3 ms·

There are probably variances among polls, but this sample from 2000 shows 18% of Americans believed the election was stolen[0] (and it heavily leans Democratic)

There are probably variances among polls, but this sample from 2000 shows 18% of Americans believed the election was stolen[0] (and it heavily leans Democratic). Before the 2020 election, we see "record low" confidence, particularly among Republicans[1]. After the election, this poll shows 34% believe the win was not legitimate[2], nearly double from 20 years earlier. There are several differences between 2000 and 2020[3], the biggest being that 2020 was not a close Election. Biden won 306-232 in the Electoral College, and 81,281,502 (51.3%) to 74,222,593 (46.9%) in popular votes. Yet the disbelief is double. Donald Trump has been claiming election fraud even when he won in 2016, but his own task force found little evidence[4]. What explains such a change in belief? In my opinion, this is where amplifying voices that espouse opinions further from the mainstream and center of the political spectrum (extremism) causes that to spread, for culture to fracture, or in a word, polarization. So given the options of making it easy to reach everyone on mainstream social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit vs pushing extremes out of the mainstream megaphone, it seems that the better option is the latter. Extremism (and polarization) will likely happen either way, but it seems like amplifying and accelerating it is actually the worse option. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheated-election-2000.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheat... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/321665/confidence-accuracy-election-matches-record-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/321665/confidence-accuracy-elec... [2] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685 https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685 [3] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934190243/fact-check-whats-happening-in-this-election-is-not-like-florida-in-2000 https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934190243/fact-check-whats-ha... [4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/#page-content https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-o...

ceilingcorner 6y ago
There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convincing argument. Regardless, that’s not really my point. A sizable portion of the population thinks the election was fishy. Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” doesn’t accomplish anything when it comes to reducing polarization. I genuinely don’t see the problem with a robust investigation that puts the country as ease, and I don’t understand why anyone would be against such a thing. Not to mention that removing “extremist” voices entirely would have prevented, say, the Civil Rights movement from occurring. At the time it was absolutely not mainstream. A blanket rule against non-mainstream media is clearly a bad idea, but everyone is too short-sighted to understand that.
- neogodless 6y ago
  > Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence. > a robust investigation It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dismissed nearly every court filing, and there is still no tangible evidence of widespread election fraud, when do we stop "investigating?" The problem with theories made without evidence is that there is no way to "disprove" them because they are not falsifiable statements[0]. In this case, the request seems to be to have everyone who wants to believe whether or not there was widespread election fraud would need to review 160 million votes with their own eyes, rather than believe the bipartisan election officials as well as the bipartisan judges that reviewed the court filings. That's an unreasonable bar to cross. [0] http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/cons... Unfalsifiability > Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable. > Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM > WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil. > YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? > THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them. > YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Referencing a bunch of random academic sources doesn’t make your argument any stronger. The attitude of the media and the Democratic Party in general has absolutely been “You’re dumb and wrong.” As my initial comment said, this accomplishes the exact opposite thing. People feeling lost and ripped off aren’t going to suddenly change their mind because talking heads on CNN assured them everything was legit. Especially when these sources spent the last four years becoming highly partisan. It’s difficult to even recognize The NY Times anymore, they’ve fallen so far. Skepticism seems like a rational move to me. ‘Courts dismissing cases’ is not equivalent to an investigation. As I said before, my primary concern is reducing polarization. I really don’t care how much it costs. Any price is worth avoiding serious civil unrest. Parties come to agreements on the extent of investigations all the time and there is zero reason a similar compromise couldn’t be worked out for the sake of the country. Of course, no one will do this, because it doesn’t benefit them personally.
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
A growing number of people think that the election is illegitimate, and your solution is to suppress them? That's a really bad idea in a democracy like ours that lauds our history of overthrowing a tyrannical government, and it is very likely to trigger a violent response. Voter ID laws, paper ballots, removal of voting machines, and a promise to audit the election would basically eliminate the risk of conflict. Why not do those instead? Our democracy needs to be perceived as legitimate to survive, doesn't it?
- neogodless 6y ago
  First, I don't think the 74 million Trump voters are being suppressed. The vast majority of them still have Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. The removal of extreme messages from these platforms should only be removing those condoning the extreme messages. Are you saying those extremists speak for all Trump voters? And those extremists already committed and are planning further violence. There is no good reason to maintain support for their violent plans on popular platforms, and enable recruiting efforts. A growing number of people believing something that Trump claims but has been disproven repeatedly isnot a desirable outcome. Rather let's reverse that trend. They should figure out how evidence and proof works and start taking it seriously. Go read https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-might-be-most-embarrassing-document-created-by-white-house-staffer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-migh... and realize things like the Navarro Report are not documents of proof but persuasive essays that fail the minimum standards of basic research. Like a conspiracy, he hand waves over his evidence which he claims is not publicly accessible, but only he has special access to. Then he just uses a lot of speculation about what's possible. This isn't grounds for an exhaustive, wasteful investigation, because we are not starting from a place of evidence and reason, but merely the propaganda of a Trump machine that wants to maintain his power. Removing the most extreme views can only serve to reverse this troubling trend of citizens listening to Trump over hundreds of reputable news organizations. To think otherwise is conspiracy thinking!

ceilingcorner 6y ago

There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convincing argument. Regardless, that’s not really my point. A sizable portion of the population thinks the election was fishy. Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” doesn’t accomplish anything when it comes to reducing polarization. I genuinely don’t see the problem with a robust investigation that puts the country as ease, and I don’t understand why anyone would be against such a thing. Not to mention that removing “extremist” voices entirely would have prevented, say, the Civil Rights movement from occurring. At the time it was absolutely not mainstream. A blanket rule against non-mainstream media is clearly a bad idea, but everyone is too short-sighted to understand that.

neogodless 6y ago
> Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence. > a robust investigation It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dismissed nearly every court filing, and there is still no tangible evidence of widespread election fraud, when do we stop "investigating?" The problem with theories made without evidence is that there is no way to "disprove" them because they are not falsifiable statements[0]. In this case, the request seems to be to have everyone who wants to believe whether or not there was widespread election fraud would need to review 160 million votes with their own eyes, rather than believe the bipartisan election officials as well as the bipartisan judges that reviewed the court filings. That's an unreasonable bar to cross. [0] http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/cons... Unfalsifiability > Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable. > Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM > WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil. > YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? > THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them. > YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Referencing a bunch of random academic sources doesn’t make your argument any stronger. The attitude of the media and the Democratic Party in general has absolutely been “You’re dumb and wrong.” As my initial comment said, this accomplishes the exact opposite thing. People feeling lost and ripped off aren’t going to suddenly change their mind because talking heads on CNN assured them everything was legit. Especially when these sources spent the last four years becoming highly partisan. It’s difficult to even recognize The NY Times anymore, they’ve fallen so far. Skepticism seems like a rational move to me. ‘Courts dismissing cases’ is not equivalent to an investigation. As I said before, my primary concern is reducing polarization. I really don’t care how much it costs. Any price is worth avoiding serious civil unrest. Parties come to agreements on the extent of investigations all the time and there is zero reason a similar compromise couldn’t be worked out for the sake of the country. Of course, no one will do this, because it doesn’t benefit them personally.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

A growing number of people think that the election is illegitimate, and your solution is to suppress them? That's a really bad idea in a democracy like ours that lauds our history of overthrowing a tyrannical government, and it is very likely to trigger a violent response. Voter ID laws, paper ballots, removal of voting machines, and a promise to audit the election would basically eliminate the risk of conflict. Why not do those instead? Our democracy needs to be perceived as legitimate to survive, doesn't it?

neogodless 6y ago
First, I don't think the 74 million Trump voters are being suppressed. The vast majority of them still have Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. The removal of extreme messages from these platforms should only be removing those condoning the extreme messages. Are you saying those extremists speak for all Trump voters? And those extremists already committed and are planning further violence. There is no good reason to maintain support for their violent plans on popular platforms, and enable recruiting efforts. A growing number of people believing something that Trump claims but has been disproven repeatedly isnot a desirable outcome. Rather let's reverse that trend. They should figure out how evidence and proof works and start taking it seriously. Go read https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-might-be-most-embarrassing-document-created-by-white-house-staffer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-migh... and realize things like the Navarro Report are not documents of proof but persuasive essays that fail the minimum standards of basic research. Like a conspiracy, he hand waves over his evidence which he claims is not publicly accessible, but only he has special access to. Then he just uses a lot of speculation about what's possible. This isn't grounds for an exhaustive, wasteful investigation, because we are not starting from a place of evidence and reason, but merely the propaganda of a Trump machine that wants to maintain his power. Removing the most extreme views can only serve to reverse this troubling trend of citizens listening to Trump over hundreds of reputable news organizations. To think otherwise is conspiracy thinking!