A Pro-Evidence View on the 2020 Presidential Elections
There are moments when I question a rumor, question my own assumptions, question aspects of how I see myself, or address something I’m anxious about. In those moments I often ask myself this question: “Are my beliefs informed primarily by empirical evidence or are they informed primarily by my imagination?” My conviction for the importance of relying on empirical evidence, rather than on preconceived ideas, rumors, or hallucinations runs deeper than many of my moral intuitions, and my allegiance to fact and verification takes priority over any political party. Therefore, when, on the early morning of November 4th, I heard President Trump say that he was winning states that he was not winning, saying “a very sad group of people is trying to disenfranchise” electors, and then continue, on November 5th, saying that he wins if the “legal votes” are counted, I was simply astounded. He said these things with no evidence before him. He simply assumed. He did not give any details as to how he arrived at this conclusion. The president aligned himself against verifiable facts and upheld a position based in the imagination on an issue, the position of which has important consequences.
I don’t value empirical evidence and verifiable facts because they affirm my own agenda. I do so because I value knowledge of the truth - a value that is exhibited in such films as The Matrix or The Truman Show. I have therefore learned of real obstacles to knowing what is true - obstacles that confront all of us. These include prejudices, biases, the desire to feel right, the desire for a sense of belonging, and the difficulty of the work involved in research.
It does not seem right that people should be maligned by others simply for relying on facts or for promoting verification. Yet we are now living in a time where political and moral accusations are being cast towards many, conservatives and liberals, simply because they hold themselves accountable to evidence. I have since the first week of November felt compelled to lay out the facts as I understand them.
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud or election-rigging in the 2020 election. There are many claims but a claim is not the same as evidence. As multiple claims to voter fraud emerged, they have become investigated in turn. Sometimes it takes a couple days for the full story of each case to come out. Many people, including the Trump campaign and media personalities, have framed their discussion as if to assume widespread fraud has happened.
Here is an essay that I encourage as a great starting point in investigating the issues. The author does a good job of exploring the logic behind voter-fraud claims as well as reviewing cases.
“The ‘election fraud’ allegations: A definitive breakdown of what is happening” by Isaac Saul (Nov. 13)
https://tangle.substack.com/p/election-fraud-claims-debunked-donald-trump
Then, of course, there are factcheck.org and snopes.com. These are excellent resources for reviewing voter fraud claims.
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/voter-fraud/
https://www.snopes.com/tag/voter-fraud-rumors/
Sometimes there is no fact-check article and you have to do your own investigative work. This is a rewarding experience.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that voter fraud does not happen. I believe it does happen. I am saying that no evidence has arisen to suggest voter fraud, and evidence does suggest that it is extremely rare and unlikely.
Studies have confirmed that voter fraud is very rare and that rigging an election is highly implausible.
It is easy to get caught up in the details of single cases, but step back and look at the big picture. Studies have confirmed that voter fraud is a significantly rare phenomenon. Committing voter fraud is not an easy thing to do.
Evidence by studies, findings in court, and government investigations reveal that voter fraud is very rare.
Brennan Center For Justice
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
This is a more readable article.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG
Additionally, rigging a presidential election in the U.S. would require an unprecedented effort in planning and coordination. Reviewing the obstacles of such a goal shows that it is unrealistic.
“How Hard is I To Rig An Election” article from The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-hard-is-it-to-rig-an-election-67374
“I Counted Votes in Michigan. There’s No Way To Commit Fraud” from the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/05/vote-count-michigan-no-fraud/
Youtube video: “Want to Rig the U.S. Presidential Election? Good Luck.” from Vox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgcY8WvVdU
There are many obstacles to acquire the most helpful information. I consider four such obstacles to be central and contribute to a ‘path of least resistance’ in discovering what is true.
1. Pervasiveness of the message.
There are many voices that are advocating the existence of widespread voter fraud, including well known GOP members, well known media personalities, and online rumors. This activates a bias known as the illusory truth effect - the tendency for people to believe that something is true when or because it is repeated.
That there are many claims of it happening seems to indicate that it is happening. Nonetheless, when you look at each claim, one by one, no evidence emerges. Given that widespread voter fraud and election-rigging is highly implausible, this should be expected.
2. Confirmation Bias.
In general, people are more willing to accept something as true if it conforms well with what they already believe; that is, if there is little conflict with their present understanding. Confirmation bias is the tendency to accept evidence that confirms what one already believes and to dismiss evidence that presents conflicts.
[I]f you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Because there are a lot of voter fraud claims, and these claims coincide well with people’s expectations or what they want to believe, they will likely not investigate the validity of those claims and maybe even dismiss anything that invalidates or challenges them.
3. Lack of knowledge of the voting process.
For people who are unaware of the hindrances to individual voter fraud (lack of pay off, legal consequences, in-place security measures) and how the system is adverse to election-rigging (the need for massive, secret planning and coordination, or navigating with the peculiar procedures of each county), it may be easy to imagine that there is little in the way for those with ill-intent. Lack of familiarity with the operation of voter-counting also lends to the ease with which someone may mis-interpret certain activities, as indicated by the Washington Post article
They often seemed hampered by a lack of knowledge about Michigan’s election system. One challenger noted with concern that a group of absentee ballots “appeared in pristine condition, as if they had never gone through the U.S. Postal Service.” Michigan allows voters to drop off absentee ballots in drop boxes or at clerks’ offices, avoiding the mail, although it is not clear the circumstances around those ballots.
4. Investigating evidence and learning involves a lot of time and energy.
Learning means a lot of work. With this topic, there is a lot to learn. It is especially tiring going through several supposed cases of voter fraud.
Remember confirmation bias - the tendency to reject evidence that conflicts with present understanding. Well, resolving conflict is a lot of work. Humans don’t do well with conflict; it takes an investment of time and energy to confront it. While it is so much easier to trust the information we are getting, learning always involves some conflict.
It is helpful to remember that, in general, there are two states of mind: confirmatory and exploratory. The confirmatory mind-set learns in order to confirm one’s own beliefs. The exploratory seeks to discover new things. It is best to foster the exploratory mindset with curiosity and a playful attitude.
IV. Why are the voter fraud claims so pervasive?
Often multiple claims of an occurrence is an indication that it actually happened. However, while there are numerous claims of voter-fraud or election-rigging, close examination of each claim consistently reveals lack of evidence. This provokes the question, How can so many false claims for the same or similar occurrence be so pervasive?
A fitting answer to this is the priming effect. Priming happens when people are conditioned to interpret sensory data a certain way. For instance, just after watching a scary movie at night, a child might be especially likely to interpret various noises and shadowy apparitions as evidence of a monster in the house. A driver in Minnesota may be inclined to mistake a mailbox for a deer (the fact that hitting a deer is a known risk contributes to this). Also, people and animals who have experienced abuse or trauma may be more inclined to interpret a friendly gesture as an attack. These are all examples of someone’s prior experiences conditioning his or her interpretation of the world.
To give one more example, suppose you are in the grocery store and have filled your cart with some groceries. Then you walk away from your cart momentarily and a strange woman casually takes your cart as if it was hers. You ask the woman what she is doing with your cart. She looks at it, says she’s sorry and walks away in embarrassment. Afterwards you tell your friend what happened.
Do you say to your friend that the woman “stole” your cart, or simply that she took it? Again, I pose the question: Is what you are reporting informed by what you observe or your imagination? Whether she stole your cart depends on her intention, and you cannot see intentions. You observe that she took your cart; you interpret that she stole it. However, if your friend had warned you beforehand that there are shady dealings at that particular store, priming you with a negative picture, you may be inclined to say that you “saw” the woman “steal” your cart.
President Trump has encouraged the belief in voter fraud for some time. In doing so, he has contributed to a priming effect on his supporters who have become predisposed to interpret occurrences such as the blue shift or even Biden’s victory as a result of widespread fraud.
“Americans Were Primed To Believe the Current Onslaught of Disinformation” from FiveThirtyEight (Nov. 12)
“How Republicans Are Selling the Myth of Rampant Voter Fraud” from TIME (Oct 22)
https://time.com/5902728/voter-fraud-2020-2/
The priming effect explains why many pollwatchers made eye-witness accounts to what they assumed was evidence of voter-fraud. Having an incomplete understanding of what legitimate vote-counting would look like and expecting that voter fraud was present, they were predisposed to read into various situations and interpret fraudulent behavior.
“Republicans in voter fraud lawsuit ‘don’t understand how elections function,’ city of Detroit says in response” MLive (Nov 11)
The priming effect resulting from Donald Trump’s influence can be described as a discouragement of fact-checking and critical thinking, but as a byproduct of a broader culture of distrust and antipathy.
Comments
Post a Comment