Lil White Lies: Mocking the Vote

Provisional ballots were the subject of this PolitiFact (PF) ruling on Bill Nelson, Democrat Senator from Florida, who garnered a “Mostly True.”  He stated: “55% of people who cast a provisional ballot (in Florida) in last presidential election—their vote did not count.”

My conservative counterpart’s take on this is that there was a “good reason” that 55% of provisional ballots were rejected, and PolitiFact failed to elaborate on that. Unfortunately, no good reason was presented by him, either, except for more fallacies for fun and frivolity, this time that the obvious suppression of the vote of women and students is simply a “red herring.” Except if your last name is “White” (see video below).

 

But let’s first get the gist of this out of the way.  In a previous post on “Mostly True” rulings, a rough percentage has been established of about 4% to as high as 15% from the precise numerical answer.  According to Bryan White:  “...As Nelson could justify rounding to 55 from 52.5, his number represents an inflation of only about 2 percent…” WRONG! It was 51.4% out of 55%, which represents an inflation of about 7 percent. Or, using the 52.5%, it would be just under 5 percent. Either one qualifies for a "Mostly True" ruling based on the literal statement. But of course, my counterpart would rather obfuscate the subjective issue of the “underlying argument” to his ideological benefit, seeing that he's much better at that than using a calculator.

Here is a Greg Palast video with something on provisional ballots, called Steal back your vote:

At about the 2:15 mark, Palast states that you won't lose your vote if your name is…John White…is that Bryan White’s brother?  At about 2:30 he talks about provisional ballots, and how there's one chance in three the provisional ballot will be discarded.

An article at Alternet leads us to the basis of the “red herring” line of reasoning, also alluded to by writer Aaron Sharockman in the PolitiFact piece, which turns out to be more boilerplate GOP talking points on provisional ballots:

The GOP was asked by a few in the media why they are so hell-bent on disenfranching voters. They claim it is all an effort to "stamp out fraud".

Interesting, since even our Sec[retary] of State had to admit he could find no cases of voter fraud. The former GOP chairman told the media to talk with the election supervisors about all the fraud... except none of them, NOT EVEN THE GOP ONES, claim there has been any.

More evidence of the lack of such fraud: (italics added)

The office of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, who served under two Republican governors, has said the past few elections have been clean, thanks to reforms passed after the notorious 2000 election. Chris Cate, a spokesman for Browning, said via email the state Division of Elections is trying to determine if there have been any voter fraud cases referred to the state lately.

Eisnaugle, on the House floor, recalled that Orange County election officials received a registration form for "Mickey Mouse," among other fictitious names, in 2008. But Orange Supervisor of Elections Bill Cowles says the "Mickey Mouse" registration was rejected by his office — and that firm evidence of voter fraud is hard to come by.

As noted, that’s the point continuously stressed by my conservative counterpart: (italics added)

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

I'll repeat that to give it time to sink in.

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

Precincts exist for a reason. They are intended to help limit who can vote on what. New York residents should not vote in Florida elections…

I can’t believe this guy thinks his readers are this stupid…"I'll repeat that to give it time to sink in”…oh, thanks, I just can’t possibly figure out what it is you’re sayin’! Do tell me again!  He really thinks (a lot of ) people who live in New York would try to vote in Florida? Does he have evidence that this actually happens, or is this just another assertion? According to the Orlando Sentinel in the quote above, even the GOP election officials are not claiming voter fraud of this type. In other words, this is hypocrisy coming from someone who constantly accuses PolitiFact of making assertions and not providing any evidence. Yes, trust Bryan White for the truth.  He has the market cornered on it.

In another related review on a PolitiFact ruling where a Florida state representative named Eisnaugle (noted in the block quote above) claimed voter fraud was uncovered in which Mickey Mouse might have voted in Florida, we get the same thing. It’s assumed there’s a lot of “unexposed” fraud even though very little has been actually found:

I suppose Eisnaugle should have used examples of unexposed fraud. Though how he would know about unexposed fraud ought to cause its own set of suspicions. That, in fact, is one of the reasons why bills such as the one in question may prove helpful. Our system makes it pretty easy to hide fraud. For example, felons may have illegally voted in Florida's elections. How does one detect it other than by catching them in the act?

In the end, PolitiFact's editorializing misses the mark. Eisnaugle did not claim that the examples he cited would have been altered with the bill in effect. He cited the claim to silence the complaint that no problem with election fraud exists in Florida.

The complaint by my conservative counterpart on this one is that PolitiFact's writer Aaron Sharockman just picked Mickey Mouse based on “selection bias” out of three examples to fact check, when any one of them would do because they were all found to be false. And then we are led to believe that these three cases are sufficient to counter the claim that “no problem with election fraud exists in Florida.”

(I could write another post about "felons may have illegally voted in Florida"--because in some states felons can vote once they have served their time.  This assumes that someone who's paid for their crime and now is a productive citizen should have the right to vote.  But not in Florida...which appears to be okay by Bryan, since they might be more likely to vote Democratic.)

Count this as just one more testament to cognitive dissonance.  Like, there's proof of a lot of voter fraud in Florida, 'cause, 'cause, it's just easy to hide....or something like that.   

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.