Via the NYT: Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud
A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.
[...]
Though the original report said that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”
This is problematic for a number of reasons.
First, if research is commissioned and that research reaches a particular conclusions, it is wrong for a committee to alter the conclusion–that is a blatantly dishonest act. There can be no real argument about the fact that the two sentences, which overlap in a very general sense, can be seen as anything other than suggesting two different conclusions. Indeed, the sentence released to the public suggests that there is pervasive fraud, while the first sentence downplays the notion that there is significant fraud.
Second, given that the administration (especially its political arm, e.g., Karl Rove) has focused on the issue of voter fraud, this is a suspicious, if not outright disturbing, action.
In regards to Rove, the story notes the following:
The Republican Party’s interest in rooting out voter fraud has been encouraged by the White House. In a speech last April, Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s senior political adviser, told a group of Republican lawyers that election integrity issues were an “enormous and growing” problem.“We’re, in some parts of the country, I’m afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses,” Mr. Rove said. “I mean, it’s a real problem.”
While I would not wish to discount any problems with the voting system, I must confess that the notion that we have a radical, widespread voter fraud problem has no empirical basis.
Third (which builds on the second point above): a key allegation in the USA firings case is that a motivation for targeting specific US Attorneys was their failure to address voter fraud cases that would have helped Republicans and damaged Democrats. To have an administration panel play up the notion that voter fraud is a huge problem in contradiction to the actual findings of a report adds substantial fuel to that fire.
Sphere: Related Content
April 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am
[...] Steven Taylor sums it up: … the two sentences, which overlap in a very general sense [suggest] two different conclusions. Indeed, the sentence released to the public suggests that there is pervasive fraud, while the first sentence downplays the notion that there is significant fraud. [...]
April 11th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I don’t get it. The statement is not saying we have fraud or don’t have fraud but it talks about what people are saying about voter fraud. “widespread but not unanimous agreement”, “there is a great deal of debate”, this sounds like a typical government report trying to have it both ways and in the end not really saying anything of value.
An old report being tied to Karl Rove and the USA firings seems a stretch.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am
The point is that the original report came to the conclusion that the the general consensus was that that there was little voter fraud going on. This was changed to a sentence which gives the impression that there is a great deal of debate extant on the question.
Look at the sentences:
Original: “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,”
Changed to: “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”
You don’t see any substantial difference as to what the new sentence infers as opposed to what the original sentence states?
The first sentence emphasizes “that there is little polling place fraud” while the second emphasizes “the pervasiveness of fraud.”
Words matter and the way they are presented matters.
And the point about Rove and the USA situation is context. The topic if voter fraud keeps coming up in the context of GOP political strategy. It is a wholly legitimate connection.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Note how the entire strategy around dealing with the issue of voter fraud is the exact same strategy for dealing with the issue of global warming.
This isn’t an accident. It’s a consistent pattern on the right.
I’m just amazed that this is actually being exposed at all. This kind of strategy is highly effective and plays right into the weaknesses of the punditocracy - i.e. “on the one hand and on the other”. It’s exploited by pretty much every conservative I listen to regularly as well.
Again, it’s just astounding that this is actually being discussed in so clear cut terms that are almost undeniable.
Not that I think it will kill off the strategy. I’m sure that it will continue to flourish successfully well after I’m long gone.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Related: The Denialists’ Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The GOP has been consistently pushing voter fraud for the past 3 or 4 elections. For examples allegations of Dem fraud in SD, Washington, NM jump to mind. Yet in none of those places was there prosecution.
However, what the GOP has done is use this “threat” as a basis for tightening up of election rules, such as requiring certain forms of ID for voting. These steps almost universally effect (what is perceived to be) the constituency of the Democratic Party (poor, elderly, minorities).
Indeed, even the Supreme Court has said that “voter fraud” is an issue of concern. But that concern appears to be based more on the hype created by GOP partisans than on any evidence or statistics. But when a government report that runs counter to the GOP’s hypothesis is to be released, the finding that there is basic agreement that little or no voter fraud exists is changed to say that there is still debate about this. Such a study would certainly be used to counter the GOP push for even more restrictive voting requirements.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to connect the dots here.
It is somewhat like the Democratic concern about Diebolt voting machines in the last election. There was zero evidence of fraud, but it was still a major issue. Imagine for a second the reaction on the right if the Democrats pushed USAs to investigate these accusations and fire those who didn’t, change a report that says that there is basically no evidence to say there might be some evidence, and then used these events to argue that the system should be changed in such a way to make it harder for the (again perceived) Republican constituency to vote.
Sometimes I think you can’t trust democracy (or a democratic republic) to those elected to lead it.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
First of all, as a political scientist, Dr. Taylor should understand the difference between “an administration panel” and an independent agency. And the EAC is an independent, bipartisan agency. (And, BTW, the Democrat commissioner agreed with the change.)
Second, it is odd to say that it is a “blatantly dishonest act” for the people that HIRED the consultants to come to a different conclusion than the consultants. The entity that is releasing the report is the agency, not the consultants. If the Agency commissioners and agency staff think that the consultants were wrong, they should be correcting the problem with the consultant’s work, not releasing something they believed was in error. Dr. Taylor certainly has a strange way of thinking about how government ought to work - who in their right mind believes that the government ought to be releasing erroneous reports???
April 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
AS,
You do recognize that the commissioners who serve are appointed by the President, yes? And as a political scientist I know that “independent” executive agencies within the federal government are influenced by the administration in office. They are not “independent” from the President nor from politics.
Regardless, if one hires researchers and then because one doesn’t like the conclusions they reach, one changes those conclusions, then that is blatantly dishonest, yes.
It certainly undercuts the notion that one has generated independent research.
This was not an issue of error or correcting an erroneous report. That conclusion is quite a stretch of the situation.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“You do recognize that the commissioners who serve are appointed by the President, yes?”
As are the commissiones for virtually all independent agencies. I mean, you do understand what that term means, right?
“This was not an issue of error or correcting an erroneous report.”
Did you read the article to which you linked? Here is the reason for the change:
Donetta L. Davidson, the chairwoman of the commission, said that when the original report was submitted, the board’s legal and research staff decided there was not enough supporting data behind some of the claims.
Why would you want a government agency to put out a report making claims for which the agency does not believe have sufficient supporting data??? That would seem to me to be erroneous.
Your way of looking at what the government ought to be doing certainly seems strange to me. If an EPA consultant wrote something that said that global warming definately was not occurring, and the EPA staff looked at it and said there is insufficient support for that statement, would you want the EPA to issue a report stating that global warming definately was not occurring???
April 11th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I noted the issue of “independent” and its meaning in a previous comment.
The quote you note does not justify the change made in the conclusion–specifically to the sentences noted.
And I am not sure how this post indicates one way or another how I think government ought to work.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“I noted the issue of “independent” and its meaning in a previous comment.”
Ah, I didn’t see that the first time I read your response. In any case, the fact that the commission is bipartisan undermines your point.
“The quote you note does not justify the change made in the conclusion–specifically to the sentences noted.”
I guess I don’t understand why you think that the commission ought not to change a sentence that the commission believes is not sufficiently supported by the data.
“And I am not sure how this post indicates one way or another how I think government ought to work.”
Well, I took the post to mean that you think that government commissions ought to make reports containing statements that the commission believes are not supported by the data. Or is that only for this case, and not a general principle?
April 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I get the feeling based on that last comment and the independent/bipartisan switcheroo that it really doesn’t matter what I say to you in this discussion.
It also clear that you were the one who didn’t understand what “independent” meant in this context, but glommed onto it as it appeared to support your position.
And somehow I find the notion of a general theory of commission report handling to be a rather amusing concept.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“independent/bipartisan switcheroo”
I’m sorry, “switcheroo”? The commission is BOTH independent AND bipartisan — that is, it is an independent agency that has 2 Republican commissioners and 2 Democrat commissioners. That the commissioners must be of different parties is a common feature of independent agencies - look at the Federal Election Commission, or even the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example. And that fact that the commissioners are bipartisan undermines your point that ““independent” executive agencies within the federal government are influenced by the administration in office” in that the Democrat commissioner in office at the time of the change (the other Democrat had previiously resigned) agreed to the change — it is unlikely that the Democrat commissioner would be “influenced” by the Republican President.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I saw no emphasis in those sentences that way you saw it. In effect I saw that there is widespread belief that polling place fraud is minor yet there still is a debate going on. Neither statement says anything for sure. In government speak it’s just hedging your bets.
I will stand by my first statement and now add it’s making a mountain out of a bureaucratic molehill.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I’ll Show You A Fraud
The topic of the day is voter fraud, as this article detailing Bush administration “edits” to a report on voter fraud has been racing around the blogosphere. Basically, a bipartisan panel concluded that there was a solid consensus that voter fraud in…
April 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Steve,
One sentence has a finding: that the prevailing view is that there is little evidence of fraud–that is a finding. The other sentence, the one published, makes it sound as if there is no basic agreement on the subject-which is very different finding.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
And Steve, the thing that I don’t understand about your reaction to this and to the USA story is not that I expect you to assume the worst, but rather that you (and other critics who have posted here and elsewhere) appear utterly dismissive.
I described the story as “a suspicious, if not outright disturbing, action”.
Now, at a minimum, I am unclear how, given the political importance that many in the GOP have given the issue of voter fraud doesn’t qualify this story as “suspicious”.
Ditto the USA story–the firings were unprecedented which, it seems to me, makes it a noteworthy story at a minimum.
I have reached little in the way of firm conclusions, however, on any of it.
April 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Am I the only one who is troubled by the reporting of this story. They sought out both Democratic members (including the one who had resigned) for comments, as well as two Democratic Representatives. Yet the only Republican quoted, with the exception of the brief quote by Joe Serebrov, is Karl Rove from a year old speech. He has become the “monster in the closet” for both the Dems and for much of the mainstream media. Apparently no Republican reaction to the report is necessary.
I will agree with the good Dr. that changing research findings is very troubling, but without having seen the research, it’s hard to say whether the finding has a sufficient basis. Sentences like this are problematic - The original report said most experts believe that “false registration forms have not resulted in polling place fraud,” but the final report cites “registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud.” - Most experts believe? Admittedly that is the reporter’s characterization, but that doesn’t sound like a very well grounded research finding to me. As one of my professors told me, “I don’t care what you believe, what matters is what the research shows.” If the research question was, “Do you believe that false registration forms have resulted in fraud?” you could argue that the finding is valid. But I would argue if that’s your research question then the research is junk.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[...] Continuing on a topic from yesterday, the NYT has a story on the DoJ’s pursuit of electoral fraud: In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews. [...]