Can't get scientists to agree to disagree? Even when they've been purposely chosen to represent multiple political points of view? No worries. So long as you can find reason to disagree with their findings - pick a reason, any reason! - there will always be debate over the issue. It's a strategy that no less than Richard Vigeurie once proclaimed central to the success of the conservative movement. And yes, you'll be happy to know that strategy is still very much alive and well:
A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.
Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states.
Democrats say the threat is overstated and have opposed voter identification laws, which they say disenfranchise the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely to have photo IDs and are more likely to be Democrats.
Though the original report said that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”
In a way, it really is quite ingenious. Even if all the experts agree, so long as you know people who disagree, you're not incorrect to suggest that the debate is out there. Of course, it may not be meaningful debate, but that's not really the point. So long as you can convince people that the issue isn't settled, it isn't settled.
For those of us committed to living in, well... reality, this really is quite maddening. And to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if the media always did what the NYT did today: expose the strategy for what it really is, a dishonest attempt to obscure the truth.
Here's more:
A number of election law experts, based on their own research, have concluded that the accusations regarding widespread fraud are unjustified. And in this case, one of the two experts hired to do the report was Job Serebrov, a Republican elections lawyer from Arkansas, who defended his research in an e-mail message obtained by The Times that was sent last October to Margaret Sims, a commission staff member.
“Tova and I worked hard to produce a correct, accurate and truthful report,” Mr. Serebrov wrote, referring to Tova Wang, a voting expert with liberal leanings from the Century Foundation and co-author of the report. “I could care less that the results are not what the more conservative members of my party wanted.”He added: “Neither one of us was willing to conform results for political expediency.”
For contractual reasons, neither Ms. Wang nor Mr. Serebrov were at liberty to comment on their original report and the discrepancies with the final, edited version.
The original report on fraud cites “evidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression” of voters by local officials, especially in some American Indian communities, while the final report says only that voter “intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation.”
The original report said most experts believe that “false registration forms have not resulted in polling place fraud,” but the final report cites “registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud.”
It really is amazing to me that anyone buys the "voter fraud" argument at all. If you really wanted to steal an election, affecting the vote on an individual, voter-by-voter level would be the last strategy you would try. Compared to other tactics - ballot box tampering, vote counting machine manipulation, or widespread voter intimidation efforts, for example - it is so much more labor intensive that its barely worth the effort.
Nevertheless, Republicans have long made claims of voter fraud central to their effort to discredit the Democratic Party. Which, I suppose, makes sense when you think about it. When the manufacturer of a majority of the voting machines - Diebold - is a die-hard conservative, and when your party is leading the way on efforts to disenfranchise felons and institute poll tax styled voter ID cards, you've got to do something to distract people.
Nice to see the NYT finally calling them on their bullshit.
UPDATE: Want more? Hilzoy has an extended take on the subject here. And John Cole looks back at other efforts to obscure the truth here.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
