University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case(npr.org)
npr.org
University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/30/1050817670/university-florida-professors-free-speech-voting-rights
474 comments
The chair of the board is a GOP mega-donor & “adviser”. Search “Mori Hosseini” for plenty of examples of he and his company getting cozy with the Desantis administration.
His company’s political contributions: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ici-homes/summary?topnumcyc...
His company’s political contributions: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ici-homes/summary?topnumcyc...
The school receives most of their funding from the state, and the state gets to appoint half of their board. The school is concerned that the state could retaliate against them for allowing the professors to testify. Which is probably illegal, but probably wouldn't be addressed for months or years.
The easy way out of this is for the court to subpoena the professors. I wouldn't be surprised if U of F was taking this stance to force that to occur, and which point they can shrug, and say "we tried, but they were subpoenaed..."
The easy way out of this is for the court to subpoena the professors. I wouldn't be surprised if U of F was taking this stance to force that to occur, and which point they can shrug, and say "we tried, but they were subpoenaed..."
> Probably what's going on is that someone on the board of trusties gets money from the political establishment in Florida and is worried that they'll lose it if the voting barriers are fixed and different leadership is elected.
That sounds like an overly biased, rosy fantasy.
Many of us that do not have an R or a D near our names are concerned about how easy it is to cheat the system with ballot harvesting, mail-in ballots, or, at will manipulation of voting laws by secretaries of state rather than legislative bodies, as the Constitution says.
https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee/mail-in_ballot_vote_fraud
That sounds like an overly biased, rosy fantasy.
Many of us that do not have an R or a D near our names are concerned about how easy it is to cheat the system with ballot harvesting, mail-in ballots, or, at will manipulation of voting laws by secretaries of state rather than legislative bodies, as the Constitution says.
https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee/mail-in_ballot_vote_fraud
These are all great ideas.
One could scrape this into a graph database, https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/campaign-finance/contrib...
One could scrape this into a graph database, https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/campaign-finance/contrib...
This project is similar to what you are describing, but data is lacking at the local level https://www.followthemoney.org/
The most sophisticated resource I know of this sort is https://littlesis.org
It should be straightforward to chop something up in Observable. OpenSecrets has an API https://www.opensecrets.org/open-data/api/
It surely exists in private. It should exist in public and be a condition of public service.
The data is already public. An easy to use interface, not so much.
Most states have restrictions on what the donor data can be used for...
I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case, tenure was off the table.
It’s absolutely outrageous that we allow those in positions of power to manipulate the justice system in such a way.
It’s absolutely outrageous that we allow those in positions of power to manipulate the justice system in such a way.
This seems like clear "witness intimidation" aka "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas.
Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.
Aren't there usually provisions to override requiring all party consent, if it becomes reasonably necessary as criminal (not civil) evidence or for your own legal/physical protection?
Edit: I looked into it, nope, Florida is utterly insane - a child didn't get consent to record their rapist soliciting/threatening them, so the evidence was denied;
On December 11, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court held in McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014), that a defendant accused of child molestation has an expectation of privacy in conversations between him and his victim taking place in their shared residence where he asked her to have sex with him and also alluded to his prior acts of sexual abuse.
...
the court concluded that the Secrecy of Communications Act’s (SCA), F.S. Ch. 934, et seq. (2014), plain language barred the trial court’s admission of a recorded conversation between McDade and his victim into evidence. The decision may surprise some, especially when one considers that the victim’s actions in McDade also constituted a crime under the SCA and authorized the criminal defendant in that case to sue the victim under the statute’s civil cause of action
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/mcdade-v-...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1633...
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2014/sc13...
They have since made a exclusion for this scenario, allowing children to record talking to their abusers.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/7001
Edit: I looked into it, nope, Florida is utterly insane - a child didn't get consent to record their rapist soliciting/threatening them, so the evidence was denied;
On December 11, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court held in McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014), that a defendant accused of child molestation has an expectation of privacy in conversations between him and his victim taking place in their shared residence where he asked her to have sex with him and also alluded to his prior acts of sexual abuse.
...
the court concluded that the Secrecy of Communications Act’s (SCA), F.S. Ch. 934, et seq. (2014), plain language barred the trial court’s admission of a recorded conversation between McDade and his victim into evidence. The decision may surprise some, especially when one considers that the victim’s actions in McDade also constituted a crime under the SCA and authorized the criminal defendant in that case to sue the victim under the statute’s civil cause of action
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/mcdade-v-...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1633...
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2014/sc13...
They have since made a exclusion for this scenario, allowing children to record talking to their abusers.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/7001
You should still record anyway. Use it in the court of public opinion.
Except if the recording is illegal, it can be used, in some states, against you criminally and civilly.
I was just having this conversation. You can be sued and/or jailed if you record someone without their consent in a two party consent state.
Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about.
I was just having this conversation. You can be sued and/or jailed if you record someone without their consent in a two party consent state.
Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about.
Again, sure technically, but it also Streisands everything about it. The cost-benefit for prosecutors and the other party isn't a slam dunk!
Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)
Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)
Great, so instead of being able to count on the justice system we're basicall back to mob justice?
We like to think of it as democracy in action.
So the Salem witch trials were "democracy in action"?
The Salem witch trials were under the justice system.
No shit. I was totally wrong. I picked a horrible example, lol. Thanks =)
Yep. Democracy isn’t perfect it’s just one compromise among many.
So better that more innocents be punished than risk any guilty going free? Truly, your love of the strictest "definition" of democracy is baffling, though I think most would vote against you.
Mob justice can be true justice. As in this case precisely, there was proof that a court refused to listen to.
At some point you need to worry about deep fakes, etc, but there's still cases where the accused more or less says they are guilty and flips the court off and everybody acts like nothing can be done about it.
At some point you need to worry about deep fakes, etc, but there's still cases where the accused more or less says they are guilty and flips the court off and everybody acts like nothing can be done about it.
>Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)
I did not think I would ever see someone comparing starting businesses and international travel with committing clear misdemeanors and possible felonies and opening oneself up to civil suits.
I did not think I would ever see someone comparing starting businesses and international travel with committing clear misdemeanors and possible felonies and opening oneself up to civil suits.
That sounds like a description of every American civil rights activist ever.
The main concern (and it's not much of a concern) is that you are charged with wiretapping or the equivalent. The penalties for this are not necessarily severe. Refuse to plea and force a trial.
If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
If someone is actually a rapist and got off on a technicality it's your moral imperative to do something, no? Stand up to unjust laws. Evil prospers because idiots like you do nothing.
If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
If someone is actually a rapist and got off on a technicality it's your moral imperative to do something, no? Stand up to unjust laws. Evil prospers because idiots like you do nothing.
>idiots like you do nothing.
That seems unnecessary ad hominem. Just completely uncalled for.
Also, you're assigning a values judgment to my statements that I genuinely thought I was clear about when I said "Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about."
You have no idea what my stance is on literally anything. Trying to be superior to someone who has given you nothing to feel superior about seems sort of hateful?
Facts are facts, and consequences are consequences, regardless of right or wrong. That was my meaning. Agree with the outcomes or not, believe me or don't. That doesn't matter.
>If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
How do you figure? If it is a surreptitious recording without consent, the person who was recorded has a pretty clear line to a civil case.
That seems unnecessary ad hominem. Just completely uncalled for.
Also, you're assigning a values judgment to my statements that I genuinely thought I was clear about when I said "Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about."
You have no idea what my stance is on literally anything. Trying to be superior to someone who has given you nothing to feel superior about seems sort of hateful?
Facts are facts, and consequences are consequences, regardless of right or wrong. That was my meaning. Agree with the outcomes or not, believe me or don't. That doesn't matter.
>If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
How do you figure? If it is a surreptitious recording without consent, the person who was recorded has a pretty clear line to a civil case.
it's a stretch, but the judge could bar revealing the motive for recording, or playing clips that reveal the nature of what was recorded, in order to keep the jurors from learning that it was child rape and nullifying the charge. in practice it's unlikely though.
also wait, were criminal charges brought against the rape victim for recording? did some prosecutor decide to actively assist further ruining the victim's life? civil I can understand, but what a scumbag for not exercising prosecutorial discretion if so.
also wait, were criminal charges brought against the rape victim for recording? did some prosecutor decide to actively assist further ruining the victim's life? civil I can understand, but what a scumbag for not exercising prosecutorial discretion if so.
https://youtu.be/lSM-9RBk3HQ
Or just make a deepfake of anyone you want saying anything you want and try them in the court of public opinion. Mob justice is a poor form of investigation.
Or just make a deepfake of anyone you want saying anything you want and try them in the court of public opinion. Mob justice is a poor form of investigation.
Courts in the US often do nothing, so mob justice is all you have.
This is a separate issue that will need to be addressed. It will soon be possible to claim any video or audio evidence is faked. I don't know what happens then, but building off of what happens now, each piece of evidence is just weighting the scales one direction.
This is a separate issue that will need to be addressed. It will soon be possible to claim any video or audio evidence is faked. I don't know what happens then, but building off of what happens now, each piece of evidence is just weighting the scales one direction.
We have more options than mob justice. Who told you that, that was our only option? Once you resort to mib justice, their verdicts can't just be "taken back". I'll give you a link to Emmett Till, and that's what mob justice brings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
I live in the US. Courts in the US are often useless. If you have a high profile case you might get justice but usually nothing happens.
I'm definitely aware of what can happen. I don't know how often it does. But if you restrict yourself to forcing justice only when you aren't acting on a hunch you're probably doing the best for yourself you can, because the alternative is usually nothing.
I'm definitely aware of what can happen. I don't know how often it does. But if you restrict yourself to forcing justice only when you aren't acting on a hunch you're probably doing the best for yourself you can, because the alternative is usually nothing.
I live in the US as well and you're arguing for a medieval form of justice. You think we should go back to conviction on a "hunch" and feelings. Have we fallen so far that I have to argue for the merits of a justice system based on evidence in a technical forum? Education and critical thought should be inextricably linked.
No, you didn't understand what I wrote. If you are sure you're not operating on a hunch, which is certainly possible, then just shrugging your shoulders when the court does nothing is insane. If you have proof that a court refuses to listen to then it is your moral imperative to act on it if you can do so.
Isn’t California’s version this what was used in the Planned Parenthood recordings?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521919322...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521919322...
Even then, they will end up not firing the employee then and there, and instead find an excuse to fire them a couple of months later.
Or make his work-life a living hell so he quits himself.
Which has a name: constructive dismissal
Sorry, where does it say that all proof must be in the form of an audio recording? Prosecuting crimes worked perfectly fine before the invention of the tape recorder.
I am deducing it based on the fact that if one person is threatening someone by talking to them in person with no one else around, then he said she said accusations will not be sufficient to convict one of witness tampering in a criminal trial.
But how then verbal intimidation was proven in an age before audio-recording?
Was it? It is pretty well known that one of the main obstacles for populations such as poorer people, women, minorities, or anyone else in a position position where someone has power over them that they can be coerced into questionable activities and they have no recourse because there is no proof.
This is correct if your only goal was to secure a conviction, but you are forgetting that when witness tampering is occurring, there is already a judge who is very willing to hear evidence about it. The integrity of their court is at stake. They absolutely do not require an audio recording to make any number of potent orders to protect you. The indirectness of the threat and its unsuitability to curing by judicial power is more of a problem than the lack of audio recording.
Your best bet if you care about delivering the evidence is probably to leverage the power of the judge, ventilate it and get the people threatening you to retreat. If you do that, you transform a threat behind closed doors (not to do something) into a retaliation for something real that you did (telling the court about tampering) that you can tell your tenure committee about later. In sum, open justice is designed to expose these things, it is far and away the best forum for it, so better to use it while you can.
Your best bet if you care about delivering the evidence is probably to leverage the power of the judge, ventilate it and get the people threatening you to retreat. If you do that, you transform a threat behind closed doors (not to do something) into a retaliation for something real that you did (telling the court about tampering) that you can tell your tenure committee about later. In sum, open justice is designed to expose these things, it is far and away the best forum for it, so better to use it while you can.
My guess is recording laws probably grew from eavesdropping laws so perhaps in some situations you could setup an eavesdropper to serve as a collaborating witness.
Or they could've attempted to intimidate you while you were in a crowd.
Otherwise it would be on reputation alone, just like now.
Or they could've attempted to intimidate you while you were in a crowd.
Otherwise it would be on reputation alone, just like now.
There is no reason to require all party consent to record a conversation unless you want people in power to have even more power over others.
It generally wasn't without a direct witness that saw it.
Technically, yes. But when the other party is breaking the law, I'd still do it. Then if the other party wants to prosecute on that, well, then discovery will become interesting and all of it will affect the other case.
> Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.
Is this true even when gathering evidence of a crime?
Is this true even when gathering evidence of a crime?
California has the same law as Florida.
Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.
Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.
In California a recording without required consent is a crime when made. Intended use doesn't play into that. It is also separately prohibit from use as evidence in court except as evidence of violation of the law prohibiting such recording itself.
> If you wanted to play it on the news, however, you're still free to do that as far as I know.
Sure, if you want to advertise the crime you committed on the news you are permitted to do that.
There is no express prohibition on this in the California law, sure, but it probably is a good way to rack up civil liability as well as advertising your existing exposure to criminal liability. If Florida really has identical law in this area, I’d expect the same thing.
> If you wanted to play it on the news, however, you're still free to do that as far as I know.
Sure, if you want to advertise the crime you committed on the news you are permitted to do that.
There is no express prohibition on this in the California law, sure, but it probably is a good way to rack up civil liability as well as advertising your existing exposure to criminal liability. If Florida really has identical law in this area, I’d expect the same thing.
This article [0] states the contrary: the recording _can_ be used as evidence in a criminal trial, but it seems the actual act of recording it is still criminal as a separate matter.
> Posted: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST / Updated: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST Secretly recording someone else’s conversation is illegal in California, but prosecutors can use the illicit recording as evidence in a criminal case, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
> In their unanimous ruling, the justices cited a 1982 ballot measure passed by voters that allows all “relevant evidence” to be introduced in any criminal trial or pretrial hearing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
> The case at hand concerned a private phone call about the actions of an alleged child molester. While the conversation was confidential under state law, its contents were clearly relevant and were properly disclosed to the jury in the molesting case, the court said.
> The ruling follows a line of cases that narrowed criminal defendants’ rights after the 1982 ballot measure, which sponsors dubbed the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the Chronicle said. The measure included provisions that increased sentences, narrowed the insanity defense, allowed victims to testify at parole and sentencing hearings and let prosecutors introduce evidence that had been obtained in violation of state law.
> The court also rejected defense arguments that admission of secretly recorded evidence would violate the right to privacy in the California Constitution. Those who are harmed by the recordings can still sue for damages, the eavesdroppers can be prosecuted, and the evidence remains inadmissible in non-criminal cases, Cantil-Sakauye said.
[0]: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/its-illegal-to-secretly-rec...
> Posted: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST / Updated: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST Secretly recording someone else’s conversation is illegal in California, but prosecutors can use the illicit recording as evidence in a criminal case, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
> In their unanimous ruling, the justices cited a 1982 ballot measure passed by voters that allows all “relevant evidence” to be introduced in any criminal trial or pretrial hearing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
> The case at hand concerned a private phone call about the actions of an alleged child molester. While the conversation was confidential under state law, its contents were clearly relevant and were properly disclosed to the jury in the molesting case, the court said.
> The ruling follows a line of cases that narrowed criminal defendants’ rights after the 1982 ballot measure, which sponsors dubbed the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the Chronicle said. The measure included provisions that increased sentences, narrowed the insanity defense, allowed victims to testify at parole and sentencing hearings and let prosecutors introduce evidence that had been obtained in violation of state law.
> The court also rejected defense arguments that admission of secretly recorded evidence would violate the right to privacy in the California Constitution. Those who are harmed by the recordings can still sue for damages, the eavesdroppers can be prosecuted, and the evidence remains inadmissible in non-criminal cases, Cantil-Sakauye said.
[0]: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/its-illegal-to-secretly-rec...
[deleted]
Ah, today I learned. I had searched on this a while back but couldn't find provisions for the civil side of things.
Yeah, I don't have much concrete on the civil side, but it seems likely to be a case of public disclosure of private facts. Where everything contained is a matter of legitimate public interest, that might not apply.
The news organization is free to play it, but the person who recorded it would have still broken the law and opened themselves up to prosecution.
https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/
https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/
It is a dice roll that I would not bet on, see adjacent comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068596
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068596
Generally whistleblowing laws override audio recording consent.
Tampering with a witness is a crime, and attempting to document evidence of a crime will outweigh the civil tort.
Tampering with a witness is a crime, and attempting to document evidence of a crime will outweigh the civil tort.
[deleted]
Agree. With all the anti-democratic practices being rolled out across the states it’s pretty scary to imagine things even a year from now and a long time forward. Life threats against election officials and all the way up to Senators. Gerrymandering. Even the SCOTUS is biased. Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.
we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s, so it doesn’t really matter that there are two major parties. in fact, having two parties has been an effective shield against criticism and activism, keeping us distracted (see every comment on hn and beyond that mentions democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, etc.) from the real roots of our growing inequality and stagnation. consolidation of power, wealth and influence is the enemy of the people, as it’s been for all of human history. we keep failing at understanding this throughout that history to our continued collective misery.
we need to (continue to) decentralize governments and markets. we now have the technological means, so it’s largely a matter of popular will at this point.
we need to (continue to) decentralize governments and markets. we now have the technological means, so it’s largely a matter of popular will at this point.
Your analysis is good.
Be careful with your proposed solution. No matter what you do, the powerful and wealthy will always find a way to capture the system. I think the real problem is the sheer amount of wealth and power in a few hands.
Be careful with your proposed solution. No matter what you do, the powerful and wealthy will always find a way to capture the system. I think the real problem is the sheer amount of wealth and power in a few hands.
> we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s
You mean the 1890s?
You mean the 1890s?
1790s
But I would say "oligarchic tendencies" rather than a pure oligarchy, which is the natural and default state of the world once you chop off the head of the monarch and no longer have power vested in a single individual -- it devolves to a smaller group of more powerful individuals.
But elections and popular movements are still in the mix as well, and occasionally make an impact. Thus it's an oligarchy influenced by popular pressures, which is a pretty good classification of all non-monarchic/non-dictatorial governments.
But I would say "oligarchic tendencies" rather than a pure oligarchy, which is the natural and default state of the world once you chop off the head of the monarch and no longer have power vested in a single individual -- it devolves to a smaller group of more powerful individuals.
But elections and popular movements are still in the mix as well, and occasionally make an impact. Thus it's an oligarchy influenced by popular pressures, which is a pretty good classification of all non-monarchic/non-dictatorial governments.
Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at almost every level of government - state, local, and federal.
Well, to begin with, the the United States has never been completely democratic even at the best of times. If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities. This was not microaggressions. It was full out refusal to treat people equally based on race.
For example, my first grade class in Alexandria, Virginia was in a segregated school. It was appropriately named Robert E Lee Elementary. Alexandria desegregated in 1966 and I went to school two blocks down the street instead of across town.
For more on how uneven progress in rights has been I highly recommend "The Republic for Which It Stands - The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896" by Richard White. [0] It's a weighty tome but helped me see through a lot of the myth-making about American Democracy. Also, at least some of the issues dividing the nation seem like replays of disagreements that were never resolved after the Civil War.
[0] https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-...
For example, my first grade class in Alexandria, Virginia was in a segregated school. It was appropriately named Robert E Lee Elementary. Alexandria desegregated in 1966 and I went to school two blocks down the street instead of across town.
For more on how uneven progress in rights has been I highly recommend "The Republic for Which It Stands - The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896" by Richard White. [0] It's a weighty tome but helped me see through a lot of the myth-making about American Democracy. Also, at least some of the issues dividing the nation seem like replays of disagreements that were never resolved after the Civil War.
[0] https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-...
> If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities.
Are you sure on your math?
That is 1971 btw.
Are you sure on your math?
That is 1971 btw.
Due to demographic shifts, much of the Republican party has discovered that it won't get what they want through democracy, so when pressed with the choice of weakening its power, and weakening democracy, it has taken the second one.
In parallel, due to the difficulty of getting legislature through a 50/50 deadlocked congress, the power of the executive has grown to fill the gaps, so you get people on both sides grousing about executive overreach. If congress would do its job, that problem wouldn't be present.
In parallel, due to the difficulty of getting legislature through a 50/50 deadlocked congress, the power of the executive has grown to fill the gaps, so you get people on both sides grousing about executive overreach. If congress would do its job, that problem wouldn't be present.
as hinted at in my sibling comment, there’s a natural gradient toward the consolidation of power, propelled by individual actions to that end. we’ve reached a tipping point in the past 40–50 years where enough consolidation has happened that politicians no longer need to genuinely care about the populace at large, but rather only the plutocratic class.
IMHO, it's been an escalation of tit-for-tat from both sides of the aisle.
News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side.
What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.
News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side.
What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.
Almost like they were cooperating?
Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-sprea...
That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.
That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.
The last major story about ballot harvesting was a conviction for a Republican operative doing it in North Carolina.
Great. We can get behind it being a bad thing, right?
There is a basic data science question here. What kind of data errors exist in the US system.
Precision error = invalid voter voting
Recall error = valid voter unable to vote
You can look up detailed definitions on wikipedia.
US is plagued by recall errors. Like tptacek pointed out miniscule precision errors identified so far are by Republicans. The errors trade off with each other. Reducing precision errors will increase recall errors and vice versa.
When someone makes a song and dance about virtually non existent precision errors and tries to worsen recall errors - the intent is not to reduce the errors, but increase it to subvert the democratic process.
Precision error = invalid voter voting
Recall error = valid voter unable to vote
You can look up detailed definitions on wikipedia.
US is plagued by recall errors. Like tptacek pointed out miniscule precision errors identified so far are by Republicans. The errors trade off with each other. Reducing precision errors will increase recall errors and vice versa.
When someone makes a song and dance about virtually non existent precision errors and tries to worsen recall errors - the intent is not to reduce the errors, but increase it to subvert the democratic process.
First, can we agree on a set of premises --- for instance, that "ballot harvesting" is not an idiosyncrasy of the Democratic party? It's an article of faith among conservatives that the Democratic Party is the party of voter fraud, but that's empirically untrue.
When we agree on what the facts are, it should be straightforward for us to work out what good changes would be.
When we agree on what the facts are, it should be straightforward for us to work out what good changes would be.
What does that have to do with ballot harvesting?
I don’t think democrats are “the party of voter fraud.” I do think they overvalue activist rhetoric about voter access while undervaluing the importance of overt displays of trustworthiness in building trust in elections. The whole point of elections is so people who don’t trust each other can agree on the result, and ballot harvesting pretty much screams untrustworthiness.
Voting isn’t rocket science. Plenty of advanced democracies do it well. My point of reference is basically: is this practice common in the EU, or Japan/Taiwan/Australia/Canada? As far as I can tell, ballot harvesting isn’t.
I don’t think democrats are “the party of voter fraud.” I do think they overvalue activist rhetoric about voter access while undervaluing the importance of overt displays of trustworthiness in building trust in elections. The whole point of elections is so people who don’t trust each other can agree on the result, and ballot harvesting pretty much screams untrustworthiness.
Voting isn’t rocket science. Plenty of advanced democracies do it well. My point of reference is basically: is this practice common in the EU, or Japan/Taiwan/Australia/Canada? As far as I can tell, ballot harvesting isn’t.
I guess I'd ask why I should care about that particular wrinkle of vote casting. I took the time to go read up on state ballot harvesting laws, and there's essentially no apparent correlation between state parties and ballot collection laws. I learned that ballot collection is kind of a big deal for Native Americans (who rely on collectors for far-flung reservations, where otherwise getting to a sanctioned ballot box might involve a multiple-hour drive) and for elderly voters in assisted living homes. There seems to be no studied connection between lax collection laws and incidence of fraud.
Why do you care about this? I'm asking sincerely; I don't get it. I know about the Bladen County thing in NC (Bladen County was the subject of the last Serial podcast) --- again, that was Republican election fraud. But my reaction to that isn't that we should make it harder for people to cast ballots.
Why do you care about this? I'm asking sincerely; I don't get it. I know about the Bladen County thing in NC (Bladen County was the subject of the last Serial podcast) --- again, that was Republican election fraud. But my reaction to that isn't that we should make it harder for people to cast ballots.
angelzen(1)
This is where truth and "truthiness" diverge, I suppose. "Two decades of claims about election fraud" shares character with "two decades of high rates of Stop-and-Frisk detainments of black New Yorkers." The rest of the world looks at the reasonable behavior of liberal election workers and would be reformers - no the "Moderate" Democrats, who as recently as last week were working to gerrymander one of their own party members out of office because they're a progressive - and the way they're received by certain subsets of the electorate, and justifiably consider us insane. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29071163]
This statement
>That, in turn, has destroyed trust.
Is useful, though not in the way you probably think. The notion of "trust" in American politics is an important and powerful one, and the root of much of our history. Our basic structure as a federation is built on interstate trust. Our major flirtation with dissolution was not predicated on actual legislative action, but a lack of trust that certain actions wouldn't eventually be taken. So, trust is both a bedrock of our society and a curiously fragile thing.
As far as that notion goes, an examination of our history can yield the following statements:
That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote.
and
The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote.
This statement
>That, in turn, has destroyed trust.
Is useful, though not in the way you probably think. The notion of "trust" in American politics is an important and powerful one, and the root of much of our history. Our basic structure as a federation is built on interstate trust. Our major flirtation with dissolution was not predicated on actual legislative action, but a lack of trust that certain actions wouldn't eventually be taken. So, trust is both a bedrock of our society and a curiously fragile thing.
As far as that notion goes, an examination of our history can yield the following statements:
That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote.
and
The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote.
The rest of the world gets an extremely biased view of what’s happening in America. They may view “liberal election workers and would be reformers” as the good guys based on that, but the best way to tell what they think is reasonable is from the rules they impose on themselves. French people might not like Georgia Republicans, but France banned mail in voting in the 1970s, while Georgia has extensive mail in voting. Germans might not like Georgia Republicans either, but residency registration there—which is required for voting—requires shlepping down to a citizens office in person with a bunch of paperwork. Meanwhile you can register to vote in Georgia completely online.
You can see this for many other issues as well. International media portrays American Republicans as crazy religious fundamentalists. But Mississippi’s 15-week abortion law is less restrictive than the laws in France or Germany. (In the latter country, abortion is technically still illegal under the basic law, though not punished.)
I agree referencing international norms is a good way to sanity-check what’s within bounds. But obviously the way to do that is to look at the actual rules in place in other liberal democracies, not how people in those countries perceive Americans. On that front, the American left is outside the liberal democratic mainstream on many issues: voting, abortion, religious education, etc.
You can see this for many other issues as well. International media portrays American Republicans as crazy religious fundamentalists. But Mississippi’s 15-week abortion law is less restrictive than the laws in France or Germany. (In the latter country, abortion is technically still illegal under the basic law, though not punished.)
I agree referencing international norms is a good way to sanity-check what’s within bounds. But obviously the way to do that is to look at the actual rules in place in other liberal democracies, not how people in those countries perceive Americans. On that front, the American left is outside the liberal democratic mainstream on many issues: voting, abortion, religious education, etc.
Cherry-picking restrictive (and, might I say, somewhat off-topic?) policies doesn't change that some form of postal voting is associated with national freedom and wealth, which is both an image I imagine that we'd like to project and a reality level-headed lovers of democracy support. Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing.
Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life. When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like:
There has been no widespread election fraud in American federal elections at any point in living memory.
and
Certain US states have a documented history of voting discrimination.
and
A 2013 SCOTUS decision struck down key provisions of a law meant to protect people from this discrimination.
and
The conservative governments of those very same states immediately enacted new restrictive voter laws.
and
Officials have admitted that, in some cases, these laws were expressly designed not to enhance election security, but to lower turnout of "undesirable" voters.
So, if non-Americans come away with the impression that conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to... vote? It would be an accurate impression. It would be the truth.
You completely ignored the bulk of my reply, probably because there's no getting around the fact that American conservatism, historically, radically diverges from liberalism on voting rights. They don't hold the same values at all, and the delineation is clear, as I'll state again:
Liberals want people to be able to vote.
Conservatives want to withhold the right to vote.
Now, you can argue the merits of each stance. I would probably counter your likely argument that undue and onerous restrictions, which substantially resemble capricious tactics of the past, run counter to the most basic American ethos, and that our national experiment has been one of slowly uncovering the diamond of liberty that is recognizing and assuring the right of all sound-minded adults to agency and self-determination and a voice in the public square. It's a really pretty diamond. People around the world think so, too. I'm going to ask you to put down the shovel you seem intent on using to cover it back up again.
Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life. When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like:
There has been no widespread election fraud in American federal elections at any point in living memory.
and
Certain US states have a documented history of voting discrimination.
and
A 2013 SCOTUS decision struck down key provisions of a law meant to protect people from this discrimination.
and
The conservative governments of those very same states immediately enacted new restrictive voter laws.
and
Officials have admitted that, in some cases, these laws were expressly designed not to enhance election security, but to lower turnout of "undesirable" voters.
So, if non-Americans come away with the impression that conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to... vote? It would be an accurate impression. It would be the truth.
You completely ignored the bulk of my reply, probably because there's no getting around the fact that American conservatism, historically, radically diverges from liberalism on voting rights. They don't hold the same values at all, and the delineation is clear, as I'll state again:
Liberals want people to be able to vote.
Conservatives want to withhold the right to vote.
Now, you can argue the merits of each stance. I would probably counter your likely argument that undue and onerous restrictions, which substantially resemble capricious tactics of the past, run counter to the most basic American ethos, and that our national experiment has been one of slowly uncovering the diamond of liberty that is recognizing and assuring the right of all sound-minded adults to agency and self-determination and a voice in the public square. It's a really pretty diamond. People around the world think so, too. I'm going to ask you to put down the shovel you seem intent on using to cover it back up again.
> Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing.
Sure, but Texas, Georgia, and Florida have no excuse-needed absentee voting. Democratic rhetoric about “Jim Crow on steroids” is precisely about these restrictions such as number of days of early voting—which are still generally more liberal in these states than in advanced western countries.
> Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life.
But that’s exactly what’s happening. Foreigners aren’t looking at the actual laws in Florida or Georgia and comparing them to their own laws, they’re hearing Biden call those laws “Jim Crow on steroids.”
> When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like:
Except, apparently, the “facts” regarding the actual content of these laws.
Sure, but Texas, Georgia, and Florida have no excuse-needed absentee voting. Democratic rhetoric about “Jim Crow on steroids” is precisely about these restrictions such as number of days of early voting—which are still generally more liberal in these states than in advanced western countries.
> Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life.
But that’s exactly what’s happening. Foreigners aren’t looking at the actual laws in Florida or Georgia and comparing them to their own laws, they’re hearing Biden call those laws “Jim Crow on steroids.”
> When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like:
Except, apparently, the “facts” regarding the actual content of these laws.
> Sure, but Texas, Georgia, and Florida have no excuse-needed absentee voting.
I do not think this is the case for Texas I voted absentee in the last presidential election and I was only able to do so because I was out of state during the election. If I had not been out of state I would not have qualified for absentee voting. That does not match what I would call 'no excuse-needed absentee voting'.
I do not think this is the case for Texas I voted absentee in the last presidential election and I was only able to do so because I was out of state during the election. If I had not been out of state I would not have qualified for absentee voting. That does not match what I would call 'no excuse-needed absentee voting'.
>Democratic rhetoric about “Jim Crow on steroids” is precisely about these restrictions such as number of days of early voting—which are still generally more liberal in these states than in advanced western countries.
We are supposed to be the flag-carrier for free and fair elections. That means fairness with respect to the capability of all voters to "get to the polls", however that may be. We meet them where they are, not the other way around. The alternative opens the door for nominally-unrelated-but-practically-critical barriers to voting - like underfunding public transportation, for example.
>But that’s exactly what’s happening. Foreigners aren’t looking at the actual laws in Florida or Georgia and comparing them to their own laws, they’re hearing Biden call those laws “Jim Crow on steroids.”
>Except, apparently, the “facts” regarding the actual content of these laws.
Let's be clear: I am glad that foreigners recognize the righteousness of American elections when they're at their most free, regardless of how that might impugn their own processes. But that's not where my argument draws its legitimacy. It comes instead from the appropriateness of less restrictive election laws in the face of America's particular values and America's particular history. The actual content of restrictive voter laws allow conduct that is substantially similar to the Jim Crow-era conduct - of the segregationist governments that today's Texas and Georgia and Florida and others are heir to - that the VRA was meant to curb.
If you don't want to be accused of conjuring Strom Thurmond's ghost, don't pass laws he would have applauded for reasons he also would have applauded. You accuse others of not looking at the content of laws when you refuse to critically examine the content of our history.
We are supposed to be the flag-carrier for free and fair elections. That means fairness with respect to the capability of all voters to "get to the polls", however that may be. We meet them where they are, not the other way around. The alternative opens the door for nominally-unrelated-but-practically-critical barriers to voting - like underfunding public transportation, for example.
>But that’s exactly what’s happening. Foreigners aren’t looking at the actual laws in Florida or Georgia and comparing them to their own laws, they’re hearing Biden call those laws “Jim Crow on steroids.”
>Except, apparently, the “facts” regarding the actual content of these laws.
Let's be clear: I am glad that foreigners recognize the righteousness of American elections when they're at their most free, regardless of how that might impugn their own processes. But that's not where my argument draws its legitimacy. It comes instead from the appropriateness of less restrictive election laws in the face of America's particular values and America's particular history. The actual content of restrictive voter laws allow conduct that is substantially similar to the Jim Crow-era conduct - of the segregationist governments that today's Texas and Georgia and Florida and others are heir to - that the VRA was meant to curb.
If you don't want to be accused of conjuring Strom Thurmond's ghost, don't pass laws he would have applauded for reasons he also would have applauded. You accuse others of not looking at the content of laws when you refuse to critically examine the content of our history.
> That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote.
Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way?
That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators?
Yeah, they trust the right with the right to vote, as long as the left can finagle a way to outvote them. (Yes, I know, neither of those passed, nor has any likelihood of passing. Still, there's a profound distrust of democracy on the part of at least some of the left.)
> The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote.
That is so ridiculously wrong that it looks like you're just making stuff up to fit a totally slanted worldview. In particular, the word "never" is a dead giveaway.
Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way?
That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators?
Yeah, they trust the right with the right to vote, as long as the left can finagle a way to outvote them. (Yes, I know, neither of those passed, nor has any likelihood of passing. Still, there's a profound distrust of democracy on the part of at least some of the left.)
> The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote.
That is so ridiculously wrong that it looks like you're just making stuff up to fit a totally slanted worldview. In particular, the word "never" is a dead giveaway.
>Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way?
As much as I wish we would have breached this point of trust by now, liberals have never actually packed the Supreme Court.
>That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators?
I have never heard of this.
Please focus on things that have actually happened, and not wild conspiracy theories.
>That is so ridiculously wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_co...
Each point of contention, hard fought by conservatives, who were dragged kicking and screaming into the future of a country that ever-so-slightly further embodied its highest ideals, despite their protests.
As much as I wish we would have breached this point of trust by now, liberals have never actually packed the Supreme Court.
>That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators?
I have never heard of this.
Please focus on things that have actually happened, and not wild conspiracy theories.
>That is so ridiculously wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_co...
Each point of contention, hard fought by conservatives, who were dragged kicking and screaming into the future of a country that ever-so-slightly further embodied its highest ideals, despite their protests.
I'm not sure what you think that article demonstrates. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that "The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote".
I will give you that there have been times when the Right has not trusted the Left with the right to vote. I will give you that in some places, that is true right now. But a general, sweeping statement? "Never"? C'mon. You're simply wrong.
I will give you that there have been times when the Right has not trusted the Left with the right to vote. I will give you that in some places, that is true right now. But a general, sweeping statement? "Never"? C'mon. You're simply wrong.
It demonstrates that
>conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to vote
The protected classes in question tend to vote with the Left. Therefore, the Right has largely, generally, in sweeping fashion, resisted the extension and protection of major portions of the Left's right to vote. "Never" is the correct word. You are wrong.
>conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to vote
The protected classes in question tend to vote with the Left. Therefore, the Right has largely, generally, in sweeping fashion, resisted the extension and protection of major portions of the Left's right to vote. "Never" is the correct word. You are wrong.
Ultimately, it is almost always the fault of Democrats- whether it is fake electoral fraud allegations, gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. Stacey Abrams and fauci are the true villains here. /s
Btw, electoral fraud via voter disenfranchisement is a well established reality. Voter disenfranchisement has been a Republican tactic for decades that Democrats are finally fighting against. Yes, this is fraud - which is why Republicans are now upset that their fraud is being shut down by Stacey Abrams. Georgia already proved this.
Btw, electoral fraud via voter disenfranchisement is a well established reality. Voter disenfranchisement has been a Republican tactic for decades that Democrats are finally fighting against. Yes, this is fraud - which is why Republicans are now upset that their fraud is being shut down by Stacey Abrams. Georgia already proved this.
Your partisan colors are showing.
Strong election processes and voting processes can go both ways.
Strong election processes and voting processes can go both ways.
> Your partisan colors are showing
Is this the best counter argument to support voter disenfranchisement that you were able to come up with?
Is this the best counter argument to support voter disenfranchisement that you were able to come up with?
What exactly is the problem with ballot harvesting if they’re legitimate votes? Maybe the State shouldn’t make it hard to vote. And your source is not exactly unbiased, stating without evidence that “ Updating the voter rolls by removing dormant registrations does not “disenfranchise” voters; it is necessary in order to keep the rolls accurate and up to date, as many people move or die every year.” How do they know that? Just a gut feeling? White conservatives have for centuries tried everything under the sun to stop Black people from voting, that’s just one more try.
> What exactly is the problem with ballot harvesting if they’re legitimate votes
It destroys the chain of custody. See section 5.2 of the Carter-Baker report, which recommended banning the practice: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b5079...
Also what does this have to do with Black people? Most older people in the country who supposedly would benefit from this are white—the median white person is a decade older than the median Black person.
It destroys the chain of custody. See section 5.2 of the Carter-Baker report, which recommended banning the practice: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b5079...
Also what does this have to do with Black people? Most older people in the country who supposedly would benefit from this are white—the median white person is a decade older than the median Black person.
Are you tracking what just happened in Wisconsin?
I think this is the normal evolution of political systems. Historically it needs something like war, revolution or a big crisis to break things up and start again.
Any answer that doesn't include the phrase "Southern Strategy" is suspect. Not that that is the ultimate source of the issue; but that, from that era forward, there is an unbroken through-line of tone and tactic.
We got into this mess because the activist wing of the Democratic party doesn't know how to accept a win.
For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele...
What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.
For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele...
What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.
I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. Once postmarked, delivery is out of the hands of the voter (and, in fact, there are some really fucked up incentives for the party that controls postal delivery).
The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
> I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by.
The purpose of delivered-by is obviously to allow for the election results to be known on election day (or as soon thereafter as possible).
A sensible alternative would be to use postmarked-by, but make the postmarked-by date sufficiently in advance of "election day" to allow for the ballots to have been delivered by then. In practice this is the same result while addressing your concern for intentional postal system delays, since now intentional delays wouldn't change the result so there would be no incentive to do it. (And a large number of ballets mailed well in advance of election day but delivered after would then be highly suspicious, as it ought to be.)
> The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
A delay that was overwhelmed by a different delay in a specific election doesn't mean it isn't a delay.
The purpose of delivered-by is obviously to allow for the election results to be known on election day (or as soon thereafter as possible).
A sensible alternative would be to use postmarked-by, but make the postmarked-by date sufficiently in advance of "election day" to allow for the ballots to have been delivered by then. In practice this is the same result while addressing your concern for intentional postal system delays, since now intentional delays wouldn't change the result so there would be no incentive to do it. (And a large number of ballets mailed well in advance of election day but delivered after would then be highly suspicious, as it ought to be.)
> The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
A delay that was overwhelmed by a different delay in a specific election doesn't mean it isn't a delay.
It's a 50/50 country. We're not going to get results known on election day, if for no other reason than that true absentee ballots (not convenience mail-in ballots) are a thing, and many jurisdictions don't allow them to be counted until election day. Since no proposed policy change gets us the outcome you're looking for, it doesn't make sense to inconvenience (and, really, jeopardize) votes in the name of achieving that goal.
I view not having results on Election Day as being akin to lag in game controllers. It really undermines the feeling that the election result is causally related to the voting.
I was surprised to see how much it upset me to see the NYC mayoral primary drag on.
I was surprised to see how much it upset me to see the NYC mayoral primary drag on.
I think we should be angry when incompetence causes undue delays, which is what happened in New York state, for pretty much the same reason we should be angry about any incompetence. I think the idea that the delays undermine democracy are a canard (they're a canard the Democrats have employed in the past, too). Vote tabulation is complicated because we're complicated.
We already have one party rule by the super wealthy. The fights between Democrats and Republicans are just show business to distract from the real problems of the country.
Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?
GOP has the majority of state governors.
GOP has the majority of state legislatures.
Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data.
Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data.
Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side.
In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."
Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower.
And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower.
And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
That is what the Senate is for. A minority party should never get control of all three branches of government with only 46% of the popular vote. Control of one branch of government is sufficient to exert influence on the legislative process. In our current setup, the minority party has zero reason to appeal to the median voter. This results in increasing polarization as the two parties are no longer competing against each other for voters, but instead are trying to drive turnout.
Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
The ability of the partisan brain to consistently be outraged by the perceived foul play of the other side, while never bothering to check how one's own side is measuring up, is a fascinating phenomenon.
This is really easy to sanity check. For example CA, the best known blue state in the nation. 2020 elections, 79% of the Congressional delegation is D, while only (edit) 66% of the popular vote went for (edit) Ds.
But, but, but, the other guys are even worse than us. We won't stand for truth, fairness or justice, obviously the correct course of action is to out-foul them whenever we can. And then we wonder why the country is on the brink of an ugly divorce.
This is really easy to sanity check. For example CA, the best known blue state in the nation. 2020 elections, 79% of the Congressional delegation is D, while only (edit) 66% of the popular vote went for (edit) Ds.
But, but, but, the other guys are even worse than us. We won't stand for truth, fairness or justice, obviously the correct course of action is to out-foul them whenever we can. And then we wonder why the country is on the brink of an ugly divorce.
California, indeed no state, uses proportional representation. The last person to recommend looking at that was ... Lani Guinier. In fact, it's a good idea but it would mean that Wyoming wouldn't get two Senators for its population of 578,000. As a Californian, yeah, proportional representation is a good idea.
California passed non-partisan redistricting back in 2005. This took re-drawing the districts out of the hands of the legislature. It was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and passed as a ballot proposition by the electorate.
California passed non-partisan redistricting back in 2005. This took re-drawing the districts out of the hands of the legislature. It was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and passed as a ballot proposition by the electorate.
First of all, your numbers are wrong[1]. And second, thanks to Trump, R's lost a lot of seats in CA by close margins. Before Trump, the CA delegation was more balanced. It should also be said that CA Democrats are a super majority. Once you get into super majority territory, it would essentially require a reverse gerrymander to protect minority seats.
CA uses a nonpartisan process to create their congressional maps. If and when the Republicans manage to claw their way out of super minority status, I fully expect that the congressional delegation will return to a more balanced state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...
CA uses a nonpartisan process to create their congressional maps. If and when the Republicans manage to claw their way out of super minority status, I fully expect that the congressional delegation will return to a more balanced state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...
Thanks for the link. The congress vote went 66-34. The congressional delegation, 79-21. There is a noticeable gap there, any plan to fix it?
I don't think anyone on either side really thinks this is a problem. Look at Utah for a counter example, 75% of delegates with 60% of the congressional vote.
No one on the left is complaining about Utah. When elections are winner take all, big majorities result in oversized representation. And there are still ways for minority party voters to exert influence in these states. For example, they can vote for the more moderate candidate in the other parties primary. The problem is when a state is voting closer to 50-50 like Wisconsin. The Republicans hold a near super majority in the state legislature despite receiving fewer total votes. And because the legislature controls redistricting, Republicans can essentially maintain permanent control of the legislature. That is not healthy for Democracy.
But if you really wanted to fix the CA delegation representation, I would fully support moving to a system where the congressional delegation is determined by statewide popular vote. But that introduces a whole set of issues. For example that means folks would vote for the party instead of candidate, which means we could see further entrenchment of party insiders. The flip side is it would probably make it easier for third parties to get representation in congress. I think this generally would be a hard sell in the US though. I think both core left and core right are too distrustful of their respective party bosses to trust the selection process, and we are a very diverse country, geographically and culturally. So having local representation is meaningful (for example, neither AOC or Taylor Greene would survive a process like this, but both of them have very passionate followers that deserve some representation in congress).
No one on the left is complaining about Utah. When elections are winner take all, big majorities result in oversized representation. And there are still ways for minority party voters to exert influence in these states. For example, they can vote for the more moderate candidate in the other parties primary. The problem is when a state is voting closer to 50-50 like Wisconsin. The Republicans hold a near super majority in the state legislature despite receiving fewer total votes. And because the legislature controls redistricting, Republicans can essentially maintain permanent control of the legislature. That is not healthy for Democracy.
But if you really wanted to fix the CA delegation representation, I would fully support moving to a system where the congressional delegation is determined by statewide popular vote. But that introduces a whole set of issues. For example that means folks would vote for the party instead of candidate, which means we could see further entrenchment of party insiders. The flip side is it would probably make it easier for third parties to get representation in congress. I think this generally would be a hard sell in the US though. I think both core left and core right are too distrustful of their respective party bosses to trust the selection process, and we are a very diverse country, geographically and culturally. So having local representation is meaningful (for example, neither AOC or Taylor Greene would survive a process like this, but both of them have very passionate followers that deserve some representation in congress).
How about we eliminate party affiliation on voter registration, census, etc. Make it as difficult as possible to gerrymander with confidence.
Of course, that would destroy party primaries, party nominations, etc. Hmmm... even better.
Who ever thought it was a good idea for a private club to control who can or cannot participate in elections?
Of course, that would destroy party primaries, party nominations, etc. Hmmm... even better.
Who ever thought it was a good idea for a private club to control who can or cannot participate in elections?
The plan to fix it would be proportional representation (independent redistricting is also a good plan for most states but California already has that). It seems to be getting a bit more attention recently but nowhere near a major push for it that I've seen, even here in Oregon where unaffiliated voters outnumber Republicans and are getting closer to outnumbering Democrats as well. I think we have a decent chance of getting independent redistricting in the next few years and hopefully the state supreme court will improve the districting passed by the legislature.
Edit: We also don't have the top two system that California and Washington have and that high number of unaffiliated voters is even under a closed primary system.
Edit2: Unaffiliated voters in Oregon do include most non-voters, unlike some states.
Edit: We also don't have the top two system that California and Washington have and that high number of unaffiliated voters is even under a closed primary system.
Edit2: Unaffiliated voters in Oregon do include most non-voters, unlike some states.
> There is a noticeable gap there, any plan to fix it?
A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem, unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely.
If you don't want to go all that way, algorithmic/automatic redistricting goes a long way to address issues.
[edit since I was obviously not very clear. I'm not suggesting you do actually want to get rid of all districts, just making the point that by nature regional representation and proportional representation are in conflict in pretty fundamental ways. You can hack around it with ideas like floating representatives, super-regions, etc. but you can't really solve it. Gerrymandering, otoh, is an issue in its own right.
I probably should have said "not a problem, or at least not a problem addressable at this level of the system"]
A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem, unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely.
If you don't want to go all that way, algorithmic/automatic redistricting goes a long way to address issues.
[edit since I was obviously not very clear. I'm not suggesting you do actually want to get rid of all districts, just making the point that by nature regional representation and proportional representation are in conflict in pretty fundamental ways. You can hack around it with ideas like floating representatives, super-regions, etc. but you can't really solve it. Gerrymandering, otoh, is an issue in its own right.
I probably should have said "not a problem, or at least not a problem addressable at this level of the system"]
Proportional representation does not necessarily (or even usually) completely do away with seats having a regional tie, although it does increase the size of the region.
> A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem
Yes, it does.
> unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely.
Two problems here:
(1) it prevents a false dichotomy that the only way to address the gap is erasing regional ties completely, and
(2) it confuses the question of “does a problem exist?” with the question of “is there a means of fixing the problem that doesn't have it’s own, equally or more significant problems?”
Yes, it does.
> unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely.
Two problems here:
(1) it prevents a false dichotomy that the only way to address the gap is erasing regional ties completely, and
(2) it confuses the question of “does a problem exist?” with the question of “is there a means of fixing the problem that doesn't have it’s own, equally or more significant problems?”
> Yes, it does.
For a concrete scenario: a 50/50 split state with three Congressional seats. One party will likely get one seat, the other two. Potentially by tiny margins.
There will be a major gap in representation, even with perfectly fairly drawn districts.
For a concrete scenario: a 50/50 split state with three Congressional seats. One party will likely get one seat, the other two. Potentially by tiny margins.
There will be a major gap in representation, even with perfectly fairly drawn districts.
Gerrymandering and disproportionality are separate issues: the former implies the latter, but the First Past The Post voting system (where the winner is the person with the plurality of votes in a given district, irrespective of magnitude) tends to generate the latter even if apportionment is fair.
Example: the United Kingdom. We have independent redistricting, and the Boundary Commission are genuinely not in anyone's pocket. The criteria are debatable in some areas, but gerrymandering is essentially absent. And yet, if you look at the most recent general election, the SNP won the overwhelming majority of the seats in Scotland with only 45% of the vote! [0]
Now that's partly because there are four effective parties in Scotland, but they would have done very nearly that well against any single opposition party. FPTP magnifies the seats for the more popular party.
Bluntly, if the votes are distributed completely evenly, 51% of the votes gets you 100% of the seats. See the Eisenhower/Stevenson presidential election in 1956: Eisenhower got 86% of the electoral college votes for only 57% of the popular vote, because he was (a bit) more popular nearly everywhere.
There are systems which aim to have seats and votes be proportional: they're very popular in democracies beyond Great Britain's former colonies. So the gap you mention is, in principle, fixable. But it's not in either party's interests to do so, so it's likely to persist.
[0]: https://i0.wp.com/ballotbox.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/...
Example: the United Kingdom. We have independent redistricting, and the Boundary Commission are genuinely not in anyone's pocket. The criteria are debatable in some areas, but gerrymandering is essentially absent. And yet, if you look at the most recent general election, the SNP won the overwhelming majority of the seats in Scotland with only 45% of the vote! [0]
Now that's partly because there are four effective parties in Scotland, but they would have done very nearly that well against any single opposition party. FPTP magnifies the seats for the more popular party.
Bluntly, if the votes are distributed completely evenly, 51% of the votes gets you 100% of the seats. See the Eisenhower/Stevenson presidential election in 1956: Eisenhower got 86% of the electoral college votes for only 57% of the popular vote, because he was (a bit) more popular nearly everywhere.
There are systems which aim to have seats and votes be proportional: they're very popular in democracies beyond Great Britain's former colonies. So the gap you mention is, in principle, fixable. But it's not in either party's interests to do so, so it's likely to persist.
[0]: https://i0.wp.com/ballotbox.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/...
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing.
That said, 50-77 versus 63-79 seems like a different order of magnitude worth of gerrymandering.
That said, 50-77 versus 63-79 seems like a different order of magnitude worth of gerrymandering.
Order of magnitude means 10x. This is 27 vs 16, not even a binary order of magnitude :)
I agree that gerrymandering is a major issue. I wholeheartedly disagree that it can be solved if framed through partisan lenses.
Our brains crave to know who is on our side and equate that with the good guys. As long as we don't make an explicit effort to snap out of this very seductive mode of thinking, the future is tribal. Memorably, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
I agree that gerrymandering is a major issue. I wholeheartedly disagree that it can be solved if framed through partisan lenses.
Our brains crave to know who is on our side and equate that with the good guys. As long as we don't make an explicit effort to snap out of this very seductive mode of thinking, the future is tribal. Memorably, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
The 63-79 isn't apples to apples - it's comparing Congressional representation to Presidential votes.
We should be comparing number of seats assigned to each party and % of vote cast for each party.
We should be comparing number of seats assigned to each party and % of vote cast for each party.
I could not find the Congressional vote totals on the Wikipedia page. If you have a source with the Congressional vote totals, please share.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
Thanks for the link. The congress vote went 66-34. The congressional delegation, 79-21. There is a noticeable gap there.
Perhaps this is a moment to step back, and at the very least analyze the full data set? How much being in charge of the State Legislature gives room for gerrymandering promoting candidates from the same party? Is it really a one side issue, or both parties engage in it with abandon whenever they get the chance?
Well, that was a deeper foray in US politics than I ever wanted. Hastalavista!
Perhaps this is a moment to step back, and at the very least analyze the full data set? How much being in charge of the State Legislature gives room for gerrymandering promoting candidates from the same party? Is it really a one side issue, or both parties engage in it with abandon whenever they get the chance?
Well, that was a deeper foray in US politics than I ever wanted. Hastalavista!
[deleted]
This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
Because the "protections" end up disenfranchising voters, particularly people who vote for the opposite party.
No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights.
For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences.
For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences.
This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.
I think you are making biased comments.
There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting.
Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security.
On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility.
Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting.
Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security.
On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility.
Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors.
Type 1 = right people not being able to vote
Type 2 = wrong people voting
The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
Type 1 = right people not being able to vote
Type 2 = wrong people voting
The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.
At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.
I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.
I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...)
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines.
Is there any precedence you are aware of?
Is there any precedence you are aware of?
You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.
My point is, if Democrats actually cared about this they would fix it in the states they have power in. Instead, they just benefit from it without trying to reform it. It feels like virtue signalling to me. If you think it is a problem then fix it.
[deleted]
Conservative voter here.
I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
I know that a lot of conservative news outlets have been repeating this over and over, but the facts just simply don't support this statement.
The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform.
But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform.
But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
Conservatives have an extremely powerful media machine too. Some of the most viewed personas on TV and online are conservatives, with the same being true for radio.
[deleted]
Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers.
Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud.
Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud.
It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage.
In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way.
For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger.
Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser.
A bit dirty, dont you think?
edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud.
It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage.
In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way.
For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger.
Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser.
A bit dirty, dont you think?
edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
> Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example?
I mean, that's trivial.
KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro...
NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people...
CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year")
FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-...
The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods.
Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte...
People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
I mean, that's trivial.
KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro...
NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people...
CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year")
FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-...
The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods.
Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte...
People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
Yeah, 15 seconds of the slightest search efforts can bring any of this up.
I've found time and time again that anybody who believes there is or ever has been even the slightest issue with "dead voters" is somebody who simply can't be reasoned with, and engagement just isn't worth the effort.
They're completely lost and engulfed in a sea of "their own research"
I've found time and time again that anybody who believes there is or ever has been even the slightest issue with "dead voters" is somebody who simply can't be reasoned with, and engagement just isn't worth the effort.
They're completely lost and engulfed in a sea of "their own research"
The problem with all of this is that it's complicated, people misstate things, and everybody is eager to prove that "their side" is right.
So then you get excessive claims like "no state purges voter rolls" which is just easily falsifiable, and then it gets falsified and leads one side to believe that to be the end of it.
Whereas what really happens is that a state goes to purge its voter rolls, they have a list of 100,000 "dead people" and the list is erroneous and contains hundreds of live people, because government databases are full of dung. So then they get sued, often right before the election, to prevent any of the names from being purged, including any of the 99,000+ who were actually dead.
Another thing that happens is that someone dies between the last purge and the election. Then either they submitted their ballot before they died (but were ineligible to vote because they weren't alive on election day), or they were sent a ballot after they died and a member of their family submitted it. So there are always a few dead people in every election who voted after they died, and some of these are actually fraud (in the second case), and others aren't "fraud" but they're still invalid votes that shouldn't be counted. Rarely if ever does this, alone, change the outcome; but the ballots are there.
Which results in the over-claim on the other side. "There are zero dead people voting." Also easily falsifiable.
Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
So then you get excessive claims like "no state purges voter rolls" which is just easily falsifiable, and then it gets falsified and leads one side to believe that to be the end of it.
Whereas what really happens is that a state goes to purge its voter rolls, they have a list of 100,000 "dead people" and the list is erroneous and contains hundreds of live people, because government databases are full of dung. So then they get sued, often right before the election, to prevent any of the names from being purged, including any of the 99,000+ who were actually dead.
Another thing that happens is that someone dies between the last purge and the election. Then either they submitted their ballot before they died (but were ineligible to vote because they weren't alive on election day), or they were sent a ballot after they died and a member of their family submitted it. So there are always a few dead people in every election who voted after they died, and some of these are actually fraud (in the second case), and others aren't "fraud" but they're still invalid votes that shouldn't be counted. Rarely if ever does this, alone, change the outcome; but the ballots are there.
Which results in the over-claim on the other side. "There are zero dead people voting." Also easily falsifiable.
Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
What you say is true, but at the same time there was a voter fraud commission started in 2017, formed with the explicit charter of investigating such claims. This commission was disbanded after they couldn’t make progress showing that “thousands and thousands” of people fraudulently voted in 2016, causing then President Trump to lose the national popular vote. He made very specific claims about people being bussed around New England to vote across state lines, which is why he claims he lost New Hampshire that year.
The claim is perpetually that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Literally millions of dollars and an entire political party has set out to answer this question in the affirmative, but they can’t even prove their claims in a court of law. The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
So yes, both sides have overstated their case at times. But only one side is perpetually making a very strong case that they will never take to court where they have to provide specific evidence of their claims. It’s very notable and telling that the extreme case they say is the status quo (rampant voter fraud that stole the election from Trump not once but twice) has never been proven by them or anyone else.
> Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
Here is where we are right now. A team of auditors in Arizona spent months trying to show fraud occurred there that tipped the scales in Joe Biden’s favor. The result of their audit was that Joe Biden won a slightly larger margin than originally counted. How was this result spun by Trump?
“We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn’t believe … They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona when they know it’s not true … He didn’t win in Arizona. He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit."
Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
That is the level of reality denial and irrationality coming out one particular party. This is a mind bending level of denial and delusion.
So when you say things like the above, that “each side gets to declare the other wrong” it really serves to blur the context and normalize this insanity, making it seem like the two sides are the equally deluded. Yea maybe if you look only at the extremes, but this is the main stream GOP party leadership pushing this, not the fringe. The two sides are not the same on this issue.
The claim is perpetually that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Literally millions of dollars and an entire political party has set out to answer this question in the affirmative, but they can’t even prove their claims in a court of law. The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
So yes, both sides have overstated their case at times. But only one side is perpetually making a very strong case that they will never take to court where they have to provide specific evidence of their claims. It’s very notable and telling that the extreme case they say is the status quo (rampant voter fraud that stole the election from Trump not once but twice) has never been proven by them or anyone else.
> Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
Here is where we are right now. A team of auditors in Arizona spent months trying to show fraud occurred there that tipped the scales in Joe Biden’s favor. The result of their audit was that Joe Biden won a slightly larger margin than originally counted. How was this result spun by Trump?
“We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn’t believe … They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona when they know it’s not true … He didn’t win in Arizona. He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit."
Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
That is the level of reality denial and irrationality coming out one particular party. This is a mind bending level of denial and delusion.
So when you say things like the above, that “each side gets to declare the other wrong” it really serves to blur the context and normalize this insanity, making it seem like the two sides are the equally deluded. Yea maybe if you look only at the extremes, but this is the main stream GOP party leadership pushing this, not the fringe. The two sides are not the same on this issue.
Let me see if I can try to make the case for the other side here.
> Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
Here's the results of said audit:
https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report
They found a lot of irregularities, e.g.:
> Official Canvass has 3,432 more ballots cast than the list of people who show as having cast a vote (VM55)
> 9,041 mail-in voters show returning more ballots (EV33) than they were sent (EV32).
> 277 Precincts show in the Official Canvass as having more ballots cast than people who showed up to vote (VM55) for a total of 1,551 excess votes.
> There are 2,472 ballots shown in EV33 that don’t have corresponding entries in the VM55, and only 2,042 ballots show as rejected in the Official Canvas for a discrepancy of 430.
> 397 mail-in ballots show as received (EV33) that never show as sent (EV32).
> 255,326 Early Votes show in the VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry.
The trouble with this is that you can find that the numbers don't add up, but then what? You don't know which ballots were the extra ones. All you can do is count them again and then you get the same count from before.
There was one category of irregularity where they could actually redo the count. Ballots that were in some way messed up get "duplicated," i.e. copied onto clean ones. But they still had both the originals and the duplicates. The counts didn't match, which is bad. They had more duplicates than originals. But they could redo them.
The assumption in doing this was that the "extra" duplicates should be discarded, rather than that some of the originals had been lost. Under that assumption, Trump lost a few hundred votes. Naturally this is the only part of the report of any significance to media outlets on the blue team.
Trump goes the other way. Declares that all of the remaining irregularities would have been votes in his favor.
There is apparently no way of proving it one way or the other at this point; the information is not available. We don't know which ballots were the "extra" ones in the other cases. Which means he can't prove it. Because nobody can prove it one way or the other. But something went wrong.
Having a number of unexplained irregularities that exceeds the margin of victory for the state is bad. "Undermines confidence in the election," as they say. If nothing else we need to make sure this doesn't happen again by figuring out how it happened this time and keeping better records going forward.
> The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
This is why the media is such a trash fire.
After the election they were filing a zillion lawsuits all over the country. Some of them were alleging fraud. IIRC one in particular was about something like the state violating its state constitution, or violating election laws, something like that. So he says it on camera in court; that particular case wasn't about fraud. The media picks it up like he's made a confession of wrongdoing.
All of the coverage was like this. One side: Massive fraud unprecedented mountains of evidence! Other side: There is no fraud whatsoever stop looking immediately STFU!
As far as I can tell what actually happened was something like this.
Most elections are pretty messed up. There is some fraud here and there, and a vast sea of incompetence. The 2020 election was like that on meth, because of COVID.
Then it all mostly just cancels out. If each party commits a similar amount of fraud, and the effects of incompetence are random, it doesn't change the outcome. Also, most elections aren't close enough for it to matter.
Then Trump figured out you can challenge individual districts. If you go into a district that went 80% for Biden and find all of the problems that actually did happen there, you might invalidate enough ballots to matter, and probably the same 80% of them went for Biden.
This is kind of a dick move, but in theory it's a valid thing to do and the response from the other side should be to go into a district that went 80% for Trump and find all the problems there. Then if the problems cancel out it doesn't change the outcome and all you're doing is excluding all the ballots that actually ought to be excluded.
In practice there are two reasons Democrats didn't want to do that. First, it would have taken a long time and they wanted to be able to declare victory. This isn't really a legitimate reason but you can see why they would want to do this.
Second, mail-in ballots. If a higher percentage of mail-in ballots were messed up than in-person ballots, and more of the mail-in ballots went for Biden, uh oh. You don't know that's going to happen before you look, but it could, so do you really want to look?
So then it's a media war. Trump sucks. He's making a zillion fraud claims and most of them are crap because he's just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. But if they just let him, something might stick. Maybe not, but "maybe" is a big risk. So the other side decides that they want to suck too. If a report comes out, it's bad for Trump. It doesn't matter what it says; strip out anything that helps him, remove all context, find some excerpt that sounds like it's bad for him, whatever it takes.
Then everybody is doing the Big Lie. Mischaracterizing everything the other says, acting as political operatives instead of journalists. It's not the truth vs. the lie; everybody's lying. The other side is evil. They must be stopped.
Come on. The other side is the guy sitting next to you on the subway.
> Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
Here's the results of said audit:
https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report
They found a lot of irregularities, e.g.:
> Official Canvass has 3,432 more ballots cast than the list of people who show as having cast a vote (VM55)
> 9,041 mail-in voters show returning more ballots (EV33) than they were sent (EV32).
> 277 Precincts show in the Official Canvass as having more ballots cast than people who showed up to vote (VM55) for a total of 1,551 excess votes.
> There are 2,472 ballots shown in EV33 that don’t have corresponding entries in the VM55, and only 2,042 ballots show as rejected in the Official Canvas for a discrepancy of 430.
> 397 mail-in ballots show as received (EV33) that never show as sent (EV32).
> 255,326 Early Votes show in the VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry.
The trouble with this is that you can find that the numbers don't add up, but then what? You don't know which ballots were the extra ones. All you can do is count them again and then you get the same count from before.
There was one category of irregularity where they could actually redo the count. Ballots that were in some way messed up get "duplicated," i.e. copied onto clean ones. But they still had both the originals and the duplicates. The counts didn't match, which is bad. They had more duplicates than originals. But they could redo them.
The assumption in doing this was that the "extra" duplicates should be discarded, rather than that some of the originals had been lost. Under that assumption, Trump lost a few hundred votes. Naturally this is the only part of the report of any significance to media outlets on the blue team.
Trump goes the other way. Declares that all of the remaining irregularities would have been votes in his favor.
There is apparently no way of proving it one way or the other at this point; the information is not available. We don't know which ballots were the "extra" ones in the other cases. Which means he can't prove it. Because nobody can prove it one way or the other. But something went wrong.
Having a number of unexplained irregularities that exceeds the margin of victory for the state is bad. "Undermines confidence in the election," as they say. If nothing else we need to make sure this doesn't happen again by figuring out how it happened this time and keeping better records going forward.
> The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
This is why the media is such a trash fire.
After the election they were filing a zillion lawsuits all over the country. Some of them were alleging fraud. IIRC one in particular was about something like the state violating its state constitution, or violating election laws, something like that. So he says it on camera in court; that particular case wasn't about fraud. The media picks it up like he's made a confession of wrongdoing.
All of the coverage was like this. One side: Massive fraud unprecedented mountains of evidence! Other side: There is no fraud whatsoever stop looking immediately STFU!
As far as I can tell what actually happened was something like this.
Most elections are pretty messed up. There is some fraud here and there, and a vast sea of incompetence. The 2020 election was like that on meth, because of COVID.
Then it all mostly just cancels out. If each party commits a similar amount of fraud, and the effects of incompetence are random, it doesn't change the outcome. Also, most elections aren't close enough for it to matter.
Then Trump figured out you can challenge individual districts. If you go into a district that went 80% for Biden and find all of the problems that actually did happen there, you might invalidate enough ballots to matter, and probably the same 80% of them went for Biden.
This is kind of a dick move, but in theory it's a valid thing to do and the response from the other side should be to go into a district that went 80% for Trump and find all the problems there. Then if the problems cancel out it doesn't change the outcome and all you're doing is excluding all the ballots that actually ought to be excluded.
In practice there are two reasons Democrats didn't want to do that. First, it would have taken a long time and they wanted to be able to declare victory. This isn't really a legitimate reason but you can see why they would want to do this.
Second, mail-in ballots. If a higher percentage of mail-in ballots were messed up than in-person ballots, and more of the mail-in ballots went for Biden, uh oh. You don't know that's going to happen before you look, but it could, so do you really want to look?
So then it's a media war. Trump sucks. He's making a zillion fraud claims and most of them are crap because he's just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. But if they just let him, something might stick. Maybe not, but "maybe" is a big risk. So the other side decides that they want to suck too. If a report comes out, it's bad for Trump. It doesn't matter what it says; strip out anything that helps him, remove all context, find some excerpt that sounds like it's bad for him, whatever it takes.
Then everybody is doing the Big Lie. Mischaracterizing everything the other says, acting as political operatives instead of journalists. It's not the truth vs. the lie; everybody's lying. The other side is evil. They must be stopped.
Come on. The other side is the guy sitting next to you on the subway.
bgorman(1)
He's talking about states
No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.
With due respect, the media has worked Democrats up into a froth over nothing. These "anti-democratic practices" are literally just a partial rollback of unprecedented COVID-related loosing of voting rules. E.g. the Florida law at issue here requires voter ID and guarantees a week of early voting: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-floridas-election-...
Canada also requires voter ID, and Canadian federal elections feature four days of early voting: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&d...
In many countries, like France, elections are still held (gasp!) entirely in person on election day.
Canada also requires voter ID, and Canadian federal elections feature four days of early voting: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&d...
In many countries, like France, elections are still held (gasp!) entirely in person on election day.
> Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.
The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away.
Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time.
Which isn't to say that it doesn't matter, but the thing it does is different than the thing you think it does. Even the party drawing the lines is reshaping what they'll need their own positions to be in order to win.
If you really want to fix it, replace first past the post with range voting. Good luck gerrymandering that. Might even solve polarization by getting rid of the poles.
The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away.
Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time.
Which isn't to say that it doesn't matter, but the thing it does is different than the thing you think it does. Even the party drawing the lines is reshaping what they'll need their own positions to be in order to win.
If you really want to fix it, replace first past the post with range voting. Good luck gerrymandering that. Might even solve polarization by getting rid of the poles.
> First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away.
Really?
Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.[1] A huge portion of the population wasn't permitted to vote (despite laws on the books being racially blind, most blacks were prevented from voting in many of these states up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And even among those who DID vote, a single party remained utterly dominant.
Does this counterexample mean anything to you?
(PS: I agree with you that I'm strongly in favor of changes to our voting system to move away from first-past-the-post and government gerrymandering. But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
Really?
Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.[1] A huge portion of the population wasn't permitted to vote (despite laws on the books being racially blind, most blacks were prevented from voting in many of these states up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And even among those who DID vote, a single party remained utterly dominant.
Does this counterexample mean anything to you?
(PS: I agree with you that I'm strongly in favor of changes to our voting system to move away from first-past-the-post and government gerrymandering. But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
> Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.
Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North.
Each party will change the amount necessary to flip the marginal district. The districts in the South were harder for Republicans to flip than some others, so they took ones it was easier for them to get, and didn't take the ones they didn't need.
> But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.
The rest of the world uses different voting systems (or lack thereof). There was "single party rule" in the USSR and it wasn't because of gerrymandering.
Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North.
Each party will change the amount necessary to flip the marginal district. The districts in the South were harder for Republicans to flip than some others, so they took ones it was easier for them to get, and didn't take the ones they didn't need.
> But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.
The rest of the world uses different voting systems (or lack thereof). There was "single party rule" in the USSR and it wasn't because of gerrymandering.
> Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North.
That is not correct.
Counting the House, the Senate, and the Presidency individually:
Republicans had control of 52 time periods, compared to the Democrats 23.
Based on a starting point & ending of the following:
44th (1875–1877)
45th (1877–1879)
46th (1879–1881)
47th (1881–1883)
48th (1883–1885)
49th (1885–1887)
50th (1887–1889)
51st (1889–1891)
52nd (1891–1893)
53rd (1893–1895)
54th (1895–1897)
55th (1897–1899)
56th (1899–1901)
57th (1901–1903)
58th (1903–1905)
59th (1905–1907)
60th (1907–1909)
61st (1909–1911)
62nd (1911–1913)
63rd (1913–1915)
64th (1915–1917)
65th (1917–1919)
66th (1919–1921)
67th (1921–1923)
68th (1923–1925)
69th (1925–1927)
That is not correct.
Counting the House, the Senate, and the Presidency individually:
Republicans had control of 52 time periods, compared to the Democrats 23.
Based on a starting point & ending of the following:
44th (1875–1877)
45th (1877–1879)
46th (1879–1881)
47th (1881–1883)
48th (1883–1885)
49th (1885–1887)
50th (1887–1889)
51st (1889–1891)
52nd (1891–1893)
53rd (1893–1895)
54th (1895–1897)
55th (1897–1899)
56th (1899–1901)
57th (1901–1903)
58th (1903–1905)
59th (1905–1907)
60th (1907–1909)
61st (1909–1911)
62nd (1911–1913)
63rd (1913–1915)
64th (1915–1917)
65th (1917–1919)
66th (1919–1921)
67th (1921–1923)
68th (1923–1925)
69th (1925–1927)
Sure, elections aren't that frequent and then you get large variation because the sample size is small. Notice that your stopping point is just before FDR and Truman (both Democrats) held the Presidency for 20 years straight, which was still before the South stopped going for the Democrats.
Good argument FOR the existence of tenure, if nothing else.
It's because government power has creeped to a degree where it's no longer feasible to inflict any kind of punishment, so accountability is impossible. We basically have the options of complaining on the internet, complaining in person at a protest, or full on violent revolt.
They've removed all the options to revolt in a way that harms the government without you needing to be ready to die for the cause.
Something like 10% of people fought in the Revolutionary War. I couldn't find easy stats on what % of the population participated in pro-Civil Rights Movement protests, but I'm curious if anyone has them.
Both BLM and antivaxxers seem to have enough popular support that the government should be having difficulty controlling them. They don't seem to be having that difficulty, though. BLM is still around, but the change has been fairly slight. The government was able to largely ignore it. The antivaxxers remain to be seen, but I suspect all the restrictions will be effective in enforcing compliance.
Citizens no longer have a way to protest that the government really needs to care about.
You can't refuse to pay taxes. They'll just seize your accounts. And you can't just use cash, because I can't pay a lot of my bills in cash.
You can't refuse to comply, because they'll just cut your legs out from under you. No more job, no more driver's license, no more traveling, etc, etc.
I certainly wouldn't try the Boston Tea Party today. You'd be in jail before you could even tell anyone what you'd done.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the government derives its power from the will of the people anymore. At some point, it very much feels like that flipped, and the people derive their power from the will of the government.
They've removed all the options to revolt in a way that harms the government without you needing to be ready to die for the cause.
Something like 10% of people fought in the Revolutionary War. I couldn't find easy stats on what % of the population participated in pro-Civil Rights Movement protests, but I'm curious if anyone has them.
Both BLM and antivaxxers seem to have enough popular support that the government should be having difficulty controlling them. They don't seem to be having that difficulty, though. BLM is still around, but the change has been fairly slight. The government was able to largely ignore it. The antivaxxers remain to be seen, but I suspect all the restrictions will be effective in enforcing compliance.
Citizens no longer have a way to protest that the government really needs to care about.
You can't refuse to pay taxes. They'll just seize your accounts. And you can't just use cash, because I can't pay a lot of my bills in cash.
You can't refuse to comply, because they'll just cut your legs out from under you. No more job, no more driver's license, no more traveling, etc, etc.
I certainly wouldn't try the Boston Tea Party today. You'd be in jail before you could even tell anyone what you'd done.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the government derives its power from the will of the people anymore. At some point, it very much feels like that flipped, and the people derive their power from the will of the government.
Nothing whatsoever has changed about the power imbalance between people and government. The only thing different between the tea party and now is that back then, a lot of people were willing to kill, be killed, and be jailed for their political beliefs. Almost no one at all is still willing to risk this.
I could write a whole thesis, and I'm sure someone has, about the decline of honor or idealism or whatever you want to call this spirit. Point is, the valuation of the self has never been so high in history before, nor the comforts. Who is going to risk death by cop today when they have such comfortable lives? And it's not just comforts, but a change in attitides; the tea party folk were quite comfortable, more than most today, and they were absolutely prepared for jail.
I could write a whole thesis, and I'm sure someone has, about the decline of honor or idealism or whatever you want to call this spirit. Point is, the valuation of the self has never been so high in history before, nor the comforts. Who is going to risk death by cop today when they have such comfortable lives? And it's not just comforts, but a change in attitides; the tea party folk were quite comfortable, more than most today, and they were absolutely prepared for jail.
I'm curious if that approach to eliminating expert witnesses passes legal muster.
Doesn't matter if no one is held accountable. We don't have a "legal" problem in the US. We have an accountability problem, particularly amongst the "elites".
Which calls into question the perception of authority and freedom from bias that academia tends to have.
We should all be a little more skeptical. Nobody should be above scrutiny based on their job title or profession, their prior work, or anything else.
We should all be a little more skeptical. Nobody should be above scrutiny based on their job title or profession, their prior work, or anything else.
I'm curious as how this relates to the topic at hand.
How the trustworthiness of academics being affected by academic institutions pressuring them, relates to examples of universities forbidding and threatening their academics not to speak freely about inconvenient topics?
I'm not really sure how to explain it better. Is there something particular aspect of what I wrote that was confusing or poorly worded?
I'm not really sure how to explain it better. Is there something particular aspect of what I wrote that was confusing or poorly worded?
Because the issue is that the state is forbidding academics from speaking at trials, and you are roping in right-wing disdain for academia under the guise of "bias".
> Because the issue is that the state is forbidding academics from speaking at trials,
I don't see how you can't fathom how they are related.
> and you are roping in right-wing disdain for academia under the guise of "bias".
I'm making a simple observation about reality, motives, cause and effect. If you think that is some right-wing conspiracy theory or something that's your problem, not mine. It seems you are incapable of addressing what I wrote without resorting to ad hominmens.
I don't see how you can't fathom how they are related.
> and you are roping in right-wing disdain for academia under the guise of "bias".
I'm making a simple observation about reality, motives, cause and effect. If you think that is some right-wing conspiracy theory or something that's your problem, not mine. It seems you are incapable of addressing what I wrote without resorting to ad hominmens.
I'm not surprised. Our schools have become increasingly political institutions in left and right form. The question I have is, as an independent, how do you stave it off completely?
Make districts competitive. As long as the measure (votes in an election district) can be shaped such that winning the primary (initial election to determine the rep. for each party) basically promises a win in the general (an election where one rep from each party competes), polarization will go up and moderation will go down. Once districts are competitive, reps will face more pressure to the will of the people, as opposed to the people in just their party.
> such that winning the primary … basically promises a win in the general
Assuming you have more than one political party, I don't see how that's possible. All but one candidate in the general election will lose, even though they all won their respective primaries.
Assuming you have more than one political party, I don't see how that's possible. All but one candidate in the general election will lose, even though they all won their respective primaries.
How would this work in deeply red or blue states? If you redraw the districts in California to put all the red voters together, that district will be competitive, but you have gerrymandered all the other districts to be blue forever.
I think districts should represent sections of the geographic population. Its fine for a district to be uncompetetive if the general population in that region have a strong lean one way or the other.
I think districts should represent sections of the geographic population. Its fine for a district to be uncompetetive if the general population in that region have a strong lean one way or the other.
In practice, it means establishing non-partisan redistricting commissions, taking that power away from the legislature or the political parties:
https://www.nonprofitvote.org/nonpartisan-redistricting-citi...
https://www.nonprofitvote.org/nonpartisan-redistricting-citi...
This is a good response. I think California already does things like this, by having a non-partisan redistricting process. Texas, on the other hand, could barely more embrace parternship.
I doubt California does this well. My experience in California is that if you look at voting trends you'd think areas like SF are deeply blue, probably borderline far left. If you come out here though, it's really not that way. Then again, a comparison like the one you gave is bound to fail even the smallest smell test.
The outcome is similar in that votes don't really reflect what the population wants, but for different reasons.
The outcome is similar in that votes don't really reflect what the population wants, but for different reasons.
Its not clear to me that a nonpartisan redistricting would automatically make districts more competitive, nor that the increased competitiveness would be the reason nonpartisan districts are better. That was OP's point.
The problem is that people are all for consolidation of power when it's going to further their ends.
The American political system has become completely unprincipled, largely as a result of decades long attacks on moderates.
The American political system has become completely unprincipled, largely as a result of decades long attacks on moderates.
As a professor, I think the actions of The University of Florida are abhorrent. I would never want to work in an environment that kowtows to politics. There are enough political considerations within a University, but having to deal with state politics as well? Count me out.
At the same time, he doesn’t have tenure? So they are actually fully within their rights to do this, and really no one should be surprised.
But here is my question: the prosecutors couldn’t find any tenured professors to help them in their lawsuit? Because the University can’t say anything to them about it; a tenured (full, not typically associate) professor has the right to use the name of their institution without their permission. It seems to me to be an expert witness, one would desire the use of the UoF credentials.
At the same time, he doesn’t have tenure? So they are actually fully within their rights to do this, and really no one should be surprised.
But here is my question: the prosecutors couldn’t find any tenured professors to help them in their lawsuit? Because the University can’t say anything to them about it; a tenured (full, not typically associate) professor has the right to use the name of their institution without their permission. It seems to me to be an expert witness, one would desire the use of the UoF credentials.
> So they are actually fully within their rights to do this, and really no one should be surprised.
They have the power, nobody should be surprised that they flex it. Maybe. Do you feel that it's always ethical to perform every action that is within your legal rights? Is the legal system devoid of examples, where an act was legal until it was exercised in excess, and found to be unethical? "Surprised" doesn't describe my response to this abuse of power. That would be "outrage".
They have the power, nobody should be surprised that they flex it. Maybe. Do you feel that it's always ethical to perform every action that is within your legal rights? Is the legal system devoid of examples, where an act was legal until it was exercised in excess, and found to be unethical? "Surprised" doesn't describe my response to this abuse of power. That would be "outrage".
Justice Scalia used to argue that torture didn’t meet the 8th ammendment cruel or unusual punishmenents clause because it wasn’t punishment. It was an interrogation technique and they hadn’t been convicted.
We don’t have court rulings on “enhanced” interrogation techniques so they can just be rolled out whenever someone thinks they can get away with it.
We don’t have court rulings on “enhanced” interrogation techniques so they can just be rolled out whenever someone thinks they can get away with it.
"So they are actually fully within their rights to do this"
Its not an offense again thr proffesor, it's an offense against the jistice system. Naivly, I hoped that doing something like this would have serious consequences.
Its not an offense again thr proffesor, it's an offense against the jistice system. Naivly, I hoped that doing something like this would have serious consequences.
They are fully within their rights to do this AND LITERALLY EVERYONE SHOULD BE VERY SURPRISED.
I have never heard that tenured professors can use the name of their institution without permission. I don't think that's either permitted by any rules (to the extent that rules that apply to tenured professors vary and are only partially codified), or tacitly permitted by the universities and their press departments.
Obviously a subject matter expert in a trial is allowed to describe their credentials (education and employement) but that's not a right solely for tenured professors.
If you could point to written policies or analysis supporting this claim I would be very interested to see it.
Obviously a subject matter expert in a trial is allowed to describe their credentials (education and employement) but that's not a right solely for tenured professors.
If you could point to written policies or analysis supporting this claim I would be very interested to see it.
This is a civil case. There are no prosecutors.
And there's no shortage of tenured professors who resent their employer but stick around because tenure.
[deleted]
Are you kidding? Universities have been kowtowing to politics for decades now. The latest example: https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/mit-disinvites-a-climate-sci.... Conservatives finally just woke up about it.
Your example, valid as it is, applies to events happening on-campus, not off. It doesn’t seem comparable to this situation.
Public education institutions are potentially the most politicized arenas in our nation today.
Especially K-12 education, where you have to somehow bridge a new chasm between insane ideologies while also keeping a classroom full children working "productively" towards pointless standardized testing objectives. All of this despite most of their dopamine loops being totally burned out from hours of smartphone use before they even get to school.
The whole education system is heading towards "totally fucked". This UF politics issue is just 1% of the puzzle behind why everything sucks so hard now. If you personally know any teachers working in K12, lend them your ear. You would be surprised how many people are internalizing the problems and don't even know who to talk to about it anymore. The rest have succumbed to apathy or new careers.
Especially K-12 education, where you have to somehow bridge a new chasm between insane ideologies while also keeping a classroom full children working "productively" towards pointless standardized testing objectives. All of this despite most of their dopamine loops being totally burned out from hours of smartphone use before they even get to school.
The whole education system is heading towards "totally fucked". This UF politics issue is just 1% of the puzzle behind why everything sucks so hard now. If you personally know any teachers working in K12, lend them your ear. You would be surprised how many people are internalizing the problems and don't even know who to talk to about it anymore. The rest have succumbed to apathy or new careers.
Too off topic or did we hit a nerve?
For the lawyers:
Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed?
As far as I know, then by law the expert witnesses must testify else risk contempt of court, thereby negating whatever "bar" that the university seems fit to impose.
Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed?
As far as I know, then by law the expert witnesses must testify else risk contempt of court, thereby negating whatever "bar" that the university seems fit to impose.
> Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed?
That depends on the law of the jurisdiction in question; in the US federal system, for instance this is theoretically possible but its kind of a hail mary, rather than a slam dunk; getting an order for s non-retained expert is far from automatic, even when their testimony would be relevant:
https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...
Not sure about Florida particularly.
That depends on the law of the jurisdiction in question; in the US federal system, for instance this is theoretically possible but its kind of a hail mary, rather than a slam dunk; getting an order for s non-retained expert is far from automatic, even when their testimony would be relevant:
https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...
Not sure about Florida particularly.
Thanks for the link. For those curious, this seems to be the relevant section:
Differing Requirements for Expert and Non-Retained Witnesses While non-retained witnesses require some disclosure, expert witnesses require far more. It may be challenging to compel an expert witness to testify, in part, because before an expert witness is deposed or testifies, the federal rules require the disclosure of a report. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (a) (2) (B) calls for the disclosure of a report including:
* A complete statement of all the opinions a witness plans to express, as well as the basis for the opinions, and the reasons supporting the opinions
* The facts or data relied on or considered when forming the opinion
* Exhibits the expert will use to support or summarize their findings
* Their qualifications and the last 10 years of their publications
* All other cases the witness testified as an expert, whether in trial or deposition
* A statement of compensation the expert has been or will be paid for the study and testimony in the case at hand
Obviously, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain this information in a report from a non-compensated, unretained expert.
Differing Requirements for Expert and Non-Retained Witnesses While non-retained witnesses require some disclosure, expert witnesses require far more. It may be challenging to compel an expert witness to testify, in part, because before an expert witness is deposed or testifies, the federal rules require the disclosure of a report. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (a) (2) (B) calls for the disclosure of a report including:
* A complete statement of all the opinions a witness plans to express, as well as the basis for the opinions, and the reasons supporting the opinions
* The facts or data relied on or considered when forming the opinion
* Exhibits the expert will use to support or summarize their findings
* Their qualifications and the last 10 years of their publications
* All other cases the witness testified as an expert, whether in trial or deposition
* A statement of compensation the expert has been or will be paid for the study and testimony in the case at hand
Obviously, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain this information in a report from a non-compensated, unretained expert.
I think it that case there must be a tangible direct need to have their personal testimony, not just nice to have due to their expertise.
That’s… Wow, since when can someone bar someone else from testifying in court? I thought it was the pursuit of truth?
Expert witnesses are hired as contractors; paid for their testimony.
If they were being subpoenaed - compelled to be a witness - I am sure the matter would be different.
If they were being subpoenaed - compelled to be a witness - I am sure the matter would be different.
A naive legal question: can the plaintiffs subpoena the professors as expert witnesses?
Generally, no. Under the rules of civil procedure, a subpoena to testify may be quashed if it "requires disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study not requested by a party."
expert witnesses are much different from a regular witness since they have an exception to the hearsay rule (can testify about things they didn't directly observe themselves), their credentials are examined, they make a report, they are required to be paid, etc. Because of this you cannot subpoena them like a regular witness.
more info https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...
expert witnesses are much different from a regular witness since they have an exception to the hearsay rule (can testify about things they didn't directly observe themselves), their credentials are examined, they make a report, they are required to be paid, etc. Because of this you cannot subpoena them like a regular witness.
more info https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...
This is not an endorsement, but a clarification.
They're allowed to testify in court. They are just not allowed to get paid to do it, nor are they allowed to use their affiliation with the university as credentials when testifying because they are not speaking for the university.
They're allowed to testify in court. They are just not allowed to get paid to do it, nor are they allowed to use their affiliation with the university as credentials when testifying because they are not speaking for the university.
[deleted]
I couldn't find this information in the NPR article - do you have a different source?
This is from the article:
>"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," the school said in an email to NPR. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."
The operative phrase there is "outside paid work."
I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing.
>"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," the school said in an email to NPR. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."
The operative phrase there is "outside paid work."
I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing.
"Lots of folks asking what if we do the work pro bono? Our compensation was not given as a reason in the original disapproval from UF. That is new language the university added in its PR statement"
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516
Does the policy that requires them to ask permission to do something ever apply to volunteer work under any circumstances? Or is this something they only have to do when getting paid?
The image in the linked twitter suggests that Michael McDonald officially asked if he could testify pro bono and was denied by Gray Wimsett, Assistant Vice President of Conflicts of Interest.
So Gray Wimsett at least claims it is against the policy to volunteer to do the work in this case.
So Gray Wimsett at least claims it is against the policy to volunteer to do the work in this case.
That was the response to the initial (compensated) request, however it seems to clearly indicate that the compensation is not the issue.
I have no direct knowledge of the policy but the comment implies that it wouldn't matter.
The comment was given with in a context of a policy that required the professors to ask permission to perform some work. If the policy only applies to paid work then that is the context and makes all the difference.
[deleted]
Conflict of interest policy typically cover both paid and unpaid work since either could be a conflict of interest.
From the University of Florida: "Conflict of Commitment: occurs when a University Employee engages in an Outside Activity, either paid or unpaid, that could interfere with their professional obligations to the University." https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-co...
From the University of Florida: "Conflict of Commitment: occurs when a University Employee engages in an Outside Activity, either paid or unpaid, that could interfere with their professional obligations to the University." https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-co...
> The operative phrase there is "outside paid work."
> you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it.
This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony.
It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable avenues for the professors to testify - and then doesn't do that.
> you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it.
This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony.
It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable avenues for the professors to testify - and then doesn't do that.
Asking a clarifying question is something a journalist would do.
I agree and agree the article is short on questions that the journalist should have brought up, even if they couldn't answer it (eg: names of the specific admins involved, how they got those positions and who they are beholden to).
It’s possible for UF to have a nuanced position and still be in the wrong.
Do you believe the purpose of the article was to inform you of the nuances on both sides and let you make an informed judgement for yourself?
Do you believe the purpose of the article was to inform you of the nuances on both sides and let you make an informed judgement for yourself?
> Do you believe the purpose of the article was to inform you of the nuances on both sides and let you make an informed judgement for yourself?
I hope not. We tried that with journalism and wound up with endless views from nowhere. It was barely better than when journalists parrot Gov/Biz/LEO press releases w/o vetting the content (which is done all the time).
edit: I'll append to note that NPR's 2008 election coverage set a gold standard for equanimity that I haven't seen repeated (inc by NPR). They gave conservatives a better shake than RW news orgs did.
Everyone is biased. The key to better journalism is competency.
The key to worse journalism is having an arms-race reaction to bias and building a news org on that reaction - which is to say building it out of bias.
I hope not. We tried that with journalism and wound up with endless views from nowhere. It was barely better than when journalists parrot Gov/Biz/LEO press releases w/o vetting the content (which is done all the time).
edit: I'll append to note that NPR's 2008 election coverage set a gold standard for equanimity that I haven't seen repeated (inc by NPR). They gave conservatives a better shake than RW news orgs did.
Everyone is biased. The key to better journalism is competency.
The key to worse journalism is having an arms-race reaction to bias and building a news org on that reaction - which is to say building it out of bias.
The only thing that bothers me is pretending to not be activists. If you wear your activism loud and proud then the more the merrier.
It's an insignificant detail compared to competency and it seems tedious to let it bother you. Past that, a declaration would be counterproductive. No matter how it's worded, some substantive journalism will be seen to be in disharmony. Why invite that trouble for no meaningful benefit?
One example of how it's unimportant: A motto like "fair and balanced" kind of pretends that one particular network wasn't founded on activism but it was. More importantly, it's the activism that those viewers want.
Perhaps the motto brings the viewers some comfort by reinforcing a view that the only world worth having is the one they visualize. Why take that away based on some arbitrary calculation?
One example of how it's unimportant: A motto like "fair and balanced" kind of pretends that one particular network wasn't founded on activism but it was. More importantly, it's the activism that those viewers want.
Perhaps the motto brings the viewers some comfort by reinforcing a view that the only world worth having is the one they visualize. Why take that away based on some arbitrary calculation?
> I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing.
What you quoted "It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors..." comes from University of Florida and as far as I can tell is not an airtight argument. No valid conflict of interest is presented in the article for for example.
If typically has allowed such outside work, if there was not a conflict on a governmental issue, then the University of Florida as a governmental institution is performing 'self dealing', in this case by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse, by limiting/restricting the speech of the professors.
Part of why we have the first amendment is to limit the ability of the government to effect the course of public discourse and the University of Florida is definitely doing that.
What you quoted "It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors..." comes from University of Florida and as far as I can tell is not an airtight argument. No valid conflict of interest is presented in the article for for example.
If typically has allowed such outside work, if there was not a conflict on a governmental issue, then the University of Florida as a governmental institution is performing 'self dealing', in this case by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse, by limiting/restricting the speech of the professors.
Part of why we have the first amendment is to limit the ability of the government to effect the course of public discourse and the University of Florida is definitely doing that.
“You can work here and say things that will harm us, but you can’t accept payment to say things that will harm us.” Feels like a very reasonable position to me.
That is the way it works for a private institution, but not for government institutions. It is supposed to a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.
That may be so, but the article gives the impression that the professors were forbidden from testifying, presumably under threat of losing their jobs.
If they were simply not allowed to take payment for that testimony, the article and title should reflect that, regardless if such a policy is also wrong.
And I would have liked for the article to elaborate more on this barring. What would happen if they testified anyway, if they did or did not get paid for it, etc.. It is after all the central issue of the article, and that they leave it so vague is either incompetence or deception.
If they were simply not allowed to take payment for that testimony, the article and title should reflect that, regardless if such a policy is also wrong.
And I would have liked for the article to elaborate more on this barring. What would happen if they testified anyway, if they did or did not get paid for it, etc.. It is after all the central issue of the article, and that they leave it so vague is either incompetence or deception.
[deleted]
Statement from FIRE on this matter:
https://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-university-of-flor...
I assume UF has a conflict of interest office for this reason and I can see UF's argument whether I agree with the outcome or not. So I would ask why these 3 professors? Are there not private Florida institutions (e.g. UMiami) or universities in other states that have voting rights experts?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Based on a bit of reading, neither university, nor the professors, are being entirely honest about their underlying goals here. Each is working hard to adjust the narrative to be entirely in their favor.
The professors could proceed with this, without permission of the university; the consequence could be firing and possibly a lawsuit. But that would backfire spectacularly on the university (streisand effect). So, the professors are actually not proceeding, to make the university look as bad as possible.
Bad faith all around.
The professors could proceed with this, without permission of the university; the consequence could be firing and possibly a lawsuit. But that would backfire spectacularly on the university (streisand effect). So, the professors are actually not proceeding, to make the university look as bad as possible.
Bad faith all around.
This is blatantly unconstitutional and any professors disciplined under this would be in line for a fat settlement from the university. Or rather, they would be if our justice system actually worked.
Rule of law in the US is on life support and the prognosis is not good.
Rule of law in the US is on life support and the prognosis is not good.
If they were disciplined, yes, the "clever" part (read immoral but not unlawful) would be the University deciding that another Professor will get that senior position instead of you. You could fight it but it would be pretty easy in most situations to "prove" that the other candidate was better.
I guess any academic needs to measure their conscience against their career as others in Politics or Religion also might have to.
I guess any academic needs to measure their conscience against their career as others in Politics or Religion also might have to.
But we’re well past the point of subtly nudging people into things. We’re at the movie villain stage of “I’m going to tell you what I’m doing, why I’m doing it, then do it, because I want you to know how much power I actually have over you”.
Yep, this kills the patient
If schools have become as much political institutions as educational institutions -- and there's little doubt about that -- why do they get public money at all?
The real conflict of interest here is politicians spending your money for their political goals.
The real conflict of interest here is politicians spending your money for their political goals.
> why do they get public money at all?
Because we still believe there to be a societal benefit to an educated populace.
Because we still believe there to be a societal benefit to an educated populace.
More than that: the market doesn't see past quarterly earnings. Private industry spends a lot on R&D but next to nothing on basic research [0]. Dollar for dollar, academic research that is not beholden to shareholder value theory produces science that is more useful for society.
0. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/u-s-r-d-performance-and-...
0. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/u-s-r-d-performance-and-...
Pick a random 18 year old and see if they can point to the country of Argentina on a map. The populace can read but not much else.
Speaking as a person confident that I could point out Argentina on a map, why is geographic trivia a very important topic? I'd rather have a population with a good understanding of means and medians, thermodynamics, and the relationship between rates and accumulations, than one that can readily tell me the year that William the Conqueror invaded England.
I agree but the point is that knowledge of the countries of the world is the most basic sign of education besides reading. The average 18 year old knows even less about science than geography. But geography is important because not knowing it is extremely embarrassing.
Knowledge about other countries is useful, geography less so. It would be just as embarrassing to have a conversation with an Argentinian and say "so what's it like living near Chile?"
Because literacy and numeracy are necessary but not sufficient for an educated polity. A good understanding of society, of history, of philosophy, and more all factor in. As do good critical thinking skills.
Don't speak for the rest of us please. I personally believe there to be a massive societal disadvantage to the existence of "educational institutions" with hidden political agendas.
You can believe anything you like, and it's a little silly to read "we" in my comment as "without even a single individual exception".
We, society, currently elect representatives who see fit to continue funding a public educational system of schools and universities, which can be inferred to be a general acceptance of their value.
We, society, currently elect representatives who see fit to continue funding a public educational system of schools and universities, which can be inferred to be a general acceptance of their value.
And we, the society, are outraged at the blatant abuse of power we are witnessing in this article. We are shocked by how our current system may have critical vulnerabilities that compromise it's ability to deliver the education it promised, and are ready to discuss which aspect of the status quo may need to be improved upon.
All that may be true; we'll have to see if society kicks up enough of a fuss. I hope it does in this case.
I'm not sure how you get from "this university did a bad thing" to "we should get rid of public universities", though.
I'm not sure how you get from "this university did a bad thing" to "we should get rid of public universities", though.
The issue is not getting rid of public universities.
The issue is huge partisanship which has distorted academia from their mission.
The issue is huge partisanship which has distorted academia from their mission.
Then why do you feel qualified to speak for me?
The short answer is that the University of Florida, and American Universities in general, are not accountable to YOU OR ME, but rather a handful of bureaucrats in the federal government, and in this case specifically the NIH, which air drops the most cash on the institution.
Funding for NIH comes primarily from annual Labor, HHS, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Acts, with an additional smaller amount for the Superfund Research Program from the Interior/Environment Appropriations Act.6 Those two bills provide NIH discretionary budget authority.
The NIH then presumably has the US Federal Reserve electronically wire it a few billion $ from an internal account they electronically added a few zeros to beforehand.
> UF received about $602 million in research funding from the federal government, including a record $250 million from the National Institutes of Health, the university’s largest research funding source.
https://news.ufl.edu/2021/08/research-awards-/
Funding for NIH comes primarily from annual Labor, HHS, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Acts, with an additional smaller amount for the Superfund Research Program from the Interior/Environment Appropriations Act.6 Those two bills provide NIH discretionary budget authority.
The NIH then presumably has the US Federal Reserve electronically wire it a few billion $ from an internal account they electronically added a few zeros to beforehand.
> UF received about $602 million in research funding from the federal government, including a record $250 million from the National Institutes of Health, the university’s largest research funding source.
https://news.ufl.edu/2021/08/research-awards-/
I would have said that public universities in the US are accountable to their boards of regents far moreso than the sinister "bureaucrats in the federal government."
I didn't think much about this until the recent news that the University System of Georgia was effectively ending tenure for its professors, and the drivers of that policy were the USG Board of Regents.
> To many professors, the most alarming proposal is that a faculty member may not only be separated from the university for clear cause, but also reasons “other than for cause," pursuant to other board policies. “Such other policies shall not be governed by or subject to the following policies on Grounds for Removal and Procedures for Dismissal,” the proposed change also says.
From: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/04/tenure-under-...
So I looked up the USG Board of Regents: https://www.usg.edu/regents/members
And it turns out that most of them are CEOs or work in finance -- the people who represent "capital" more than any others I can think of. For these people to decide that it should be easier to fire "tenured" professors makes sense to me, in that these are the people who would benefit most from being able to silence, for example, expert witnesses, far more than federal bureaucrats meddling in academic freedom.
I didn't think much about this until the recent news that the University System of Georgia was effectively ending tenure for its professors, and the drivers of that policy were the USG Board of Regents.
> To many professors, the most alarming proposal is that a faculty member may not only be separated from the university for clear cause, but also reasons “other than for cause," pursuant to other board policies. “Such other policies shall not be governed by or subject to the following policies on Grounds for Removal and Procedures for Dismissal,” the proposed change also says.
From: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/04/tenure-under-...
So I looked up the USG Board of Regents: https://www.usg.edu/regents/members
And it turns out that most of them are CEOs or work in finance -- the people who represent "capital" more than any others I can think of. For these people to decide that it should be easier to fire "tenured" professors makes sense to me, in that these are the people who would benefit most from being able to silence, for example, expert witnesses, far more than federal bureaucrats meddling in academic freedom.
Are they really accountable to those folks in the sense that they're running the universities / telling people they can't testify like this law?
I think there is a big difference.
I think there is a big difference.
The second half of this claim is a demonstrably weak generalization as to the source of power.
The counter example is Georgia, where the Board of Regents is beholden to the politics of the Governor. See recently the fiasco with the pandemic i.e., mandated vaccines and mandated masks.
Proof? The companies run by the members of the Board of Regents implemented different policies than the members themselves voted for the universities in the state of Georgia.
The counter example is Georgia, where the Board of Regents is beholden to the politics of the Governor. See recently the fiasco with the pandemic i.e., mandated vaccines and mandated masks.
Proof? The companies run by the members of the Board of Regents implemented different policies than the members themselves voted for the universities in the state of Georgia.
> If schools have become as much political institutions as educational institutions -- and there's little doubt about that -- why do they get public money at all?
Things get public money because they are political; that is, connected to an agenda some group thinks is important for public governance.
Why else would government fund a thing?
Things get public money because they are political; that is, connected to an agenda some group thinks is important for public governance.
Why else would government fund a thing?
> If schools have become as much political institutions as educational institutions -- and there's little doubt about that -- why do they get public money at all?
I think you've answered your own question. Why wouldn't the politicians in charge want to fund (and control) such a powerful political institution as education?
I think you've answered your own question. Why wouldn't the politicians in charge want to fund (and control) such a powerful political institution as education?
"Three University of Florida professors were denied permission from the school to testify in a major voting rights case "
What the fuck is 'permission to testify'? I thought access to justice was a constitutional right. If you can't get anyone to tesrify, then you have no access to justice.
We have surrendered so many rights in various contracts, we hardly have any freedoms left.
What the fuck is 'permission to testify'? I thought access to justice was a constitutional right. If you can't get anyone to tesrify, then you have no access to justice.
We have surrendered so many rights in various contracts, we hardly have any freedoms left.
The professors were looking to make money by testifying against the interests of their employer's parent organization:
>"the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."
This seems reasonable to me; if they want to testify to express themselves, they can still do it pro-bono, otherwise, they should probably seek non-government employment.
>"the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."
This seems reasonable to me; if they want to testify to express themselves, they can still do it pro-bono, otherwise, they should probably seek non-government employment.
The supreme court has historically taken a more nuanced stance on this sort of issue than you.
Broadly speaking in the US everyone has many constitutional protections against the government restricting them in certain ways. When you become a government employee you give up only the most narrow subset of the protections necessary for the government to effectively be your boss.
This means the professors have a reasonably strong court case as mentioned by their lawyer in TFA.
See for example https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-f...
> First a court must determine whether or not the speech is on a matter of public interest. Speech on matters of public interest are entitled to protection, even when uttered by employees; speech on purely private matters (like, say, a private and internal spat among employees) is not. Then the court must balance the employer's interest in an orderly and efficient workplace against the speech rights of the employee, taking into account things like whether the speech restriction is content-based (that is, whether it censors some viewpoints but not others), the circumstances of the speech, the strength of the employee's interest in the speech, whether the speech genuinely disrupts discipline and order and interferes with relationships, and so on.
Broadly speaking in the US everyone has many constitutional protections against the government restricting them in certain ways. When you become a government employee you give up only the most narrow subset of the protections necessary for the government to effectively be your boss.
This means the professors have a reasonably strong court case as mentioned by their lawyer in TFA.
See for example https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-f...
> First a court must determine whether or not the speech is on a matter of public interest. Speech on matters of public interest are entitled to protection, even when uttered by employees; speech on purely private matters (like, say, a private and internal spat among employees) is not. Then the court must balance the employer's interest in an orderly and efficient workplace against the speech rights of the employee, taking into account things like whether the speech restriction is content-based (that is, whether it censors some viewpoints but not others), the circumstances of the speech, the strength of the employee's interest in the speech, whether the speech genuinely disrupts discipline and order and interferes with relationships, and so on.
The critical question here is whether the University is restricting alternate employment or speech. It seems reasonable that a full-time employee on salary be prohibited from accepting simultaneous alternative employment in their primary field of work.
On the contractor-employee continuum, professors are really closer to contractors than they are full time employees. Critically, professors are not “full time” from an annual timeframe. They are salaried, yes, but maybe only work for 9/12 months per year. Their salaries are commensurately lowered. Therefore many professors take outside contract jobs during those 3 months to make up the difference. Contracting arrangements, including serving as expert witnesses. are so common that it’s usually built into the Faculty “constitution” or whatever it may be called at UoF.
> The critical question here is whether the University is restricting alternate employment or speech.
The process that stopped the professors was not one for restricting additional work in general, but one for restricting additional work based on a conflict of interest. Since they are a public University their ability to limit free speech like this is more limited than a private institution as iudqnolq mentioned above.
If the University of Florida has a general rule for restricting any additional work by default for professors they are an outlier among Universities.
The process that stopped the professors was not one for restricting additional work in general, but one for restricting additional work based on a conflict of interest. Since they are a public University their ability to limit free speech like this is more limited than a private institution as iudqnolq mentioned above.
If the University of Florida has a general rule for restricting any additional work by default for professors they are an outlier among Universities.
> ...but one for restricting additional work based on a conflict of interest. Since they are a public University...
Public university serves the public, no?
So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest?
Public university serves the public, no?
So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest?
> So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest?
The government, or in this case the University of Florida, is not supposed to be the ultimate authority of what is is the best interest of the public, the public is supposed to be the ultimate authority. The first amendment serves as protection from the government 'self dealing', looking out for their own interests and not the public's, by preventing them from stifling or limiting speech.
> Public university serves the public, no?
Yes and because they are public university their ability to limit their employee's speech is limited compared to a private institution.
The government, or in this case the University of Florida, is not supposed to be the ultimate authority of what is is the best interest of the public, the public is supposed to be the ultimate authority. The first amendment serves as protection from the government 'self dealing', looking out for their own interests and not the public's, by preventing them from stifling or limiting speech.
> Public university serves the public, no?
Yes and because they are public university their ability to limit their employee's speech is limited compared to a private institution.
I find it fascinating that the supreme court has upheld the ability to forgo so many purportedly inalienable rights via contract.
I've recently been disabused of the quaint notion that our Supreme Court's job is to make findings of law.
https://www.fivefourpod.com
https://www.fivefourpod.com
Well, you did voluntary signed a Contract. As part of a commercial exchange, you agree to do and do not certain things for money.
Inalienable Rights can't be signed away, so the argument that you are signing away Inalienable Rights really does not hold water.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that confining yourself to civil judgement via private arbitration removes your rights.
It’s worth remembering that arbitration is actually a common enough practice outside of employment. Any divorce involving “mediation” is arbitration, and both parties agreed to it. The disconnect comes when the person “suggesting” arbitration (the employer) is in a position of power.
If mediation is unsuccessful, neither party has lost or waived the right to a court appearance, so your analogy doesn't hold. Mediation in divorce is a cost-saving measure often required by the court.
That's a very valid point. That's why I think employer (or TOS) mandated arbitration are ridiculous. I should have the option of disputing the arbitration result by default, but many clauses say that the arbitration result is binding and that you have no other recourse.
I need person X to teatify so that I don't go to jail, and I never signed a contract.
Also, did amazom workers voluntarily sign up to pee in bottles?
Also, did amazom workers voluntarily sign up to pee in bottles?
I agree but I believe the Supreme Court does not, which would imply to me that they do not believe any right that can be signed away is inalienable - although I also expect they would never say this outright.
> What the fuck is 'permission to testify'?
I suspect this means to function as a (voluntary) expert witness, not as someone formally required to testify.
I suspect this means to function as a (voluntary) expert witness, not as someone formally required to testify.
vilvo(2)
duxup(1)
twofornone(10)
this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university.
in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves.
the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.
obviously UF wouldn't want that.
---
which organizations will allow you to testify against an entity that funds the organization without said organizations approval. free speech aside, obviously no organization will let you do that in your capacity as a member of said organization, but nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway.
in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves.
the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.
obviously UF wouldn't want that.
---
which organizations will allow you to testify against an entity that funds the organization without said organizations approval. free speech aside, obviously no organization will let you do that in your capacity as a member of said organization, but nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway.
> the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.
> obviously UF wouldn't want that.
This part is ridiculous. The "State of Florida" doesn't fund the UF, the Florida taxpayers do! And it's in the taxpayers' interest to get good, equitable laws - not whatever the lawmakers plop out for their own self-interest. The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.
> obviously UF wouldn't want that.
This part is ridiculous. The "State of Florida" doesn't fund the UF, the Florida taxpayers do! And it's in the taxpayers' interest to get good, equitable laws - not whatever the lawmakers plop out for their own self-interest. The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.
> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida
Like banning mask mandates by school districts and defunding them as punishment?
Like banning mask mandates by school districts and defunding them as punishment?
> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.
You must be new to southern politics, if you think this is a scandal.
You must be new to southern politics, if you think this is a scandal.
> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university
No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”
> in other words, they can testify for free
No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”
> in other words, they can testify for free
No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021...
"Hessy Fernandez, UF director of issues management and crisis communications, told the Gainesville Sun in a text message Sunday the university views the professors' request to do outside work for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as harmful to the university's interests. "However, to be clear," she stated, "if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do so."
"Hessy Fernandez, UF director of issues management and crisis communications, told the Gainesville Sun in a text message Sunday the university views the professors' request to do outside work for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as harmful to the university's interests. "However, to be clear," she stated, "if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do so."
I’m happy to be wrong about this, thank you for the link. It’s new information from the top linked article that pro bono would be allowed. I would speculate there’s maybe a big enough caveat in there that the university knows makes a pro-bono arrangement unworkable while appearing to be flexible. “On their own time without using university resources” could mean it’s not actually possible, and doing it pro bono obviously doesn’t change how the university feels about the case and it’s potential harm to their interests. But if the university really means it and would allow the testimony without repercussions, then the situation isn’t as bad as it seemed.
At least one of the professors has indicated they requested and denied from doing the testimony pro bono by by Gray Wimsett, Assistant Vice President of Conflicts of Interest.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516
The thing missing here is that they also wouldn’t be allowed to use their credentials as faculty members of the University, which makes their testimony less desirable.
> they also wouldn’t be allowed to use their credentials as faculty members of the University
Everything I have read from the University and the Professors indicates they are being flat out denied under the implicit risk of loosing their job. There is no circumstance where they can testify and not risk loosing their job from what I can tell.
Everything I have read from the University and the Professors indicates they are being flat out denied under the implicit risk of loosing their job. There is no circumstance where they can testify and not risk loosing their job from what I can tell.
> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”
No, I didn't.
"or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves."
> No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes.
Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018.
This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...
No, I didn't.
"or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves."
> No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes.
Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018.
This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...
I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”.
> There's no conspiracy here.
What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
> There's no conspiracy here.
What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
> What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).
If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.
I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).
If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.
>>The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).
Point of order: During the 2018 political cycle, there was not the same massive push by the party in power of Florida to promote an "election fraud is a massive existential threat to our democracy" narrative in the same way there was during 2020 and beyond.
Pretending a massive change in direction didn't happen in the intervening years seems either extremely naïve or disingenuous.
Point of order: During the 2018 political cycle, there was not the same massive push by the party in power of Florida to promote an "election fraud is a massive existential threat to our democracy" narrative in the same way there was during 2020 and beyond.
Pretending a massive change in direction didn't happen in the intervening years seems either extremely naïve or disingenuous.
I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.
Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven.
My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven.
Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.
Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.
Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."
> Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim
You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.
The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.
The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
We'll have to see what the result of the lawsuit is and the ensuing discovery to know.
They are in fact UF professors though, and that fact would be relevant in any case they testified in. Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? Or just for this issue?
To your edit: the fact that the entity in question is a government is the difference here in my opinion.
To your edit: the fact that the entity in question is a government is the difference here in my opinion.
per the article:
> Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general?
No
> Or just for this issue?
Yes
> Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general?
No
> Or just for this issue?
Yes
Organizations that aren't the government. State universities are public institutions, not private ones.
really? which private entities explicitly or historically have allowed a member to testify against either the entity itself or another entity that funds the one in which the member of a part of?
even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards.
there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify against them or another entity that funds them.
genuinely curious if it's happened before.
even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards.
there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify against them or another entity that funds them.
genuinely curious if it's happened before.
Yes, really. State schools are public institutions. Their employees are public employees. As public institutions, they are not legally permitted to enact policy that infringes 1A rights. A private school could have more leeway on this—subject to employment law, union contracts, etc—but a public school is very limited. A public professor could be censured for expressing testimony that, for example, reveals that they are likely to treat students in a biased way. If they testify with something like “Racial minorities and women aren't qualified to have a right to vote,” that impugns their ostensible fair treatment of their students and fellow faculty, and that is actionable. But testifying about how a state's voting policies disenfranchise legitimate portions of its population? Not at all actionable. Testifying that election integrity demands that certain practices be established even though practically speaking it could result in disenfranchisement of certain minorities? Also not actionable.
We'll have to see how the lawsuit pans out, but I doubt you're right here. Public institutions are in no way obligated to let their members serve as expert witnesses in their capacity as an employee. See Garcetti v. Ceballos.
However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible.
UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article.
It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.
However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible.
UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article.
It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.
An expert witness acts as a servant of the court, not as the agent of their employer. Naming the UoF as your employer is simply stating the truth to the court about your credentials; it doesn't mean the UoF has to take responsibility for your testimony.
I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.
> I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.
Government institutions are limited in how they can restrict the speech of their employees because of the first amendment. This is a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.
Government institutions are limited in how they can restrict the speech of their employees because of the first amendment. This is a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.
IANAL (nor an expert!), but I would have expected that an expert witness appears in court in response to a summons; he is therefore obeying the orders of the court, which I would have expected would override any shifty terms in an employment agreement.
"nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway"
We gave up privacy of our most intimate files and communication 'to prevent crime', because apparently everyone of us is a potential pedophile.
Joe should also give up his lifehood so that rule of law can function?
God forbid an organisation would suffer the indignity of employees giving evidence in the court of law and having to answer some tough questions?
We gave up privacy of our most intimate files and communication 'to prevent crime', because apparently everyone of us is a potential pedophile.
Joe should also give up his lifehood so that rule of law can function?
God forbid an organisation would suffer the indignity of employees giving evidence in the court of law and having to answer some tough questions?
Good news is and many in the academic sphere may not realize this - many faculties universities are going to go out of business at this rate. One silver lining during this time has been, many have realized how much they are overpaying for things they can learn online or through their own efforts. There is no reason you need to spend 200k+ for a degree in Sociology and Gender Studies.
Other than medicine, law a few science majors I don’t foresee much of the faculties in universities survive assuming the cooler heads prevail, and parents and society realize sending your kids on their way to mortgage their entire twenties for a piece of paper that can be learned through community college and online studies is worthless.
Other than medicine, law a few science majors I don’t foresee much of the faculties in universities survive assuming the cooler heads prevail, and parents and society realize sending your kids on their way to mortgage their entire twenties for a piece of paper that can be learned through community college and online studies is worthless.
Even medicine is an inefficient system of schooling in the US (and very hypocritical if you consider what med students and residents go through and its impact on their health). It can be redone to be cheaper, quicker, and safer, with less burnout rates.
After my experience in public schools, college and then grad school, I plan to homeschool my children and will actively dissuade them from going to college. The value of those institutions is purely negative at this point in US history. Like most of our government.
Exactly my thoughts. They're inefficient, overpriced, and outdated models. From what I've seen first-hand, homeschooling or similar schooling methods, in community efforts (not home schooling in isolation), is much more efficient and healthy.
> "Faculty do not forfeit their First Amendment rights as citizens by accepting an offer of employment with UF," Donnelly wrote. "Professors Smith, McDonald, and Austin testify as expert witnesses in their fields on their own time. Their testimony does not interfere with any of their job duties. There are no conflicts of interest."
This is acting like a private sector employee would be able to testify on whatever matter they want but that’s not true. Google wouldn’t let an employee serve as an expert witness against itself, for example.
This is acting like a private sector employee would be able to testify on whatever matter they want but that’s not true. Google wouldn’t let an employee serve as an expert witness against itself, for example.
Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, state actors including this university are.
It’s more complicated than that. State actors have have certain freedom to restrict speech when acting in their capacity as private employers: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473
Ken White writes about this distinction all the time, and it apparently doesn't apply at all in this case (though he'd just refer you to the FIRE lawsuit threat).
That doesn't justify the post I was replying to at all...
Really? You were saying that the public university is subject to 1st amendment restrictions in this instance, that case says it could be otherwise.
From the note: "In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties."
From the note: "In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties."
No, that case says that they are restricted by the first amendment, and discusses what exactly that stops the from doing. It does not say they might not be restricted by the first amendment.
The original comment I was replying to was arguing that "Google does this, therefore the university can", but that is not the case. Google is not bound by the first amendment, the university is, the argument fails at step 0. That doesn't mean the university can't do it, but it means it isn't a good argument that the university can.
Incidentally, acting as an expert witness is as a private citizen, not as part of the official's public duties, but even if that wasn't the case and this was something that the university could restrict my post would still be correct and the first reply to it missing the point.
The original comment I was replying to was arguing that "Google does this, therefore the university can", but that is not the case. Google is not bound by the first amendment, the university is, the argument fails at step 0. That doesn't mean the university can't do it, but it means it isn't a good argument that the university can.
Incidentally, acting as an expert witness is as a private citizen, not as part of the official's public duties, but even if that wasn't the case and this was something that the university could restrict my post would still be correct and the first reply to it missing the point.
point taken, thanks
It seems clear "serve as a witness on this case" is not part of these officials' public duties, yes?
I don't think that's clear, actually. If they are testifying as UF professors, they might be acting in the course of their duties because they are representing the university.
I think that's the argument, anyway, and why if they testify just as concerned citizens there would be no way to stop them.
I think that's the argument, anyway, and why if they testify just as concerned citizens there would be no way to stop them.
They're being forbidden by the university to testify.
How can testifying be one of their official duties?
How can testifying be one of their official duties?
I think that they're being forbidden by the university from testifying as expert witnesses using their capacities as professors of the university.
I could be wrong but it looks like they can testify as citizens, but not paid experts.
I could be wrong but it looks like they can testify as citizens, but not paid experts.
> I could be wrong but it looks like they can testify as citizens, but not paid experts.
Everything I have read from the University and the professors so far indicates they are being denied under any circumstance. Including doing it pro bono at least according to one of the professors: https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516 it is being denied by Gray Wimsett, Assistant Vice President of Conflicts of Interest.
Everything I have read from the University and the professors so far indicates they are being denied under any circumstance. Including doing it pro bono at least according to one of the professors: https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516 it is being denied by Gray Wimsett, Assistant Vice President of Conflicts of Interest.
Public servants serve the people.
Most countries, including EU nations, ban mail-in voting minus exceptions like living abroad, these laws being passed because of discovered fraud in elections.
Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.
Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.
Need a citation on that.
UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason.
Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time.
The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress voting in certain demographics are arguably more dangerous than the exceedingly low levels of fraud that elections have.
UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason.
Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time.
The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress voting in certain demographics are arguably more dangerous than the exceedingly low levels of fraud that elections have.
My state in the US (Oregon) has had universal mail-in voting for two decades and we don't have any voter fraud to speak of.
There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.
There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.
> we don't have any voter fraud to speak of
You probably mean you're not aware of any voter fraud.
The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered, so it's possible fraud has in fact been occurring and it has not yet been discovered (and/or nobody in a position to do so is interested in discovering it).
You probably mean you're not aware of any voter fraud.
The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered, so it's possible fraud has in fact been occurring and it has not yet been discovered (and/or nobody in a position to do so is interested in discovering it).
In a 2016 audit by the then-Republican Secretary of State Dennis Richardson, 54 potential cases of voter fraud were found, out of more than 2 million votes cast.
> Richardson said the suspicious ballots broke down into several categories: 46 voters appeared to vote in Oregon and another state; six individuals listed as deceased voted; and two voters registered in Oregon voted twice.
From: https://www.opb.org/news/article/voter-fraud-oregon-secretar...
If you have better evidence, not conjecture, please say so.
> Richardson said the suspicious ballots broke down into several categories: 46 voters appeared to vote in Oregon and another state; six individuals listed as deceased voted; and two voters registered in Oregon voted twice.
From: https://www.opb.org/news/article/voter-fraud-oregon-secretar...
If you have better evidence, not conjecture, please say so.
I'm curious, what does mail-in voter fraud look like? When I voted by mail in 2020, I had to register to vote just like in person, then they mailed a gigantic ballot to my address (which again validated that I actually lived in the state). I signed a scary thing on the ballot saying it was me. I put it in a mail box. It was then processed by a vote counting center. It's not like there are easy ways to game this system, you'd need to produce fake ballots, fake people with real addresses, or cheat the vote counts when the tallies are reported (which can be done through non mail in ballots as well).
I hear this "mail in vote fraud" line all the time but I think what it really is, is that making it more convenient to securely vote means that people who might not have been able to vote before get to, and that scares people who like that it's hard to vote.
I hear this "mail in vote fraud" line all the time but I think what it really is, is that making it more convenient to securely vote means that people who might not have been able to vote before get to, and that scares people who like that it's hard to vote.
No, I mean our Secretary of State audits the election every time we have one and rarely to never finds fraudulent votes.
Voter fraud is high-risk, low-reward behavior in a developed nation-state.
Voter fraud is high-risk, low-reward behavior in a developed nation-state.
> The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered,
I don't think so. The objective of fraud is to misrepresent. Finding out about it is incidental to that objective. Although not all fraud relates to identity, it's obvious that fraud is used to leverage all sorts of slippery side effects that often benefit an individual - eg https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
I don't think so. The objective of fraud is to misrepresent. Finding out about it is incidental to that objective. Although not all fraud relates to identity, it's obvious that fraud is used to leverage all sorts of slippery side effects that often benefit an individual - eg https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
To sway an election, even a close one (e.g. PA or GA in 2020) you'd still need tens of thousands of votes.
The sheer scale of an operation to cast that many fraudulent ballots has such an infantessimally small chance of not being discovered (e.g. "Sir/Madam our records show you've already cast a ballot. You'll have to fill in this provisional one and come in with ID to verify")
The sheer scale of an operation to cast that many fraudulent ballots has such an infantessimally small chance of not being discovered (e.g. "Sir/Madam our records show you've already cast a ballot. You'll have to fill in this provisional one and come in with ID to verify")
Not discovered fraud. Fears of frauds, stoked by some with nefarious intentions. Why are you making factually incorrect claims?
A number of countries, with competent government leaders and institutions, use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
A number of countries, with competent government leaders and institutions, use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
Can you provide links with information on countries that have discovered election fraud and banned mail-in voting? I could not find anything with a quick google search.
In the UK we did discover some postal voting fraud in a 2014 local election in an area of London called Tower Hamlets. We did not ban postal voting as a result.
We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.
We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.
Many other countries have mandatory IDs anyways, so in these cases ID presentation isn't problematic. The issue with ID verification is when only people with eg. a driver's license have IDs.
I think the majority of "postal voting fraud" in the UK consists of very patriarchal families in which the father directs family members as to how to vote, and submits the votes himself. Arguably, this isn't much different from persuading people to change their voting intentions, which is entirely legitimate. Postal voting used to be restricted to people who could show that they were unable to vote in-person, e.g. because they were in the armed services.
I disapprove strongly of that patriarchal practice; but (1) I doubt it has much effect on outcomes, (2) mandatory in-person voting wouldn't prevent it (the patriarch can still instruct his family members).
I also disapprove of early voting. I believe that to cast a vote legitimately, you have to pay some attention to the hustings and the arguments. That is not a barricade I will die defending, though - the tide is against me.
AFAIAA, the UK has not imported a voter ID law from the US. There was a trial at the last election, in a handful of constituencies, and there is mandatory photographic ID for voting in Northern Ireland. A voter ID law was proposed in the Queen's Speech, but no legislation has been tabled or debated.
For the most part, voters receive a poll card in the post, which they don't have to produce at the polling station. You can just turn up, state your name and address, and cast a ballot. Your name is then crossed-out in the voter register, so that the same name-and-address can't vote more than once.
I disapprove strongly of that patriarchal practice; but (1) I doubt it has much effect on outcomes, (2) mandatory in-person voting wouldn't prevent it (the patriarch can still instruct his family members).
I also disapprove of early voting. I believe that to cast a vote legitimately, you have to pay some attention to the hustings and the arguments. That is not a barricade I will die defending, though - the tide is against me.
AFAIAA, the UK has not imported a voter ID law from the US. There was a trial at the last election, in a handful of constituencies, and there is mandatory photographic ID for voting in Northern Ireland. A voter ID law was proposed in the Queen's Speech, but no legislation has been tabled or debated.
For the most part, voters receive a poll card in the post, which they don't have to produce at the polling station. You can just turn up, state your name and address, and cast a ballot. Your name is then crossed-out in the voter register, so that the same name-and-address can't vote more than once.
Are they still prosecuting "undue spiritual influence" cases in the UK?
Wut? Wow -
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2016/08/30/undue-spiritual-infl...
I thought you were going on about voting while under the influence of spirits.
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2016/08/30/undue-spiritual-infl...
I thought you were going on about voting while under the influence of spirits.
Your premise that mail-in ballots were a source of significant fraud has been proven false.
Edit: Election integrity is important. So is access to voting. It seems completely obvious to me (and millions of others, it seems) that the so-called election integrity measures taken by places like Florida and Texas are blatant attempts to restrict access to legitimate voting for the kinds of people that tend to vote Democrat.
Edit: Election integrity is important. So is access to voting. It seems completely obvious to me (and millions of others, it seems) that the so-called election integrity measures taken by places like Florida and Texas are blatant attempts to restrict access to legitimate voting for the kinds of people that tend to vote Democrat.
There is basically zero public evidence of election fraud in the US. It's irrelevant. What matters is the people who are in charge of developing, handling, and operating the voting machines and systems. There is zero public information about the chain of custody and potential vulnerabilities in the chain. This should be vastly more concerning.
This has similarities with the shenanigans pulled by Sinema and Manchin around the Build Back Better plan. Political horse trading to advance the agendas of special interests, at great expense to millions of people.
I wonder if the tech community could get involved to increase transparency around this stuff. Imagine if we had an open graph of the money flow so we could write a SQL query like (pseudo code) "select * from donors where payee in (select id from trustees)". Let people crowdsource the data and then maintain a page of declarative queries so that anyone can instantly see the web of money around public officials. It could be part of a build system that automatically creates a NASCAR jacket for each official so we could see who their donors are in AR.
Maybe such a thing already exists. It's traditionally been accomplished by investigative journalists and lawyers, but why couldn't it be public? It seems like it would be an effective way to end the bribe system.