Soothing Propaganda

NPR reports that a third of Americans lack confidence in our election system, but that number can be reduced if one tells them soothing tales before asking the question.

The organization's research started with a control group of voters, and asked them whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: "Overall, I trust the process for counting votes in our elections."

Initially, 63% of voters said they did.

But when another group of voters was asked the same question after reading a statement that included things like "political candidates can challenge election results. But our system requires proof and following the law" and "let's keep improving our elections and make them more fair, equal, and transparent" that number went up to 72% of voters.

Now, if you watched how this actually went down in 2020-2021, you saw that the statement being presented to soothe voters' concerns is not accurate. Courts outright refused to hear the challenges raised by candidates on standing grounds, and therefore never examined evidence to see if there was proof. It turns out you can't challenge an election that hasn't taken place yet because you have no standing, having not yet suffered any harm. You can't challenge one that has taken place because it's too late now (laches). You can't challenge one once the votes are certified because the matter is already decided (moot).

A state government lacks standing to object to other states adopting fraudulent processes, because those other states are sovereign. The legislature of that same state lacks standing as well. The President of the United States lacks standing in his own election, and so does any legal interest group that might try.

This is true even when there is prima facie evidence such as in Atlanta; the courts found no one with standing, the Justice Department held no investigation, and all we got was a single guy testifying before the January 6th committee a year and a half later that he'd looked into it and everything was fine. That in no way constitutes a process for actually challenging an election in a way to do anything about it, even if you can show initial evidence that suggests there's reason to look deeply.

As for being able to challenge the election if one 'follows the law,' the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that its own election was illegal and unconstitutional -- but no challenges were heard in time to do anything about it. Nor will that small matter apparently affect the next election, which the executive branch is intending to run the same way regardless of the other two branches. Orders from the legislature are set aside, and the ruling of the court ignored, by an unelected committee appointed by the governor.

As a consequence, I find the NPR result depressing rather than reassuring. If just speaking some soothing but false words is enough to move the needle that much, many people don't really care. They just want the worrisome thing to go away, and are prepared to believe any calming narrative no matter how manifestly false it has proven to be.