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 -
There's a half-decent case that Gore's attempted recounts were an attempt to do this. In practice, asking the friendly partisan leadership of the most friendly partisan voting precincts to make sure they didn't miss any ballots sounds a lot like "find me some votes" with a veneer of respectability to it, which is effectively what the (partisan) ruling on Bush v. Gore found, specifically that different recount standards in different counties violated Equal Protection.
I think the fundamental problem with Florida 2000 was that the election was so close (on the final official result, a 537 vote margin out of 6 million votes cast), the punch card voting machines were so bad (1000-2000 difference in the final margin depending on how you adjudicated the chad), and there was so little experience of adjudicating close elections, that there was no "true winner". Given that handling ballot papers in order to recount them can affect the status of the chad, it is entirely possible that it was physically impossible to identify the true winner (based on the state of the chad at close of polls) even if there had been a generally-accepted set of rules for chad adjudication.
The rationale of Bush vs Gore was that the SCOTUS ruled, correctly, that Florida in 2000 was technically incapable of counting a close election in a constitutionally sound way in the time available between close of polls and the Electoral College deadline. The media-funded recount would go on to determine that Florida in 2000 was technically incapable of counting a close election at all. The remedy in Bush vs Gore was for the justices to decide, on a partisan party-line vote, to throw out one unconstitutional vote tally (the partial hand recount requested by Gore and granted by the Florida Supreme Court) and replace it with another (the machine recount from 3 days after the election, plus some initially rejected military postal votes that were probably-legally cured). This was ugly, but it wasn't "stealing an election" because there was no effective election to steal. The election held on polling day had failed to reach a result and given the timetable the Presidency was necessarily going to be decided otherwise than by an election.
If Florida 2000 had been a close Senate election, it could have been re-run. (As a famous UK example, the Parliamentary election in Winchester in 1997 was re-run because the final tally after multiple recounts was a margin of 2 votes out of about 60,000, and there was a margin of error of about 10 votes due to a faulty punch used to stamp ballot papers). But you can't do that in a Presidential election.
There was a similar problem in 2020. Some of the allegations Trump made were straightforwardly silly (like the Dominion voting machines conspiracy theory), and some could be debunked relatively quickly (like the suitcases of ballots in Fulton County, which turned out to have been storage boxes of correctly-handled ballots which had been on CCTV throughout the process), but some (like the "pristine ballots" which came up elsewhere in this thread) could not have been adjudicated to the standards required to convince sceptics in the time available. An honest attempt to adjudicate the 2020 election in State courts in the time available would have required the Trump campaign to focus on a small number of key issues with the best evidence of malpractice and sufficiently high numbers of votes involved to affect the outcome, the Secretaries of State to provide detailed responses on those points, a trial courts to review the results quickly, and an appeals court to slap down any time-wasting and just tell the parties to get on with it. But the Trump campaign didn't want that and it doesn't look like anyone else, with the possible exception of Raffensberger, did either. If Sidney Powell had been trying to get the Kraken lawsuits tossed on technicalities in order to set up a political argument, she could hardly have done better. And if Trump had trying to get his prima facie serious allegations of fraud lost in the middle of a Gish Gallop of crap, he definitely couldn't have done better than he did. And even if that serious, disciplined adjudication had happened (for the avoidance of doubt, it should have done, and didn't), there would still have been thousands of right-wing "citizen journalists" complaining that their pet allegation had not been adjudicated, as long as they had a ready audience.
One of the straightforwardly good things the revised Election Count Act post-2020 does is that it extends the deadlines for States to adjudicate their own elections by removing the schedule padding originally needed for messages to get between the State Capitols and Congress on horseback.
Thinking about this, I think I am ready to bite this bullet.
On the balance of the publicly-available evidence, the Trump team in the aftermath of the 2020 election was not trying to get the election adjudicated in their favour - unsurprisingly, because after PA turned out to be beyond the plausible margin of fraud, getting the election adjudicated in their favour required them to flip all three of GA, AZ and WI, which was a very long shot. The tactics the Trump team were using were designed to throw enough shade on the integrity of the election that some other pro-Trump actor in the system (State legislatures in purple states with gerrymandered Republican majorities, the Republican majority on SCOTUS, Mike Pence, a pro-coup faction in the military, or an armed mob of conservative citizens) would toss out the election results and "who is inaugurated on 20th January 2021" would be decided otherwise than by an election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link