3 ms·

> Ultimately it has to be determined whether the election was or was not fraudulent. I honestly think it would be preferable if we changed it to "Ultimately it

> Ultimately it has to be determined whether the election was or was not fraudulent. I honestly think it would be preferable if we changed it to "Ultimately it has to be declared whether the election was or was not fraudulent." To me, this is more palatable as "determined" implies the unequivocal truth is known, something which is plausibly not possible at least under the current design of the system. My intuition is that conspiracy theorists would at least somewhat prefer this as the possibility of inaccuracy is explicitly acknowledged, although I wonder if normal people would find it unpalatable.

pjc50 5y ago
I would accept "agreed", but see the 2000 election: quite possibly it was wrongly determined, but the Democrats agreed to concede and largely haven't mentioned it since. Whereas you can already see Republicans "pre-declaring" that an election that hasn't happened yet will be fraudulent if they don't win.
- mistermann 5y ago
  So we have (with my subjective and surely biased interpretations of the meaning & "epistemic status/quality"): 1. [Current Approach] determined - "was 'discovered' to be X, regardless if was actually discovered (as opposed to estimated)" - decision made by bureaucrats/experts &/or courts | Invalid: it is not necessarily possible to discover what is true (under the current system) 2a. declared - "was decided to be categorized as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth" - decision made by courts | Valid: acknowledges that the actual truth is not known, but fr pragmatic reasons a decision is made so we can move on (which is what actually happens now, but we do not speak truthfully about the details, which causes anger, which often has complex, outsized systemic consequences) 2b. agreed - "all parties voted to categorize as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth, with or without (optional) formal complaints*" - decision made by party officials | Valid: roughly, same as "declared", but the decision is voluntary by party officials, rather than decided by courts What do you think of this way of thinking about it? I find #1 fairly repulsive, but the exact same outcome recorded/discussed as 2a or 2b I find much less problematic.

pjc50 5y ago

I would accept "agreed", but see the 2000 election: quite possibly it was wrongly determined, but the Democrats agreed to concede and largely haven't mentioned it since. Whereas you can already see Republicans "pre-declaring" that an election that hasn't happened yet will be fraudulent if they don't win.

mistermann 5y ago
So we have (with my subjective and surely biased interpretations of the meaning & "epistemic status/quality"): 1. [Current Approach] determined - "was 'discovered' to be X, regardless if was actually discovered (as opposed to estimated)" - decision made by bureaucrats/experts &/or courts | Invalid: it is not necessarily possible to discover what is true (under the current system) 2a. declared - "was decided to be categorized as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth" - decision made by courts | Valid: acknowledges that the actual truth is not known, but fr pragmatic reasons a decision is made so we can move on (which is what actually happens now, but we do not speak truthfully about the details, which causes anger, which often has complex, outsized systemic consequences) 2b. agreed - "all parties voted to categorize as X, regardless of actual(!) ultimate truth, with or without (optional) formal complaints*" - decision made by party officials | Valid: roughly, same as "declared", but the decision is voluntary by party officials, rather than decided by courts What do you think of this way of thinking about it? I find #1 fairly repulsive, but the exact same outcome recorded/discussed as 2a or 2b I find much less problematic.