, I don’t think we’ve met and you have some misplaced certainty about my experience. I have been an election judge and secretary. I served in local elected office, and understand the process well. My coworker knows the people who bought his old house, and they contacted him about the ballots.
I don't believe for a minute any members of the Cruz led cabal in the Senate or their co- conspirators in the House "actually believe that Biden somehow stole the election". They proved beyond peradventure of doubt they are unprincipled careerists no different from Stalin's lickspittles who knowingly staged the show trials on fabricated evidence and coerced confessions. One can hope they suffer the same fate of being devoured by their master.
Thanks for demonstrating that it’s very easy to write an article full of allegations without proof or a discussion of facts. Trump’s team does it, sure. And so do you.
As regards the election “irregularities,” it is logical to assume that some stuff went down. Some individuals filled out multiple mail-in ballots. Adequate bipartisan oversight was lacking in many places.
But we aren’t having a discussion about identifying and fixing electoral process gaps. One side is saying “fraud, throw it all out,” and the other is saying “unproven, nothing happened.” It’s just two sides talking past each other and pretending it’s debate.
I was hoping that Persuasion would be a place to come together and rationally discuss these topics, but it seems to be still struggling to find its way.
For many of us who said "let's see what happens in court and allow these investigations to play out" those questions of irregularities and issues with voting have already been answered conclusively. The article seems spot on to me, is there some other allegation of fraud that you feel has not been thoroughly examined?
The article really isn’t about the actual on-the-ground fraud. It’s about the firehose tactics.
I hope we can recognize that if one side says “hey this is fraud” and the other side says “you’re just firehosing” then it doesn’t address the allegation.
If you allege fraud in my favor, I’m understandably reluctant to acknowledge that you may have a point. If I say “yeah maybe you have a point” then we move toward arguing whether it was enough to make a difference, which is difficult ground to defend.
Rhetorically, it’s much better to say “you’re just a liar and trying to overturn democracy!” And then wait until after you’re inaugurated to get down to the business of cleaning up databases and improving bipartisan oversight of these democratic processes.
The allegations of fraud have been examined. They have been adjudicated. They are almost wholly without merit based on an impartial examination in courts of law around the country. Seeing this result and concluding that allegations of election fraud are false is not the same as dismissing these assertions out of hand. Again, do you think there are reasonable allegations that have yet to be settled? If so please let me know.
Ugh, I’m not going to get into briefs and court opinions. Most of those allegations that have been “adjudicated” were thrown out for lack of reasonable remedy that the court could deliver.
No, they were thrown out because the Trump lawyers could provide no evidence of their assertions OR because they lacked standing to bring the case. And listen, just how hard would it have been to find the people who actually had the standing to bring the case?
Lol, the fact that the Trump team did not look for those with proper standing should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about who is lying to you.
"I hope we can recognize that if one side says “hey this is fraud” and the other side says “you’re just firehosing” then it doesn’t address the allegation."
Thanks for demonstrating that it's very easy to side-step the areas in which meaningful engagement is difficult and necessary, and it's all too easy to engage in the "switch-and-bait" that this article is trying to tackle.
You have written a lovely, concise, reasonable, and extremely factual sentence.
I can write one too:
"I hope we can recognize that if one side alleges "hey this is fraud", it doesn't become a proven sate of affairs merely through repetition."
I wonder if mine is more pertinent.
Unfortunately, you've demonstrated how easy it is to both elevate to center stage what should be patently obvious to the most casual observer, while at the same time neatly moving the pertinent issues out of the spotlight because they can't bear scrutiny.
The sentence of yours that I lead with, is a great little fact. It's reasonable and quite wise-sounding. But it's divorced from, or irrelevant to, the immediate context that is crying out for meaningful engagement -- ie. what is actually happening *on the ground* and which is coming to a head tomorrow on a world stage.
In fact, you helped divorce it yourself. You said: "The article really isn’t about the actual on-the-ground fraud. It’s about the firehose tactics."
That demonstrates the bait-and-switch that those using the firehose tactics are employing!
I am seeing (eg, on Facebook) a lot of reasonable, wise-sounding sentences like yours, such as the following:
"It's not about Trump winning, it's about... {saving America}"
Really? It's not about Trump winning? Oh, I see -- it's about something FAR more important that we should all be compelled to care about. And if we don't see it the way that it is presented, then, ergo, we obviously don't care about... {America, the Constitution, God and Family, etc., etc.}
The mundane "Trump winning" has been switched for something far more laudable. Because, if were just about "Trump winning", well, I guess we can all agree that would be a little crass, wouldn't it? Yet, the bait and switch has been made: sentiments like, "When someone mocks Donald Trump, they are attacking America." Trump says, in other words, "l’état, c’est moi—I am the state".
First, allegations, through repetition, have not only become facts in the minds of many, they define the new reality. An allegation (say, "widespread fraud took place which stole the election for Biden") becomes: "The Election Was Stolen by Biden. It's *obvious*, after all."
Of course, there are little facts and true observations hidden within each specific allegation: eg, an actual man pulled an actual wagon through a counting depot. Nevermind that interpretation was added by the witness: "the guy was *suspicious-looking*, and I'm *sure* the wagon contained manufactured Biden ballots {because that's what my friend suggested to me}."
But the specific allegations themselves soon don't matter. As the article states:
"It “dispenses with the burden of explanation,” write Muirhead and Rosenblum, and it does not necessarily try to be convincing. Rather, it foments confusion, disorientation, cynicism and division."
When any one allegation is countered or receives push-back, the acusers simply move on to the next one. That's because the new reality is what matters:
"The election WAS stolen. After all, it's obvious".
It doesn't matter which, if any, specific allegations are true or can be proven: Dominion Voting Machines; legions of dead people; cases and cases of ballots manufactured by either Chinese or Domestic Communists; coordinated efforts to round up masses of absentee ballots and alter them and drop them in unsupervised drop-boxes in such a way that they materially affect each precinct or county without arousing any suspicion...etc.
Allegations continue to be trotted out and repeated ad infinitum. But *dealing with the specifics in any rational way* -- engaging meaningfully over "actual on-the-ground fraud" as you put it -- is uninteresting to those making the allegations; such a process is only paid lip service; any attempt at dealing with the specifics in any rational way is waved away as old, fake news. Eyes are rolled at "fact-checkers"; like, "What do you expect from these liberal sheep? Stop with the 'facts' already, sheesh."
Instead, the new reality is *accepted*: *Widespread fraud has taken place and the election was stolen by Biden; we are justified to remedy the situation by any means necessary*.
Who cares *how* it was done -- it just was. How do we *know*? Because Trump told us all along it would happen: "Biden can only win by rigging and stealing the election. That is the reality, folks."
There can't be a rational debate about the specifics of specific allegations -- because, those making the allegations have already moved on. The allegations themselves were immaterial, just noise and filler to self-validate the new accepted reality.
You make a valiant attempt to have a rational debate, to be sure: "it is logical to assume that some stuff went down. Some individuals filled out multiple mail-in ballots. Adequate bipartisan oversight was lacking in many places."
But, as others have pointed out. Those exact particulars have been looked into closely by local, county, and state officials; and weighed by judges in courts of law, up and down the country.
And to be sure, some feeble attempts at supporting *the new reality proven by the allegations* may be made in a very general sense just for the sake of form. Some attempts include: "How it is even logical that Biden could win? Do you really think he could have gotten more votes than the wonderfully popular Obama? Biden couldn't get 50 people to a rally; he didn't come out of his basement. How could anyone beat a president who *improved* on the *landslide* votes he got in his first election?"
But those making the allegations simply aren't interested in a rational debate of the specifics of specific allegations.
Because, second, they've moved on to a raft of new allegations in an attempt to self-validate the next new reality.
The new raft of allegations building on the already accepted reality purportedly *proven by the mere presence of the first raft of allegations* :
"If you don't see that the election was stolen by Biden, you are {un-American / you hate America / you are a communist / you are destroying Democracy...}"
The next new reality that this second raft of allegations *proves* by their mere presence:
"Trump and his supporters *saved* America from sure destruction by the willful and treasonous actions of Dirty Dem Commie Socialists who hate America and have aligned themselves with every infidel and demonic power that is bent on the destruction of America and the oppressive social control of every man, woman and child on the planet through the Great Economic Reset."
Look, for most ordinary people, “They stole it” is a loser’s salve akin to “the refs screwed us.”
I think we can find some common ground here. Indeed, the self-serving bait-and-switch “calls to a higher goal” that you’re seeing on Facebook are wrong and obnoxious.
It’s hard to get into each and every issue, and each and every lawsuit that the Trump team and his allies have brought. But ABC News has done a good job of recapping most.
Take a look at above, and you’ll see that many of the cases were dismissed because the “remedy” that was requested was improper or impossible. Some were akin to “throw out all the ballots” because the bad were mixed in with the good. That’s a remedy that is so impractical that no court would ever agree to it.
And there’s a difference between how the courts ruled, and what thoughtful people are objecting to. For example, Pennsylvania courts ruled that ballots only had to be signed, but the signatures didn’t have to be matched. (Link to article reporting the result below.)
The court ruled, and it needs to be respected. It was probably the “right” legal result, given the totality of the process in Pennsylvania. But reasonable people can agree that failing to match the signatures increases the likelihood of fraud.
Some people are worried that acknowledging the shortcomings would cast doubt on Biden’s victory. That worry shouldn’t preclude us from having an open and honest discussion about how to adopt best practices and have a more secure election system that people can put their trust in.
Some level of "fraud" happens in every election. Usually it is accidental. Someone voting in the wrong precinct, or some count not put in the computer correctly. Because we don't have a national election, but 50 different ones, each run by different rules, and because we are human. These "irregularities" are never enough to make any difference in most elections. But they are investigated, and sometimes, some people are prosecuted for doing something illegal.
The left already acknowledges this. This election was NO DIFFERENT. There was no "wide spread" fraud - like Barr said "I see no evidence there was any fraud big enough to change the results. Also, the allegations WERE investigated. There has been nothing found to indicate that there was widespread fraud in this election. There was bipartisan oversight everywhere. Anything that may have occurred, like some people being blocked or whatever, were, again, not enough to change the outcome. And since they mostly happened in Republican controlled states, I would assume that they intend to fix it so it does not happen again.
If any individual filled out "multiple ballots" it was, again, not enough to overturn an election. Every case that Trump's legal team brought was rejected. And hopefully you know that what they were saying publicly is not what they were putting in their legal documents? If you don't, you should look into that. The Trump team is outright lying to you about stuff, then they file a legal case that makes NONE of the assertions that they are telling the public. In court, they are not asserting wide spread fraud. https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/
So, no, its not two sides talking past each other. It is one side looking at all the evidence and seeing that, while there were issues, like there are in any election in a country of 330 million people, that those issues are not "widespread fraud", vs. the other side that is part of a cult and believes every conspiracy theory thrown at them and cannot tell the difference between someone "saying" something happened and the actual evidence that it did happen.
If you REALLY want to "talk' to the left about this, you are gonna have to get on the same playing field. The left is fine with making sure both sides are there at the counting, fine with signature matching, fine with all those things. But they are NOT going to ever accept the nonsense that people on the right are saying that happened without evidence. You wanna make the claim that votes were changed from Trump to Biden? PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. And since your Republican secretaries of state and governors are saying "it didn't happen", then I am 99.9 percent sure IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Thank you for the reasonable and thorough response. You are the first person to win an argument on the internet.
I’m not the one trying to litigate this. I’m also not operating under some illusion that this is going to be settled in the stinking comments section, either.
I think the President and his team are happy that people have a vague sense that the election was messy. It’s not hard to imagine the shenanigans that can happen with mail-in ballots. Like I said, I know of at least one instance where a regular guy in Holmdel, NJ got three ballots.
I agree with you Matthew Plomin and share your frustrations. I've been concerned with election integrity for many years--at the state level--where my state was sued and had to clean up the voting records and where my son received a ballot for nearly ten years after he moved and was voting in another state; however, it is the state numbers before the legal clean-up that rise above any anecdotal evidence (and my son's name got removed from the list, as well). Additionally, due to concerns I had about voting integrity (elsewhere) I have also investigated the integrity of both mail-in balloting and electronic balloting via legal proof of fraud and software/programming manipulation and fraud as I am an officer of a large group and there were some concerns. I was surprised at what I learned and saw and would not have believed it if it had been relayed to me by someone: how the software can be gamed, how privacy of voting is easily compromised, and how it is extremely difficult or next to impossible to prove or have a witness to these things; this is also true of mail-in ballots that get "lost" or "replaced" or "enhanced" or duplicated. I agree with your observations that the dialogue should be beyond partisan and not limited to simplistic either/or options. Finally, I share your frustration with some of the articles here at Persuasion although so many articles have been so outstanding in topic and exploration of critical thinking, the articles that discuss Trump are so predictable it only reminds me that I can find those easily, for free. For the record, I am a not registered with any political party (non-partisan) and did not vote for Trump either time, but have voted for various party candidates over my years as a voter--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, third party, etc.
This is a great article. I feel like 'conspiracy bootstrapping' isnt a memorable and sharp enough phrase for such an important concept though. Need to think of something more catchy to help people become more aware of it
Proposal to Persuasion Community members: when a troll such a Plomin in this thread throws a molotov cocktail, simply ignore him. Reserve your fire for serious people.
Not trying to troll here. I’m actually pretty damned annoyed that Persuasion seems to be slipping into the trap of being just another leftist echo chamber rather than a place for rational discussion and defense of classically liberal ideals of a free society. And I’ve been on board as a founding member from the beginning.
Also, mixing it up in the comments section isn’t my idea of fun. But if you call me a troll, or a liar, or misrepresent the honest thoughtful points I’m trying to make, then I will remain engaged.
Agree with most of the narrative portrayed, but I think it's missing important context that's likely missed by folks w/strong Democratic Party ties.
In this election, Big Tech, 90% of the media, and the Democratic Party systematically (but dishonestly) worked (shall we say colluded!?!) together to help elect Joe Biden (in the primary and general elections). How do you think, Jon, that makes folks across the aisle feel? It's, frankly, a bit of a democratic sham, truly.
Moreover, elected Democratic officials in numerous swing states - including the Attorney General of PA - publicly stated (with sympathetic MSM support) that they guaranteed a Democratic party victory. In these states, voting fraud was identified, but not confirmed at scale (and is unlikely to have made a constitutional difference). Together, this certainly puts the process in poor standing. And I hope we never observe such behavior again, from officials of any party (but I wouldn't bet on it).
People on the right (and center, actually voting both ways depending on the candidate - me) are angry, and will be angry. I'm very angry.
Lastly, the entire narrative spinning cycle you describe, Jon, is one that the left has spun again and again and again, at various fractal levels, FOR FOUR YEARS. Russia trumped the election. Jussie Smollet cannot lie. Brett Kavanaugh gang raped all kinds of people. Sex doesn't exist. Catholic school boys being yelled at by a Native American are all racist. Most police are racist and people should be scared. Stacey Abrahams was robbed by 50k votes (remember that!?!).
Are you kidding, Jon? You're not fooling anyone beyond the already ideologically committed.
My advice is to step outside your bubble in a systematic way. Talk with folks who disagree with you more. It'll likely benefit you and them.
And my hope is that we seek to minimize voting fraud (eg leveraging technology to ensure votes do relate to legal voters), but also reduce the friction to voting for those who freely wish to exercise their right to participate.
Republican conspiracy mongers are digging their own grave. Even the most jaded observers are astonished that they keep at this drama for weeks after the states have certified the results. They will be punished by voters in 2022. In fact, punishment will start from the Senate elections in Georgia. Such people don't deserve to lead the country. I suspect majority of voters, including the lion's share of moderates and Independents will agree with me.
I really hope this is true. I'd like Biden to be able to actually be able to execute on his agenda, but punishing autocrats is by far the most important objective right now.
I voted for Mr. Trump twice. My vote was in favor of lower corporate taxes, a conservative supreme court, energy independence, strong trade policy in the face of China, stopping the endless wars, and peace in the middle east. My vote was not for Mr. Trump himself, unfortunately, the man is a walking controversy. To the election results, I am still unclear on the question: is it legal or not to change the voting laws as they did in PA and GA or not? The voting law changes seem to be the question that we the people need clarity on.
Had we had another choice that stood for the same agenda history would be very different.
I am 67 years old and was a registered Republican from 1972 to 2016. I am appalled at the ongoing circus surrounding the 2020 election and the outrageous behavior of the president and far too many elected officials. It is disgusting. I will remember the names of the few who had the spine to speak against this dangerous ploy, and those who aided and abetted the president. I would guess that 99% of the latter don't believe any of it. Their only motive is preserving their place in Congress.
No one with an open mind can deny that there are always some issues with voting. But to believe in fraud on a scale large enough to change the outcome of the last election is like believing that every stunt you see in an action movie could actually happen in real life.
If we don't start teaching critical thinking we're doomed as a country.
I’m not going to be breaking any news or plowing new ground here. It’s the comments section, where no useful information has ever appeared. But I can provide logical critical thinking.
Firstly, it’s important to understand that “the court threw it out” doesn’t mean “nothing bad happened.” In many of the dismissed cases, even if wrongdoing had been proven, there was no path that the court could have taken to provide a suitable remedy. Without a remedy, the court won’t engage the case.
Secondly, limiting the inquiry only to “widespread” or “large-scale” incidents is wrong. Even if this isn’t the mafia “delivering Chicago for JFK” by getting votes from dead people, you can see how small unorganized actions may add up.
I know my coworker in New Jersey got three ballots, one at his current residence, and two at previous houses he hasn’t owned for years. That’s a problem. It’s just hard to prove that thousands of motivated individuals cast two ballots.
And even if you could prove that someone cast two or three ballots, once those secret ballots are in the mix with the other secret ballots, it’s impossible to distinguish them from legitimate votes.
I’m just saying, it’s easy to see how this election was messy. Databases were messy. Counting was messy. And if “my guy” won, it’s tempting to say, “no problems!” But that’s not an honest accounting.
Sorry, but the envelope is checked with the signature when it comes in. It is marked and notated if someone's ballot was received. So it's highly unlikely that multiple ballots are going to be returned that are from the same person.
And again, anecdote is not evidence. People come out of the woodwork to claim "my neighbor, or my friend got several ballots, yet never provide that evidence when it counts. Pretty sure that people that got several ballots would call their election office, the media, make a video, etc. Especially those that are supposed to care so much about this issue. Yet, somehow, they never do. They just have nebulous "stories". Stories ain't evidence.
And just a quick question - how would your coworker know he got ballots at homes he no longer owns? Do you see how quickly your own story falls apart with just a couple of questions?
I can tell you have never worked an election in your life. If you want to get a real understanding of just how hard it would be to steal an election in this country, become a poll worker.
Um, I don’t think we’ve met and you have some misplaced certainty about my experience. I have been an election judge and secretary. I served in local elected office, and understand the process well. My coworker knows the people who bought his old house, and they contacted him about the ballots.
I don't believe for a minute any members of the Cruz led cabal in the Senate or their co- conspirators in the House "actually believe that Biden somehow stole the election". They proved beyond peradventure of doubt they are unprincipled careerists no different from Stalin's lickspittles who knowingly staged the show trials on fabricated evidence and coerced confessions. One can hope they suffer the same fate of being devoured by their master.
Thanks for demonstrating that it’s very easy to write an article full of allegations without proof or a discussion of facts. Trump’s team does it, sure. And so do you.
As regards the election “irregularities,” it is logical to assume that some stuff went down. Some individuals filled out multiple mail-in ballots. Adequate bipartisan oversight was lacking in many places.
But we aren’t having a discussion about identifying and fixing electoral process gaps. One side is saying “fraud, throw it all out,” and the other is saying “unproven, nothing happened.” It’s just two sides talking past each other and pretending it’s debate.
I was hoping that Persuasion would be a place to come together and rationally discuss these topics, but it seems to be still struggling to find its way.
For many of us who said "let's see what happens in court and allow these investigations to play out" those questions of irregularities and issues with voting have already been answered conclusively. The article seems spot on to me, is there some other allegation of fraud that you feel has not been thoroughly examined?
The article really isn’t about the actual on-the-ground fraud. It’s about the firehose tactics.
I hope we can recognize that if one side says “hey this is fraud” and the other side says “you’re just firehosing” then it doesn’t address the allegation.
If you allege fraud in my favor, I’m understandably reluctant to acknowledge that you may have a point. If I say “yeah maybe you have a point” then we move toward arguing whether it was enough to make a difference, which is difficult ground to defend.
Rhetorically, it’s much better to say “you’re just a liar and trying to overturn democracy!” And then wait until after you’re inaugurated to get down to the business of cleaning up databases and improving bipartisan oversight of these democratic processes.
The allegations of fraud have been examined. They have been adjudicated. They are almost wholly without merit based on an impartial examination in courts of law around the country. Seeing this result and concluding that allegations of election fraud are false is not the same as dismissing these assertions out of hand. Again, do you think there are reasonable allegations that have yet to be settled? If so please let me know.
Ugh, I’m not going to get into briefs and court opinions. Most of those allegations that have been “adjudicated” were thrown out for lack of reasonable remedy that the court could deliver.
No, they were thrown out because the Trump lawyers could provide no evidence of their assertions OR because they lacked standing to bring the case. And listen, just how hard would it have been to find the people who actually had the standing to bring the case?
Lol, the fact that the Trump team did not look for those with proper standing should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about who is lying to you.
Indeed. Why get into it. Facts and court opinions are an inconvenience these days!
I think there are reasonable allegations that are impossible to settle. That’s my whole point.
"I hope we can recognize that if one side says “hey this is fraud” and the other side says “you’re just firehosing” then it doesn’t address the allegation."
Thanks for demonstrating that it's very easy to side-step the areas in which meaningful engagement is difficult and necessary, and it's all too easy to engage in the "switch-and-bait" that this article is trying to tackle.
You have written a lovely, concise, reasonable, and extremely factual sentence.
I can write one too:
"I hope we can recognize that if one side alleges "hey this is fraud", it doesn't become a proven sate of affairs merely through repetition."
I wonder if mine is more pertinent.
Unfortunately, you've demonstrated how easy it is to both elevate to center stage what should be patently obvious to the most casual observer, while at the same time neatly moving the pertinent issues out of the spotlight because they can't bear scrutiny.
The sentence of yours that I lead with, is a great little fact. It's reasonable and quite wise-sounding. But it's divorced from, or irrelevant to, the immediate context that is crying out for meaningful engagement -- ie. what is actually happening *on the ground* and which is coming to a head tomorrow on a world stage.
In fact, you helped divorce it yourself. You said: "The article really isn’t about the actual on-the-ground fraud. It’s about the firehose tactics."
That demonstrates the bait-and-switch that those using the firehose tactics are employing!
I am seeing (eg, on Facebook) a lot of reasonable, wise-sounding sentences like yours, such as the following:
"It's not about Trump winning, it's about... {saving America}"
Really? It's not about Trump winning? Oh, I see -- it's about something FAR more important that we should all be compelled to care about. And if we don't see it the way that it is presented, then, ergo, we obviously don't care about... {America, the Constitution, God and Family, etc., etc.}
The mundane "Trump winning" has been switched for something far more laudable. Because, if were just about "Trump winning", well, I guess we can all agree that would be a little crass, wouldn't it? Yet, the bait and switch has been made: sentiments like, "When someone mocks Donald Trump, they are attacking America." Trump says, in other words, "l’état, c’est moi—I am the state".
First, allegations, through repetition, have not only become facts in the minds of many, they define the new reality. An allegation (say, "widespread fraud took place which stole the election for Biden") becomes: "The Election Was Stolen by Biden. It's *obvious*, after all."
Of course, there are little facts and true observations hidden within each specific allegation: eg, an actual man pulled an actual wagon through a counting depot. Nevermind that interpretation was added by the witness: "the guy was *suspicious-looking*, and I'm *sure* the wagon contained manufactured Biden ballots {because that's what my friend suggested to me}."
But the specific allegations themselves soon don't matter. As the article states:
"It “dispenses with the burden of explanation,” write Muirhead and Rosenblum, and it does not necessarily try to be convincing. Rather, it foments confusion, disorientation, cynicism and division."
When any one allegation is countered or receives push-back, the acusers simply move on to the next one. That's because the new reality is what matters:
"The election WAS stolen. After all, it's obvious".
It doesn't matter which, if any, specific allegations are true or can be proven: Dominion Voting Machines; legions of dead people; cases and cases of ballots manufactured by either Chinese or Domestic Communists; coordinated efforts to round up masses of absentee ballots and alter them and drop them in unsupervised drop-boxes in such a way that they materially affect each precinct or county without arousing any suspicion...etc.
Allegations continue to be trotted out and repeated ad infinitum. But *dealing with the specifics in any rational way* -- engaging meaningfully over "actual on-the-ground fraud" as you put it -- is uninteresting to those making the allegations; such a process is only paid lip service; any attempt at dealing with the specifics in any rational way is waved away as old, fake news. Eyes are rolled at "fact-checkers"; like, "What do you expect from these liberal sheep? Stop with the 'facts' already, sheesh."
Instead, the new reality is *accepted*: *Widespread fraud has taken place and the election was stolen by Biden; we are justified to remedy the situation by any means necessary*.
Who cares *how* it was done -- it just was. How do we *know*? Because Trump told us all along it would happen: "Biden can only win by rigging and stealing the election. That is the reality, folks."
There can't be a rational debate about the specifics of specific allegations -- because, those making the allegations have already moved on. The allegations themselves were immaterial, just noise and filler to self-validate the new accepted reality.
You make a valiant attempt to have a rational debate, to be sure: "it is logical to assume that some stuff went down. Some individuals filled out multiple mail-in ballots. Adequate bipartisan oversight was lacking in many places."
But, as others have pointed out. Those exact particulars have been looked into closely by local, county, and state officials; and weighed by judges in courts of law, up and down the country.
And to be sure, some feeble attempts at supporting *the new reality proven by the allegations* may be made in a very general sense just for the sake of form. Some attempts include: "How it is even logical that Biden could win? Do you really think he could have gotten more votes than the wonderfully popular Obama? Biden couldn't get 50 people to a rally; he didn't come out of his basement. How could anyone beat a president who *improved* on the *landslide* votes he got in his first election?"
But those making the allegations simply aren't interested in a rational debate of the specifics of specific allegations.
Because, second, they've moved on to a raft of new allegations in an attempt to self-validate the next new reality.
The new raft of allegations building on the already accepted reality purportedly *proven by the mere presence of the first raft of allegations* :
"If you don't see that the election was stolen by Biden, you are {un-American / you hate America / you are a communist / you are destroying Democracy...}"
The next new reality that this second raft of allegations *proves* by their mere presence:
"Trump and his supporters *saved* America from sure destruction by the willful and treasonous actions of Dirty Dem Commie Socialists who hate America and have aligned themselves with every infidel and demonic power that is bent on the destruction of America and the oppressive social control of every man, woman and child on the planet through the Great Economic Reset."
Now THAT’s what I call a firehose. Well done.
Look, for most ordinary people, “They stole it” is a loser’s salve akin to “the refs screwed us.”
I think we can find some common ground here. Indeed, the self-serving bait-and-switch “calls to a higher goal” that you’re seeing on Facebook are wrong and obnoxious.
It’s hard to get into each and every issue, and each and every lawsuit that the Trump team and his allies have brought. But ABC News has done a good job of recapping most.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2020-trump-campaign-election-lawsuits-stand/story?id=74041748
Take a look at above, and you’ll see that many of the cases were dismissed because the “remedy” that was requested was improper or impossible. Some were akin to “throw out all the ballots” because the bad were mixed in with the good. That’s a remedy that is so impractical that no court would ever agree to it.
And there’s a difference between how the courts ruled, and what thoughtful people are objecting to. For example, Pennsylvania courts ruled that ballots only had to be signed, but the signatures didn’t have to be matched. (Link to article reporting the result below.)
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsburgh-elections-presidential-elections-fc464c287c18823ff57fedc13facf7e5
The court ruled, and it needs to be respected. It was probably the “right” legal result, given the totality of the process in Pennsylvania. But reasonable people can agree that failing to match the signatures increases the likelihood of fraud.
Some people are worried that acknowledging the shortcomings would cast doubt on Biden’s victory. That worry shouldn’t preclude us from having an open and honest discussion about how to adopt best practices and have a more secure election system that people can put their trust in.
Some level of "fraud" happens in every election. Usually it is accidental. Someone voting in the wrong precinct, or some count not put in the computer correctly. Because we don't have a national election, but 50 different ones, each run by different rules, and because we are human. These "irregularities" are never enough to make any difference in most elections. But they are investigated, and sometimes, some people are prosecuted for doing something illegal.
The left already acknowledges this. This election was NO DIFFERENT. There was no "wide spread" fraud - like Barr said "I see no evidence there was any fraud big enough to change the results. Also, the allegations WERE investigated. There has been nothing found to indicate that there was widespread fraud in this election. There was bipartisan oversight everywhere. Anything that may have occurred, like some people being blocked or whatever, were, again, not enough to change the outcome. And since they mostly happened in Republican controlled states, I would assume that they intend to fix it so it does not happen again.
If any individual filled out "multiple ballots" it was, again, not enough to overturn an election. Every case that Trump's legal team brought was rejected. And hopefully you know that what they were saying publicly is not what they were putting in their legal documents? If you don't, you should look into that. The Trump team is outright lying to you about stuff, then they file a legal case that makes NONE of the assertions that they are telling the public. In court, they are not asserting wide spread fraud. https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/
So, no, its not two sides talking past each other. It is one side looking at all the evidence and seeing that, while there were issues, like there are in any election in a country of 330 million people, that those issues are not "widespread fraud", vs. the other side that is part of a cult and believes every conspiracy theory thrown at them and cannot tell the difference between someone "saying" something happened and the actual evidence that it did happen.
If you REALLY want to "talk' to the left about this, you are gonna have to get on the same playing field. The left is fine with making sure both sides are there at the counting, fine with signature matching, fine with all those things. But they are NOT going to ever accept the nonsense that people on the right are saying that happened without evidence. You wanna make the claim that votes were changed from Trump to Biden? PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. And since your Republican secretaries of state and governors are saying "it didn't happen", then I am 99.9 percent sure IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Thank you for the reasonable and thorough response. You are the first person to win an argument on the internet.
I’m not the one trying to litigate this. I’m also not operating under some illusion that this is going to be settled in the stinking comments section, either.
I think the President and his team are happy that people have a vague sense that the election was messy. It’s not hard to imagine the shenanigans that can happen with mail-in ballots. Like I said, I know of at least one instance where a regular guy in Holmdel, NJ got three ballots.
I agree with you Matthew Plomin and share your frustrations. I've been concerned with election integrity for many years--at the state level--where my state was sued and had to clean up the voting records and where my son received a ballot for nearly ten years after he moved and was voting in another state; however, it is the state numbers before the legal clean-up that rise above any anecdotal evidence (and my son's name got removed from the list, as well). Additionally, due to concerns I had about voting integrity (elsewhere) I have also investigated the integrity of both mail-in balloting and electronic balloting via legal proof of fraud and software/programming manipulation and fraud as I am an officer of a large group and there were some concerns. I was surprised at what I learned and saw and would not have believed it if it had been relayed to me by someone: how the software can be gamed, how privacy of voting is easily compromised, and how it is extremely difficult or next to impossible to prove or have a witness to these things; this is also true of mail-in ballots that get "lost" or "replaced" or "enhanced" or duplicated. I agree with your observations that the dialogue should be beyond partisan and not limited to simplistic either/or options. Finally, I share your frustration with some of the articles here at Persuasion although so many articles have been so outstanding in topic and exploration of critical thinking, the articles that discuss Trump are so predictable it only reminds me that I can find those easily, for free. For the record, I am a not registered with any political party (non-partisan) and did not vote for Trump either time, but have voted for various party candidates over my years as a voter--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, third party, etc.
This is a great article. I feel like 'conspiracy bootstrapping' isnt a memorable and sharp enough phrase for such an important concept though. Need to think of something more catchy to help people become more aware of it
Proposal to Persuasion Community members: when a troll such a Plomin in this thread throws a molotov cocktail, simply ignore him. Reserve your fire for serious people.
Not trying to troll here. I’m actually pretty damned annoyed that Persuasion seems to be slipping into the trap of being just another leftist echo chamber rather than a place for rational discussion and defense of classically liberal ideals of a free society. And I’ve been on board as a founding member from the beginning.
Also, mixing it up in the comments section isn’t my idea of fun. But if you call me a troll, or a liar, or misrepresent the honest thoughtful points I’m trying to make, then I will remain engaged.
Agree with most of the narrative portrayed, but I think it's missing important context that's likely missed by folks w/strong Democratic Party ties.
In this election, Big Tech, 90% of the media, and the Democratic Party systematically (but dishonestly) worked (shall we say colluded!?!) together to help elect Joe Biden (in the primary and general elections). How do you think, Jon, that makes folks across the aisle feel? It's, frankly, a bit of a democratic sham, truly.
Moreover, elected Democratic officials in numerous swing states - including the Attorney General of PA - publicly stated (with sympathetic MSM support) that they guaranteed a Democratic party victory. In these states, voting fraud was identified, but not confirmed at scale (and is unlikely to have made a constitutional difference). Together, this certainly puts the process in poor standing. And I hope we never observe such behavior again, from officials of any party (but I wouldn't bet on it).
People on the right (and center, actually voting both ways depending on the candidate - me) are angry, and will be angry. I'm very angry.
Lastly, the entire narrative spinning cycle you describe, Jon, is one that the left has spun again and again and again, at various fractal levels, FOR FOUR YEARS. Russia trumped the election. Jussie Smollet cannot lie. Brett Kavanaugh gang raped all kinds of people. Sex doesn't exist. Catholic school boys being yelled at by a Native American are all racist. Most police are racist and people should be scared. Stacey Abrahams was robbed by 50k votes (remember that!?!).
Are you kidding, Jon? You're not fooling anyone beyond the already ideologically committed.
My advice is to step outside your bubble in a systematic way. Talk with folks who disagree with you more. It'll likely benefit you and them.
And my hope is that we seek to minimize voting fraud (eg leveraging technology to ensure votes do relate to legal voters), but also reduce the friction to voting for those who freely wish to exercise their right to participate.
Republican conspiracy mongers are digging their own grave. Even the most jaded observers are astonished that they keep at this drama for weeks after the states have certified the results. They will be punished by voters in 2022. In fact, punishment will start from the Senate elections in Georgia. Such people don't deserve to lead the country. I suspect majority of voters, including the lion's share of moderates and Independents will agree with me.
I really hope this is true. I'd like Biden to be able to actually be able to execute on his agenda, but punishing autocrats is by far the most important objective right now.
I voted for Mr. Trump twice. My vote was in favor of lower corporate taxes, a conservative supreme court, energy independence, strong trade policy in the face of China, stopping the endless wars, and peace in the middle east. My vote was not for Mr. Trump himself, unfortunately, the man is a walking controversy. To the election results, I am still unclear on the question: is it legal or not to change the voting laws as they did in PA and GA or not? The voting law changes seem to be the question that we the people need clarity on.
Had we had another choice that stood for the same agenda history would be very different.
Remember the Flight 93 election? Because Democrats are so radical that they've nominated only centrists in the last 30 years? Good times!