This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is hard to put myself in these shoes without knowing why I am so positive there was significant fraud in the first place. This is obviously because the moves I make depend on why I am so sure. Am I sure because I had someone admit they committed fraud? Okay, I'd pursue that and hope they rat more people out. Am I sure because of statistical anomalies? Well, if I am positive there was fraud based off of statistical anomalies then I'd use that to target my investigation to look for harder, specific evidence. And if the statistical anomaly is strong enough by itself, I'd do a fireside chat that is amounts to a powerpoint presentation on "here is statistical evidence of fraud", and if it really is strong enough, then the MSM will either be forced to report on its strength, or their contortions trying to debunk it will be obvious to everyone, winning the public to your side. If the reason I am so sure is that I have video evidence of fraud, I would post that to the world as well with the same MSM reaction. Either way, now you have the public on your side (assuming the evidence really is that strong), so now, when you go to court, even if it isn't technically within the law, courts are to bend over backwards to find a legal interpretation to give the election to Trump if there is huge public pressure to do so (public pressure acquired from posting very strong public evidence). And if the courts still don't work, with enough public pressure, even Democrat politicians would be forced to admit there was fraud and they'd join the Republicans in not certifying Biden. I hope that makes sense since it's hard to be concrete without knowing why I am so certain.
What actually happened is that Trump followed a million different leads, but none really went anywhere. This is much more consistent with a person doing motivated reasoning. If Trump did have rock solid evidence, then that would be the evidence would be repeated everywhere from people defending Trump's actions. But it's not that way. It's a hodgepodge of different things more akin to a gish gallop.
When and why did political machines stop doing fraud? What changed?
I imagine the same way it happened with Tammany Hall in New York. It became increasingly obvious that Tammany Hall had the real power so anti-Tammany people grouped together and started winning elections. Eventually, these progressive anti-Tammany coalitions passed electoral reforms that stripped these groups of their power.
Except those reforms you are talking about haven't actually been implemented, or were reversed. And no one tests the systems for rigor. When they do the FBI prosecutes them not the people letting fraud happen. The FBI has not conducted a vote fraud sting in my lifetime.
If you live in a large city I encourage you to try this: Go to vote, and intentionally screw up your signature horrifically. Make it incomprehensible. See if they ask you for ID. The city in which I reside is currently 0/4. The one I went to college in was 0/2.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There’s unfortunately no real investigation and really nobody neutral to do it. And it’s unfortunate because without that, trusting the results just doesn’t work. We know now that it’s never going to be taken seriously, and it’s probably going to mean a lot more people decide that any results they don’t like is fraud. And this is kind of a Democratic own-goal. If there’s not fraud then investigation into the election proves it — anyone can look at the evidence and see what’s there and not there. As it stands, the response of “lol trust me bro” just makes future claims more likely whilst undermining the legitimacy of the government in power. 70% of Republicans don’t think the results are legitimate, and so there’s always going to be a shadow over the results of the election.
I agree, there 100% should have been a 2020 election commission with equal D's and R's to investigate any and all alleged voter fraud. It would've healed the country. Let the R's and D's call whoever the hell they want to testify, including the cranks, let it all out in the open.
There was an audit carried out in Arizona, by the Republicans' preferred auditors. It found a lot of sloppiness (some on the part of the election administration, some on the part of the auditors), but not the pattern of favouring one side or the other that you would see if this was fraud rather than incompetence. This didn't stop Kari Lake winning a Republican primary in which her key argument was that she recognised the fraud and other Republicans did not. And the Gateway Pundit photoshopped the auditor's report to say they had found fraud on a scale large enough to affect the result.
@The_Nybbler says further down the thread that he would not accept the result of such a commission. I don't think anyone who was plugged into the right-wing alt-media ecosystem would.
More options
Context Copy link
Only works if Trump gets to appoint some people. And what if they found there was in fact fraud? Then how does that heal the nation? Presumably Harris would need to resign, Biden appoint Trump as VP, and then Biden resign? But that would never happen.
Yep. All the "solutions" are predicated on the idea that nothing can be done about any fraud, therefore the thing to be done to preserve the integrity of the system is to discredit anyone claiming there was any fraud.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that sounds fine to me since that's what the people that thinks there was fraud would want.
Yeah, sounds find to me as well. And if they don't, just impeach. And if that doesn't happen, public outcry next election would elect enough people that would impeach and then appoint Trump. Yeah, it's unrealistic, but Dems have nothing to worry about if there wasn't fraud.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Such a commission would certainly be a whitewash, with all the Ds and all the never-Trumpers working to make sure nothing was exposed whether it was there or not.
Well, yeah, but I'm assuming an actually equal commission, not whatever the hell the J6 Committee was. An actually equally commission where the R's that believe in fraud get to call all the people they want to call and force them to testify. Where they get to question all the witnesses the D's and never Trumpers call.
It's meaningless. The majority puts out their report saying "nothing to see here", there's a minority report saying "TOTAL FRAUD!!!!11111", and nothing changes except the "nothing to see here" people have another authority backing up their claims.
Also the fraudsters have another authority to back up their claims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there was a video of a precinct pulling out a box of ballots that had been covered by a table cloth after sending away all observers. A month later, a reporter reviewed the video footage and insists that the box was legitimate and that there is "no evidence of any wrongdoing."
I think even with the official story there is obvious wrong doing - particularly sending away all observers and then deciding to continue counting without waiting for the observers to return. But is that wrong doing significant enough to sway the election? Probably not this specific instance. But how many specific instances are needed before it might sway the election?
Of course, no one was so kind as to leave a genuine smoking gun, a video confession in the midst of the act. There were a great number of times poll workers violated local election rules, and these instances are as proven as it can be outside a court of law. But without being able to investigate these, it is impossible to know if these actually turned the election.
Your assumption that the "public" would rally around any given evidence of fraud is laughable. This is a close election. Everyone either voted for the other guy or didn't vote at all. Everyone is either motivated against accepting evidence their guy actually lost, or politically disengaged.
I'm assuming you voted for Biden? Imagine if you saw a video of someone "cleaning up unclear ballots" to favor Biden. Instances where neither candidate was selected or both candidates were selected by accident, and every time the poll worker filled in the Biden bubble and erased the Trump bubble. Do you think that the average Biden voter, upon seeing this, would say, "That's F'd up! I'm going to share this with everyone I know and protest that Trump should be the rightful president?"
Of course not! They would justify it to themselves as just a lone wolf that couldn't affect much, or that "they voted for a Democrat for senator, of course they meant to vote Biden!" They certainly wouldn't amplify the video.
What about those who don't have a horse in the game? Well, they were too focused on whatever it is that people who don't vote focus on. Imagine not caring about politics. Crazy stuff.
Trump voters really were convinced by the videos and accounts going around, so much so that upwards of 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen. Having this group of the public on his side did pretty much nothing for Trump besides get him into even more trouble once they decided to try a riot for themselves.
Starting with a response to this since it might shed some light on my posting motivations (if need be). I did not vote in 2016 (not old enough in '16) or 2020, nor do I plan to in 2024, mostly cause I live in New York state, among other reasons. However, if you dragged me in front of a voting booth, then I'm 99% certain I'd vote a straight R ticket in every election, including 2024. In fact, I'm probably the closest to voting than I've ever been mostly cause I really like Vance, even if Trump has soured on me. But, even without Vance, I'd probably still still vote a straight R ticket if you dragged me there.
Did you read my comment about the CEO and worker stealing money? I think this applies here.
I know the US is incredibly polarized, but if Trump presented smoking gun evidence of fraud, I sincerely believe it would break through that polarization. The reason it didn't break through was that the evidence wasn't strong enough. Sure, you could say the left wing MSM would just bury any good smoking gun evidence, but if they did, the public would see through it ala Epstein killing himself, or, if you take the Hanania view that media is biased but still fundamentally truth seeking like I do, then media would cover the story in a biased, but still truth presenting way.
RE: the worker stealing money analogy:
For me the analogy breaks down at the beginning. Republicans have always accused Democrats of fraud. Florida has a few counties that are notorious for it. Chicago is notorious for it. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Let's say a CEO knows that employees sometimes waste time on their phones or talking about non-work topics, and that this cuts into their bottom line. Sometimes the company has bad quarters, and some grumbling is given to the employees getting paid to chatter. A few of the more egregious examples get written up but not much happens.
Then the company has a year where everyone works from home. There are many more reports of employees doing errands during normal business hours, more reports of overtime than usual, time card irregularities. The business has a horrible year and ends Q4 with a loss.
Is it reasonable for the boss to think he's being taken for a sucker?
It seems the disagreement ends up at disagreeing on our priors of how likely election fraud is, like with a lot of other people that have replied. My priors on fraud are way lower than yours, so I need way stronger evidence to overcome that. So, for your version of the hypo I would disagree with
this part because it shows decently strong evidence (assuming the reports aren't spurious) for employees wasting more time than they usually do, thus explaining the bad year. Meanwhile, I don't see strong evidence for 2020 fraud that would explain Trump's bad year. I think it's not strong cause my prior on election fraud in the US is so low, but, if the same events occurred in a random third world country with a history of unstable democracy and fraud, the same evidence might actually push me over the edge and conclude that was fraud. (or maybe not. Depending how much I cared about this random 3rd world country, I still might not think there was fraud if the official explanation poked enough holes the fraud explanation). So, ultimately answering the hypo, yes it is reasonable for the boss to think he's being taken for a sucker, but the differences are sufficient enough that the hypo doesn't apply to 2020 Trump
If you click the Heritage link in my comment above it has documentation on over a thousand proven instances of recent (last 30 years) voter fraud in the US leading to over a thousand criminal convictions and overturning dozens of (generally local) elections. I think my priors are better supported than yours.
I will say I am familiar with that link, because I recently used that same link to disprove the supposed effectiveness of voter fraud. The person whom I had argued with had suggested that 200K fraudulent votes in the right locations would overturn the election. I took him at his word on that number, but argued that an organization whose goal is to find as much fraud as possible found less than 1% of that number over 30 years.
It also establishes that the government does have methods of detecting fraud, thus establishing that the fraud would have to either evade said methods or the audits themselves would also have to be fraudulent. This matters because the claim often pushed is that voter ID is necessary; which, even if we say elections are being stolen, if voter ID wouldn't catch it then what's the point of focusing on it? Trump repeatedly claims fraud in states that already have it.
I will say on a personal note that with regards to the whole, "if evidence existed the public would see past any attempts to bury it" idea, I'm not even sure. My personal view is that, similar to the Haitians eating cats story, I've generally become numb to claims of evidence. This is because quite frankly I've heard too many stories online that end up being bullshit with an unrelated or AI generated pictures that I figure someone with more time will sort them out. I don't even remember how many are the same ones I've already heard and have been debunked but still manage to circulate or get twisted by the repeated retellings. If you want to say I'm intellectually weak or biased, sure. I'm just telling you how humans work.
The Heritage foundation link is a database of election fraud that was proved in court. It's not an exhaustive list of all suspected of credible election fraud. It is very, very hard to put a case together that a whole state's election should be overturned because of the sheer numbers involved. If you look at one precinct, one race with fewer than 5,000 ballots, you can keep the scope of your investigation narrow and focused. If it's not just one county, one precinct cheating, but several, each not enough on its own to swing the race, but cumulative, there is a lot more to prove.
That said, I thought the Kari Lake trial did a good job and I was convinced at least. Here is a link if you would like to watch it: https://youtube.com/live/qsaOvV55XWM?si=JvRMpDKvsRvHOFhv&t=240
Fair, I do know the list is only what was proven, and "found" was not the best word. It's still a rounding error away from 0 in the context of elections.
I'm willing to give my opponent's arguments a read, but an 8-hour video of one day of a trial is rather more than I'm willing to commit. So I looked up that trial and Lake lost, because her main evidence was some bad printers that someone claimed they believed were tampered with but could not prove. That and some claims about a secret tally that were actually livestreamed and Republicans were participating in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think I ever denied local fraud, but do any of those cases relate to national elections to congress? Or statewide elections for something like a governor? Were any of them significant enough to even have the chance to flip an election (aka not those voted in 2 states examples or single cases of a felon voting when they shouldn't. However, someone organizing hundreds or thousands of these cases would count) even if they actually didn't flip it? Have any of them been linked to the democrat or republican party or has it been for personal gain?
It might read like I'm moving the goalposts, but small scale fraud like this is consistent with "swiping a few dollars here and there" in my CEO hypo, so I've been consistent.
Being more clear now, my prior for local fraud in the middle of nowhere is way way higher than my prior for fraud for a statewide or national level election, so skimming that that fraud database doesn't really surprise me.
You can filter by fraud type by Election Overturned to see cases where the fraud affected the results of the election. Here is one in 2020 that found 3/4 of absentee ballots were not valid.
I want to note that this is a database of election fraud that was proved in court. It's not an exhaustive list of all suspected of credible election fraud. It is very, very hard to put a case together that a whole state's election should be overturned because of the sheer numbers involved. If you look at one precinct, one race with fewer than 5,000 ballots, you can keep the scope of your investigation narrow and focused. If it's not just one county, one precinct cheating, but several, each not enough on its own to swing the race, but cumulative, there is a lot more to prove.
That said, I thought the Kari Lake trial did a good job and I was convinced at least. Here is a link if you would like to watch it: https://youtube.com/live/qsaOvV55XWM?si=JvRMpDKvsRvHOFhv&t=240
Was this supposed to be a link?
More options
Context Copy link
@Turbulent_Singularity I'm going to try to get the timestamps of the video for what are the most significant parts (I like listening to court recordings while doing other things but that doesn't mean that everyone else does.)
At 1:04:49 Maricopa County uses Ballot on Demand Printers. Both the printers and ballot readers are calibrated together. This election, they were calibrated for a 20 inch ballot.
Most important quote: "What would happen if a ballot was printed out of a Ballot on Demand printer at the vote center, if it was printed with a 19 inch ballot on a 20 inch paper, and run through the tabulator?"
Election's Director answer: "I can't answer that because we did not test for that because all our ballets were 20 inch."
Then at 1:20:00: "You recall that there were issues with ballots being rejected on November 8th, 2022, Election day, correct?
"Do you recall tabulators rejecting ballots at at least 70 vote centers during Election Day?"
Election's Director Witness: "Yes, I recall that there was about 70 different vote centers that we sent technicians out to to change printer settings at because our tabulators were not reading those ballots."
"Would a disruption such as experienced - would you agree with me that there was a disruption on November 8th, 2022, on the election?"
Election's Director Witness: "I would say that we had some printers that were not printing ballots dark enough to be read in by tabulation. Voters had legal options to participate with voting, so I do not count that as a disruption."
"Did you hear of any reports of wait times over 60 minutes?"
Election's Director Witness: "Yes I did."
"What is the target wait time in your model, do you know?"
Election's Director Witness: "On average, half an hour."
"Did you ever become aware of multiple reports at various voting centers where wait times exceeded 2 hours?"
Election's Director Witness: "Our data shows some locations approaching 2 hours, but not exceeding it."
"If a 19 inch ballot image was put on a 20 inch paper, in the 2022 General Election, would that be a failure of your election process?"
Election's Director Witness: "If that would happen, which I don't know how it would, yes. It would have been a mistake."
Next edit will be a while, but I will type stuff up for the printer specialist witness when he comes up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link