Truth is, I'm not sure that vote fraud is a foe we can defeat. But I have a couple of suggestions as to how we might prevail in the verbal battles arising from the controversy.
1. Stop drawing needless distinctions. Don't insist on using "voter suppression" in place of the stronger phrase "vote fraud." As Georgia10 reminds us in her wonderful guide "Eye on Ohio," fraud is defined as "the intentional use of deceit, a trick, or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property, or a legal right." That definition encompasses everything that went on in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere.
"Vote fraud!" Don't be afraid to shout the term, because that's what happened.
The allegedly liberal mainstream press claims that the DNC study demonstrates "problems" or "woes" but not fraud. Keep hammering home this message: The intentional creation of long voter lines in African-American communities IS fraud.
2. Standards of evidence. This is another trap that liberals always fall into -- a liberal being defined as someone who finds his own beliefs endlessly questionable. Many ask if we have uncovered proof of fraud -- "proof" being defined as courtroom-quality legal proof, the search for which can lead into an endless, dull, audience-unfriendly discussion of split hairs.
Of course, I would never advise anyone to give up the search for jury-worthy evidence. But let's be honest: In our daily lives, we often rely on other standards of evidence.
When my brother was a kid, he went through a shoplifting phase. Did Mom have eyewitness testimony? Did she personally see him snatch the goods? Nope. But when she noted that he kept bringing home items that he could not possibly afford, she knew what was up.
That's why, in discussions of vote fraud, I have used tactics similar to the following:
"We all have differing standards of evidence. According to my standards of evidence, we need look no further than the question of paper trails. The voting machine companies and their defenders deliberately lied when they said that they haven't developed the technology to provide a paper receipt. The lie proves the fraud. Why fib if the vote were clean?"
Now, does the above paragraph provide courtroom-quality proof? Arguably not. But it does place the skeptic in a very uncomfortable position: He now has to argue a counter-scenario in which lying about paper trail technology does not indicate fraud. Most people will have a very, very hard time making that argument in a convincing fashion.
Then you can add to your skeptic's woes by piling it on:
"According to my standards of evidence, the 2000/2004 question on the exit polls proves that the Kerry voters were not over-represented in the sampling -- and the exits said that Kerry won."
"According to my standards of evidence, the machines were rigged. We have numerous published reports from across the country that the name "Bush" showed up on the touch-screens after the voter tried to choose Kerry, while we have a near-total lack of Kerry-for-Bush reports. You can't call such reports 'anecdotal' when we get them by the ton."
"According to my standards of evidence, the fact that party chairpersons have functioned as secretaries of state proves that we cannot trust the fairness of the elections held in those states."
"According to my standards of evidence, the fact that a voting machine tech told the Ohio recounters to conform their tallies to the original numbers proves that at least one of those firms is engaged in fraud."
And on and on. If you've read this or similar columns, you know how to construct many such arguments.
They add up. A skeptic might insist on differing standards in any one case -- but if he tries to come up with a counter-argument in all such cases, he starts to look foolish.
So keep using that phrase: "According to my standards of evidence..." Every time you use it, you force the other guy to come up with different standards -- intellectually-gerrymandered standards which, however counter-intuitive, allow him to maintain his preferred beliefs.
And that's the idea: Turn your opponent into the legal hair-splitter.
Make him admit that the only proof he would ever find acceptable would be a confession by one of the bad guys.
One one hand, we have the mother who says to her naughty youngster: "You can't afford all this stuff you keep bringing home; I think you're stealing." On the other hand, there's the kid who tries to weasel out of it: "Nobody saw me steal and you don't have photographs, so you can't really prove it." Who would you rather be? Which of the two is in the stronger position? From the standpoint of common sense (if not from a strictly legal standpoint), which person offers the more persuasive argument?
8 comments:
No, you can't bullsh!t your mom unless she's
an idiot.
Here's a couple more arguments:
Why would Ohio try to validate an honest
election with a dishonest recount? I think you've discussed the "cherry picked" precincts for the 3% test recounts here.
And there's the Ohio Statute invoked in the Ohio challenge: "A violation of any
provision of Title XXXV of the Revised
Code constitutes a prima facie case of
election fraud within the purview of such
Title.”
There's two problems here. First the
Republicans are lying to themselves. And
rationalizing. "You'd steal it too if you
were smart enough!" And second they
truly don't care about electoral
integrity, and they will lie, lie, lie to
us.
Republicans say "that's not proof!" Using lack of dispositive proof as an excuse to squelch an investigation makes no sense.
'Now, does the above paragraph provide courtroom-quality proof? Arguably not. But it does place the skeptic in a very uncomfortable position: He now has to argue a counter-scenario in which lying about paper trail technology does not indicate fraud. Most people will have a very, very hard time making that argument in a convincing fashion.'
Um, how about discouraging customers from demanding for more features, which would drive up the price of the machine, and so might make a competitor's machine seem a better deal?
That's a sort of fraud but it's fraud against the owner of the machines, not the voters.
I'm not saying this is how it happened, but I think the original argument collapses.
"it's fraud against the owner of the
machines, not the voters."
Barry, never forget. The American People
own the machines. They're our machines
whether we vote or not. Nobody else owns
them.
The man who held a two-point lead in the aggregate of all national polls won by a bit more than two points. That is supposed to be anomalous, but if the man who was trailing had won, now, that would have been perfectly normal.
After going over the results of every single county in the nation with a fine-tooth comb, the Democrats have failed to produce a single suspicious result.
We understand why you refuse to think about the dismissive attitude of top Democrats to your vote-fraud fabrications, but, seriously, what about it? Why do all top Democrats regard this stuff as pure moonshine?
"Barry, never forget. The American People
own the machines. They're our machines
whether we vote or not. Nobody else owns
them."
Okay, let's use your description -- nevertheless Joseph's argument collapses -- in other words, there is an explanation other than screwing around with the vote totals.
I'm not trying to undermine Joseph's conclusion, I'm simply trying to undermine his reasoning. It's the same thing mathematicians do for each other; it's a good thing, a favor.
"Okay, let's use your description -- nevertheless Joseph's argument collapses -- in other words, there is an explanation other than screwing around with the vote totals."
Of course there's another explanation. There is ALWAYS another explanation, if your clever enough. If you want to discount evolution, there is another explanation. If you want to believe that the world is flat, there is another explanation.
The trick is to come up with an explanation that both you and your audience really believe in your hearts.
There are plenty of instances where Diebold defenders said "the technology does not exist" (vis a vis the paper trails) as opposed to "it costs too much." Bring the matter down to a question of cost, and we next ask: "Okay, just how much DOES it cost? If the number is anywhere near reasonable, let's pay it."
Also, call it election fraud, a
small point, but important. Vote
fraud sounds like what the
republicans want: to blame it
on the voters somehow cheating.
Election fraud puts it where it
really is: the elections and
the machines that run them.
Post a Comment