You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #2: A few corrections on the above Febble-isms [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. A few corrections on the above Febble-isms
Febble said:
>We need to demonstrate that fraud was the cause of Bush's victory. >Actually, as far as I'm concerned, we don't need to demonstrate >even that - what we need to do is to demonstrate that he did not >win a fair race. And he didn't.

Let's see, while elections are necessary in a democracy, real democracy is defined by the ultimate power being in the people, the government ruling only through the proper consent of the governed. If that consent was not unequivocally achieved, doesn't the government need to go back and get some consent? The government needs to PROVE that it has the consent of the govern, not simply ANNOUNCE (data and methods of counting strictly secret) what the RESULTS are and expect obedience since, if we are in a real democracy, the government is the servant of the people.

So, to correct febble, we don't need to prove fraud, we don't need to demonstrate a lack of a fair race,the Government needs to PROVE that it has the consent of the governed. It fails to do so.

if the people were not the master, but instead the servant or servile subjects of the world's only superpower, then the people have a burden to show NOT fraud, NOT unfairness, but merely to show an incorrect RESULT. Whether it is by accident or by intentional fraud matters little except in criminal proceedings.

SECOND CORRECTION OF A FEBBLE-ISM

Also, it is a logical or at least strategic mistake to go looking for single causation in a complicated world, or to expect one-stop proof shopping with exit polls. I'd be very happy to use exit polls as one piece of evidence in an overall case about the elections. Even if you were right Febble and they don't, themselves, prove fraud, they are still relevant evidence.

I see that scientists and statisticians tend to get all hot and bothered if there's any breath left whatsoever in the "other side" of the debate. They want to prove things to a certainty. Lawyers never have a case in which there isn't another equally talented lawyer on the other side making good arguments based on the inferences available to them. that doesn't mean that the defendant won't be executed, that the judgement won't enter for $500,000 or such. In other words, justice and proof in an evidentiary court never require the elimination of all seemingly plausible hypotheses that go against one's conclusion, but some interpretations of science and statistics militate this way.

"JUDGMENT", the word both for the ultimate operation of the mental faculty as well as the final document in a court case, involves either reconciling or resolving competing inferences in favor of one side over the other. If there were a conspiracy to commit election crimes, it would never be admitted, the only way to prove it would be to look at all of the evidence simultaneously, with the only conclusion then being conspiracy.

The defense in a conspiracy case always takes the micro view. They ask: What in this little fact PROVES conspiracy? The answer is always NOTHING. Because it doesn't prove anything. the scientific approach to life nicely fits with the defense approach on a conspiracy case because it is reductive and wants to focus in on little facts in great detail. applied to the criminal defense context, no one would ever be convicted because it is always plausible that Smutherdude committed the crime (Smutherdude commits most crime in America as a whole). At the end of the day, the alleged fact that there, for example, may have been a reluctant bush responder effect will just be left on the ashheaps of history by the jury rendering a judgment.

It's my Judgment that the exit polls provide good evidence, despite some slender reeds that Mitofsky and Co still cling to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC