On RFK, Jr. and Tin Foil

Let me ask you something. Let's say you're in a contest for something very important with someone you know has a history of ruthlessness and dishonesty. He personably suggests settling the contest with a coin flip, and, by coincidence, one of his close associates just happens to make coins for flipping. A friend tells you that, in the last 25 contests like this, your opponent has won 23. No big deal, some wise observers say. That could happen statistically. Don't be paranoid. You think someone would actually conspire and cheat to win something very important? Even a couple of important people supposed to be on your side accuse you of believing in conspiracies and get exasperated at the people questioning the fairness and legitimacy of the contest. And the authorities overseeing the contest tell you that they approve of this particular coin.

Do you flip?

Steve Soto today wondered if talking about the massive voter fraud, including electronic voting fraud, demonstrated in Rolling Stone by RFK, Jr., was somehow taboo among A-list bloggers. Certainly Kos is on record belittling skeptics of the 2004 results, and his Susan G and her chatmates have excoriated their contributors who want fuller attention to the possibility and the likelihood that, if successful once, it could happen again in 2006 and 2008. Today the Poor Man (doesn't deserve a link) weighs in with the wisdom that exit polls have been incorrect in the past so Kennedy was a dunce for talking about them. The worst was Chris Bowers (again, no link, for the same reason) with an unfortunately typical histrionic post that's half cluelessness about the nature of the concern about paperless, untraceable electronic voting and half continued self-exaltation and hero fantasy as "Precinct Man" valiantly fighting evil ward by ward.

This isn't even a Z-list blog, so I don't have to worry about retribution. [Update: Susan G yesterday issued this warning to critics: "Anyone who attacks this community unfairly should suffer as a result." I wonder who gets to decide what's "unfairly"?] So let me say this. The capacity of these people to miss what citizens just as concerned and enlightened as they are, are saying is phenomenal. Some of us worry that our untraceable electronic votes may be, and have been, manipulated within the machines or servers they may connect to, as people as or more credentialed than either they or their "experts," have said is possible. Their response is (Susan G) poll watch and (Bowers) go to the election board and demand access to the machines (or become "Robin" to "Precinct Man"--it's not clear which he prefers). Huh?? If I said I was worried about the pain in my foot, would they tell me to eat ice cream? This is not just insulting to serious, intelligent people. It's short-sighted and stupid.

It comes from something I've talked about before, the scholarly indoctrination of intellectuals who have the psychological need to feel superior to dummies, with a switch that turns "off" if they hear anything beginning to sound "oooohhh . . . conspiratorial," despite evidence, despite histories of real conspiracies of people for whom power was more important than purity of mind. Calling Bev Harris a nut does not make her a nut, but it does affirm intellectual superiority. That's what really counts.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed. I have a Ph.D. in political science, too. I got elected to a small-town school board in western Oklahoma--twice. I consulted campaigns, winning and losing. (Bowers calls people like me lazy.) I've been in policy-making and staffing for over two decades and taught them for over two decades. And I wouldn't bet everything I own on anything I say on this blog, including this, because I've had way too much experience being proven wrong. The A-listers have apparently made it this far without suffering that, so let's hope their streak continues with their predictions of the silliness of our concerns over paperless voting, now and in the past.

I have my doubts about that, though. Why? Because of the answers to these questions. Is the technology there to pull electronic voter fraud? Have hackers testing the equipment managed to distort the counts. Have software engineers gone public about writing code to divert votes? Is there expressed incentive on the part of the Diebolds and other Repub and Christian Dominionist voting-machine companies to cheat? Have they refused to be open about what they're doing? Yes to the nth power. Here's one the answer is "no" to: Is there anything about Bushnev and his Busheviks to give confidence that they wouldn't do such a thing?

I've read the reports on both sides of this, at least the ones posted on line. Partly because of the problems of proving things that leave no evidence (the thing we are most worried about), neither side is conclusive. I have a couple dozen hours in stat and methodology, so there is a little authority there. Is RFK's case airtight? No, no goddam "smoking guns" (which is another intellectual deformity against needed action). But neither is the debunkers' and they don't get the benefit of the doubt just because they get to sit back and poke holes. It ends up coming down to probabilities and whether "could it happen?" equals "it did happen" ON BOTH SIDES.

Which means it's an article of faith, not proof, at this point. The debunkers and A-list taboo fearers are essentially taking the oh-so-intellectual "ooohh . . . conspiracy, you don't believe we landed on the moon, either, do you?" shortcut to sounding superior. Their evidence does not support the pretense, but this attitude does, and justifies blowing off potentially the greatest issue facing this nation's democracy so they can devote their time to the strategy and horserace data they're much more comfortable with. Which is fine, really. Free country. Sort of.

But it doesn't give them rein to belittle and disparage the very serious people who see this as a very serious problem for our future. And it doesn't give them freedom to decide that, given the evidence they've cherry-picked, their "side" is right on this issue. It may turn out, after real and comprehensive debate, which has not in any way, shape, or form happened, that they're correct. But that hasn't happened yet, and, if they're wrong, given their A-list positions, they'll be greatly responsible.