Go for it.
No problem with that at all. As I said submit a FIOA request and ask for copies of all the footage.
Good luck.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
People hate losing more than they like winning; the stronger the identification with a side or cause, the more prone we are to try to mitigate the negative feelings associated with loss by buying into nonsense. This behavior is most prevalent on the far right and far left, where identifications are strongest.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12568
In general, people are more likely to believe that political opposition is involved in malevolent activity than their own party’s representatives (Claassen & Ensley, 2016; McCloskey & Chong, 1985). In terms of accusing the opposition of fraud, Democrats are more likely to believe that Republicans commit voter fraud to win, and Republicans are more likely to believe that Democrats do so (Cassino & Jenkins, 2013; Karp, Nai, & Norris, 2018). Overall, these findings suggest that political opponents are more likely to accuse each other of being involved in conspiracies, which might be a reflection of the ingroup‐outgroup mentality and be especially strong when people experience a threat to their political faction or feel that it is being undermined in some way (Smallpage et al., 2017).
However, research demonstrates that certain political convictions are more strongly associated with conspiracy beliefs than others (Mancuso et al., 2017). van Prooijen, Krouwel, and Pollet (2015) demonstrated that conspiracy beliefs are most prevalent at the political extremes. They found a quadratic effect—that is a “U‐shaped” function— in both the United States and the Netherlands suggesting that conspiracy theorizing is strongest at the far left and right, although stronger on the right. Similar effects have been found in Sweden (Krouwel, Kutiyski, van Prooijen, Martinsson, & Markstedt, 2017). Although it is unknown whether conspiracy theorizing may be a result of political ideology, or vice versa, or both, this research suggests that extremist attitudes may be a consequence of conspiracy belief. On the other hand, Uscinski and Parent (2014) and Uscinski, Klofstad, and Atkinson (2016) suggest that levels of conspiracy thinking are stronger among those identifying as independents or with third parties.
There exists a strong assumption both within and outside academia that there is evidence for conservatives being more prone to conspiracy theories than liberals. Some studies support this assumption (Galliford & Furnham, 2017; Miller et al., 2016). Furthermore, several studies (e.g., Bruder et al., 2013; Grzesiak‐Feldman & Irzycka, 2009; see also Richey, 2017) reported a link between conspiracy beliefs and right‐wing authoritarianism—a dimension of political attitudes characterized by preference for conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, and authoritarian submission to authorities (Altemeyer, 1996). On the other hand, Oliver and Wood (2014a) and Uscinski and Parent (2014) did not find a link between political ideology/party and conspiracy belief, and Berinsky (2012) did not find a link between authoritarianism and conspiracy belief.
How is it possible to integrate these findings? One possibility is that although both extreme left‐ and right‐wingers are likely to embrace various conspiracy theories, the link is stronger at the right side of the political spectrum, as observed by van Prooijen et al. (2015). In other words, although both extreme left‐wing and right‐wing ideologies foster conspiracy convictions, right‐wingers are more predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories because they are also more likely to exhibit the personality predispositions that foster conspiracy thinking, such as the need to manage uncertainty (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). It is also possible, given that much of the research to date has been conducted on American samples during the Obama administration, that situational factors, rather than dispositional factors, affected the discrepancy between conservatives and liberals. For example, the research by Miller et al. (2016) was conducted in the United States while conservatives were on the “losing” side at the time of the data collection. In short, the method and timing of measurement could explain the discrepancies (Enders & Smallpage, 2018).
On the other hand, it may simply be the case that the bulk of the research has been conducted by left‐leaning researchers (Cardiff & Klein, 2005). There have been many studies of conspiracy theories held by the right (going back to Hofstadter, 1964), but few studies focusing on conspiracy theories held by the left (Douglas & Sutton, 2015). The end result is that researchers may overlook conspiracy theories closer to home.
2 Likes
And 100% accurate is the fact that no matter what state courts decide on Federal elections they don’t always get the final word. Even SCOTUS is limited in this process too. In the grande scheme of things it is the state legislators along with the US Congress that do.
Another thing is how this December 14th date for the electoral college to meet and vote is apparently not etched in stone.
Check out this interesting article when Hillary was claiming Russian interference in 2016:
Or maybe … Biden actually won.
1 Like
Act of Congress to delay it.
As in 2016…won’t happen.
$207 M >>$11 M
Math. It does a brain good.
Exactly, like the legal ballots “something isn’t adding up.”
Yes, it is conceivable Congress can delay electoral vote.
And as the article mentioned the POTUS can mandate Congress back into session too.
In 2016 the House was GOP.
In 2020 it is Dem.
Think about the odds of getting an act of Congress passed to delay the EV.
The ballots add up just fine, thank you.
To the fraudsters, if two plus two doesn’t equal Marlin, something must be fishy.
2 Likes
This makes a lot of sense.
Obama and Trump were two people that inspired a lot of personal loyalty.
It would be interesting to see the “experiment” if Obama had lost a close race to Romney to see if the left wingers who personally identified with him would have been crying fraud.p like the Trump followers are.
Probably would have depended on the degree to which Obama would have hinted he agreed there was fraud.
2 Likes
I hear you.
Certainly would be very remiss of us all not to start discussing how Alexander Hamilton not only envisioned what we are seeing transpiring with this General Election but suggested prudent measures to deal with it too. Back then much of his writings impacted how The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was initially drafted and ultimately ratified by all 13 states by early 1781.
Check out this essay recap on Hamilton’s Federalist 68 written by gradesaver.com:
The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 68
Summary
Hamilton defends the process for selecting the president. He argues that the system of an electoral college ensures that “the sense of the people” will play a key role in selecting the president, while, at the same time, affording “as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” It was believed that electing the president directly, without the intermediate step of the electors, might lead to instability. Hamilton argues that electors will be protected from bias since they do not hold any other political office and are separated from electors from other states. Hamilton believed that this system would best ensure that the president was a man of great virtue and ability.
This paper also discusses the provisions for the House of Representatives to elect the president in cases in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes. It furthermore defends the decision to elect the vice-president in much the same way that the president is elected.
Analysis
This paper presents one of the more peculiar aspects of the American Constitution: the electoral college. Although in modern American politics, the electoral college is seen by some as an archaic and unnecessary relic of an earlier time, it illustrates the founders’ fundamental concerns about stability.
One of the inherent weaknesses in a government based on the will of the people is the potential for mob rule. This was often the downfall of direct democracies, where all the people decided on public matters directly rather than through representatives. In designing the electoral college, the founders sought to insulate the selection of president from the convulsions of the multitudes. The college was essentially an extra layer of security helping to guarantee that the president would be a truly capable individual.
1 Like
This was one of your better posts.
The EC was supposed to stop Mob rule and Prevent a populist who was really just a con from taking office.
Unfortunately when that senerios finally happened in 2016, it failed and allowed Trump to take office proving that at this point, it’s simply a rubber stamp.
1 Like
I do recall a lot of noise in 2000 from the left, though I was in college and primarily concerned with other things. Obviously YouTube algorithms and social weren’t around to stoke the flames.
There were certainly the Michael Moores who stoked the flames, though, and a chunk of people who believed in some sort of conspiracy.
1 Like
Usurping the power of the PA legislature by the PA Governor and AG extending the “to be counted” deadline for mail in ballots past the 8 PM even days later is not “looking”. The State Legislatures are the only body that can change election law (in PA according to the PA constitution). What the Gov and AG there did was unconstitutional. What effect that has is arguable. How many votes it impacted? Who knows and how could they, the system was set up so that once counted there’s no way to determine if the voter was who the mailing envelope says it came from or when it was mailed! Short of calling the election in PA null and void (won’t happen) and calling a re-do, I’m curious if this makes it to the USSC what the opinion of Alito will be.
Fascinating.
There really wasn’t that much. 2000 was the last election I worked on, and the biggest"consipercy" was that more people went to the polls in FL to vote for Gore then Bush, but because of the butterfly ballot, a bunch of old people voted for Pat Instead coating Gore.
Yes, after the election there were questions about Katherine Harris, who was both the head of Bush team in Fl AND Sec of State, asking with the FL gov being Jeb.
So we were pretty convinced we were not getting a fair shake. But no one that I remember ever thought the was actually fraud
Of course most of us also felt that the difi between Gore and Bush was tiny so it wouldn’t really matter at they end
(Whoops)
2 Likes
But we do know. Because those ballots were separated. It was under 10,000 ballots
The answer is 10K votes.
1 Like
I think you could be a little light but again, how do they know.
