1
The American Conservative: If Your Side Wins, Do You Care How the Winner Was Selected?
(www.theamericanconservative.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Conservative
377 readers
11 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This article seems like an oppinion piece that is fear mongering
Why do you think it's fear mongering?
I'll concede the other two. It is an opinion piece after all.
They frame voter fraud as a widespread thing happening everywhere, but their own source link in the article says 1500 proven voter fraud, 1200 something convictions - which is a small fraction of the whole.
They fear monger about immigrants and undocumented voting but I've yet to actually see a real source that says this has happened and is happening on a large scale.
The whole thing is fear mongering fraudulent elections but there's no proof that happened at a scale large enough to actually influence the result in 2016 2020 or 2024.
I think that's an unfair characterization of the author's argument.
At most, they said voter fraud is a very real threat, linking to the article you cited with 1500 proven instances. The article does proceed under the assumption that voter fraud is a threat, but that's hardly controversial. As you say, it's "a small fraction of the whole." A threat it may be, but a small one.
Moreover, unlike many articles in this community, this isn't the crux of his argument, merely a premise to it. In response to the threat of voter fraud, red and blue states are responding differently. There is absolutely an underlying assumption that non-citizens voting is bad, I'll grant you that. And one of his sources cites at least one instance of non-citizens voting in local elections.
Again, that' just a premise, and I agree, but you're missing the forest for the trees.
In other words, there are two visions of just politics becoming more defined, and a potential solution to them is for them to coexist and keep a watchful eye on each other, like the Romans did back in the day.
Except that the premise is untrue. He is repeating the big lie:
He can't fully bring himself to say it outright, but what is the meaning a reasonable person would take from this? He "is on record" saying yeah, the 2020 election was probably rigged.
I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.
It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication. The 202O election was not rigged, no matter how many hair-dye dripping landscaping parking lot press conferences you hold.
Esteemed, you say? Why, aren't you kind!
Anyway, yes, and an invalid argument doesn't make dialogue impossible, contrary to the entire virtual world of social media. His argument is invalid. I posted the article and I ultimately disagree with the conclusion, even if I were to treat the argument as valid. Nonetheless, there's still value in considering the other premises of his arguments.
Yes, but people who believe this are who we have to deal with. It doesn't matter how stupid it is or how misinformed we believe them to be, American politics is going to be influenced by this absolute fabrication. It is being influenced by it now. The choice for is how we handle it.
And, if the lesson isn't clear, I'm against disenfranchising these people just because I think they're completely removed from reality, and, in fact, would prefer that everyone have a real opportunity to (consider perspectives they fundamentally disagree with and) engage civically and politically.
Yeah that was sarcasm. Still, I admire your optimism.
I myself view these examples of rhetoric - which would have been unthinkable a scant few years ago- as yet more signs of the impending and imminent collapse.
The whole article seems to say that because voter fraud exists and that there is a preception amount conservative voter that elections are rigged that voting is pointless.
And then these folks that didn't vote because "it's rigged" will lose fairly and scream that it's rigged.
This article supports this odd mindset and is unhelpful to maintainung a healthy democracy.
We don't need two sides looking for a reason to claim fraud every time they lose. We need to encourage everyone to vote and have confidence that their vote matters. How we get back to that place I have no idea. But this article does not help.
This is it exactly! I think the author of this article honestly believes that a healthy American democracy, the kind that we've had for a couple hundred years now, is gone and won't come back. So yeah, it's not trying to help maintain that version of democracy. An odd mindset indeed.
But, they say:
American democracy isn't the only framework of democracy available. He's arguing that our version of democracy looks more like the old Roman version, so why not just do that?
So, I agree with you partially, this article doesn't help get us back to where we were. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him. But, I think there's an interesting idea here nonetheless. I'm not keen on the implication that America is the modern-day Rome, but is voting really the only process that legitimates the democratic ideal? If not, then why can't we implement these different processes so that people are more effectively able to participate in governing?
As a matter of fact, Morris Fiorina, a conservative political scientist I'm tangentially aware of, wrote an interesting paper titled "Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement". He argues that the increase in civic engagement over the past century or so is directly and ironically responsible for our dissatisfaction with the political process. Basically, special interests are inclined to participate and regular people aren't, despite the ease with which both might participate. But since special interests actually participate, it's their views that are most often represented. Fiorina's solution to the problem as he identified it? Encourage more civic engagement. Go all in on democracy.
At least, that's how I'm looking at this. It's why I prefer the blue solution over the red one, even if they are opposites sides of the same American democratic coin.
This is what I’ve said in the past. I’m 100% sure fraud is happening. I’ve seen no evidence there is enough fraud to sway the election. Seems to be a rounding error at best.