Logic For Leftybloggers: Begging The Question

Here’s a typical argument that I’ve been having with more than a few lefties lately:

ME: Here’s some more evidence that fraudulent votes were cast in the election.

THEY:  You shouldn’t say that.  Minnesota has the best voting system in the country.

ME:  Maybe, maybe not – but there’s some room for improvement, as these stories show.

THEY: But you shouldn’t impugn the voting system.  You’ll discourage voting.

ME: No, I’m encouraging people to hold their idiot government accountable.

THEY:  But your “evidence” is wrong.

ME: Why?

THEY: Because we have the best voting system in the country.

ME: (Looks for ways to change the subject)

It’s called “Begging the Question” – which may be the most mis-used term in the whole world of logic, by the way.  Correctly used, it means “Using the presumption that your claim is correct as evidence that your claim is correct”.

Constant repetition that Minnesota has the best electoral system in the country, even if it’s true (and it’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that it’s a ludicrous claim, unless the sole goal is to rack up vote counts, which is a stupid goal) doesn’t pre-empt evidence that there are issues.

44 thoughts on “Logic For Leftybloggers: Begging The Question

  1. Thank you for using the term “begging the question” correctly. I understand there’s a hefty remittance of time in Purgatory for this meritorious act.

  2. Shame on you Berg! This was a totally fictisous…ficticsous….false conversation. Dog has never responded to you more than once, and seldom at all.

    I will now call you “Shot in the Onion” and giggle like a schoolboy.

  3. Lars,

    Heh. I’ve got a lot of karmic payback to make on this one.

    Kerm,

    It wasn’t specifically directed at DG, although it’d be reasonable to expect some collateral damage.

  4. Of course Minnesota has the best electoral system in the country. Why, in some areas we often have more votes cast than there are registered voters. That’s participation!

  5. How falsely you frame the argument dear Mitch.

    The reason that voter fraud is not a problem is that voter fraud allegations when investigated haven’t proven to occur, other than numbers that are very rare.

    Recent examples are apprently continuing to prove that, as hearing the other side of the Crow Wing Courthouse events demonstrate.

    And you are still too gutless, dear Mitch, to check out the voting records of the elderly old dear with Alzheimer’s that you assert was (or may have been) coerced – terrorized even – into voting for Franken back in 2008.

    Even you have to recognize that an I Voted sticker or literature on absentee ballots is not proof of anything.

    So, yes Learned Foot – put up some proof, do the fact checking of looking at whether or not the old dear voted in 2008 — and then lets here about voter fraud. These empty accusations are tiresome, and not compelling argument.

    Perhaps Learned Foot will be so kind as to review the SCOTUS case where voter fraud was alleged but not proven to justify photo ID. SCOTUS found that there was not significant voter fraud, and that the claims of preveting voter fraud as a basis for photo ID were rejected. You know – court. Where they require PROOF – unlike Mitch’s blog.

  6. The reason that voter fraud is not a problem is that voter fraud allegations when investigated haven’t proven to occur, other than numbers that are very rare.

    Over two dozen, approaching thirty, convictions of felon voters. HUNDREDS of people investigated and found to have voted illegally, but who skate because Minnesota law specifically allows ignorance of the law as an excuse. And having one-party control of both the Secretary of State and Attorney General’s offices make the “investigations” you keep referring to as dispositive evidence both dilatory and laughable.

    Recent examples are apprently continuing to prove that, as hearing the other side of the Crow Wing Courthouse events demonstrate.

    “Apparently?” It hasn’t been two weeks since the election, and allegations are still surfacing! No official investgation could have reached any “apparent” conclusions even if they were being run by people with an interest in flushing out serious problems. Which, I maintain, they were not.

    And you are still too gutless, dear Mitch, to check out the voting records of the elderly old dear with Alzheimer’s that you assert was (or may have been) coerced – terrorized even – into voting for Franken back in 2008.

    DG, I repeat – get a grip. I ASSERTED NOTHING.

    You can keep saying it, over and over – and you do! But it doesn’t make it a fact!

  7. DG

    Even you have to recognize that an I Voted sticker or literature on absentee ballots is not proof of anything.

    I have a dilemma here. My next “logic for leftybloggers” piece needs to be either the “strawman” or “red herring” piece. Not sure which, but you have given me ample material for both.

    So, yes Learned Foot – put up some proof, do the fact checking of looking at whether or not the old dear voted in 2008 — and then lets here about voter fraud. These empty accusations are tiresome, and not compelling argument.

    And there’s your strawman. The question isn’t about whether she voted or not – it’s of only secondary relevance to the question. The question was, given that the woman was completely demented, would she have voted on her own, or would she have been a suggestible piece of human ballot-stuffing as the email-writer contended was likely?

    We don’t know – and by “we”, I mean “you”. Which hasn’t stopped you from pursuing a strawman argument with a lot of faux volume, but not a whole lot of substance.

    Perhaps Learned Foot will be so kind as to review the SCOTUS case where voter fraud was alleged but not proven to justify photo ID.

    Uh oh, DG. Now you’ve done it.

    You do know that Foot actually is a lawyer, ya?

    SCOTUS found that there was not significant voter fraud, and that the claims of preveting voter fraud as a basis for photo ID were rejected.

    Er, please provide the cite for the case you’re using without naming. Because if it’s what I think it is, you are greatly overstating the scope of the initial petition.

    You know – court. Where they require PROOF – unlike Mitch’s blog.

    Speaking of which, how’s that “avalanche of violence” coming? Find the “weber ninja” yet?

    And when should I tell Salem Twin Cities to retain counsel?

    At the risk of invoking a Peevism, be careful when you point.

  8. And you are still too gutless, dear Mitch
    I object! Having Met Mitch on several occasions I can testify to the fact that he does, indeed, possess a gut. Said gut does apparently diminish during bicycle season, but such scurrilous accusations cannot go unchallenged.

    Shame on you, Dog.

  9. Actually, since you presented the ‘I Voted’ sticker on her walker, and the voting information as part of why this was plausible – yes it is pertinent.

    You could check this easily, since you offer this as an example of how a specific group – the SEIU – plausibly did something that would cause an illegal vote.

    So — was it or was it not? Because if it was not, then apparently the system works just fine.

    And btw – I’m currently checking into how many of the assisted living facilities and nursing homes in MN actually WERE unionized by SEIU in 2008. Because it was my impression that the majoirty were NOT unionized, but I don’t have the exact figures of how that transition occurred or how many are unionized now.

    One more detail you claim of how something COULD have happened. I’m arguing it could not, and did not.

    Kermit, I’ve known Mitch for 20 years. I make no disparaging comment about his actual midsection whatsoever; it was a metaphorical comment.

    As to the Avalanche of violence, Charles Alan Wilson was sentenced last month, I wrote about it a few days ago. Last I checked the FBI still had an open investigation on Perriello’s potentially fatal act of vandalism.

    As to Salem, the Obama Task Force has been whittling their way through the numerous cases in MN – I’m sure you’ve seen the number of Ponzi schemes reported in the media? Last I heard – which was this morning – from the victims of the Cook – Kiley – Pettengill – Durand – Beckman ponzi scheme (as identified by the defendants), more attention had begun to shift from Cook to Kiley and to some of the other defendants. Claw backs have begun, including against the mortgage company involved in Cook buying his house, and the suits are working their way through other parties. Durand recently had to cough up money over a vehicle. It all moves slowly in the sense of ice age glacial slowness, but it moves.

    If you want to present that as an example of how a voter fraud could occur – shouldn’t you also present it as how voter fraud could not occur, since it apparently DID NOT?

    Part of my problem with the whole claim to voter fraud occurring is that all of the instances of claimed voter fraud pretty much disappear into a puff of smoke when it comes down to it. You make a lot of claims — ballots going into jails in IL! Oh MY! except that it makes perfect sense — prisoners who have not lost their right to vote for comitting felonies CAN vote legally. In some states even FELONS can vote legally (that is the trend worldwide btw). In Minnesota in the overwhelming number of cases, when a prisoner is let out of incarceration, they regain their right to vote. If there is occasional confusion over exceptions to the rule, that is not hard to understand, and does not constitute intentional illegal voting much less organized Democratic party initiated voter fraud.

    There is a legal process for dealing with Alzheimer’s patients to stop them from driving cars (and that is a helluva battle) and to remove their right to vote. Absent that, it is not illegal for someone to vote if they want to vote and can do so with legal assistance.

    Overwhelmingly, when investigated, voter fraud is not found to occur. Not in MN, not anywhere — regardless of whether there is a GOP or DFL majority in power at the time. THAT says something, backed up with proof and investigation.

    You are promoting accusation, but not investigation, and not proof; and you fail to mention when that accusatioin is disprove, and when investigation doesn’t support your claims. That is not fair, objective, or balanced. It is an unfounded attack on a system which appears to work well – not perfectly, I’d be more skeptical if it appeared to work perfectly. But any system operated by people will have an occasional hiccup. A hiccup differs from fraud in that it is unintentional, accidental, and does not systematically benefit one side or the other, and is not organized by one side to take something from the other.

    THAT isn’t fraud.

  10. I make no disparaging comment about his actual midsection whatsoever
    So calling him “gutless” was a friendly insult. Duly noted.

  11. Actually, since you presented the ‘I Voted’ sticker on her walker, and the voting information as part of why this was plausible – yes it is pertinent.

    Pertinent? Perhaps. Especially important in context? Not really.

  12. You could check this easily, since you offer this as an example of how a specific group – the SEIU – plausibly did something that would cause an illegal vote.

    I offered the SEIU reference as an interjection, not a submission of evidence.

    However, we’ll come back to that.

  13. So — was it or was it not? Because if it was not, then apparently the system works just fine.

    So we’re going to judge “the system” based on the specifics of a single email to me from a reader?

    Seems a bit of an overreach.

  14. And btw – I’m currently checking into how many of the assisted living facilities and nursing homes in MN actually WERE unionized by SEIU in 2008. Because it was my impression that the majoirty were NOT unionized, but I don’t have the exact figures of how that transition occurred or how many are unionized now.

    While you’re at it, check out Crow Wing County.

  15. “So calling him “gutless” was a friendly insult”

    I thought “gutless” was a compliment.

  16. One more detail you claim of how something COULD have happened. I’m arguing it could not, and did not.

    In other words, you have proven a negative, based purely on an account that you yourself decried as lacking in details. And I’m wrong to use this case to leap to the conclusion that the system is wrong (a leap I never made, but I’m humoring you here), but you can use it to claim the system is hunky dory.

    Do I have that correct?

  17. As to the Avalanche of violence, Charles Alan Wilson was sentenced last month, I wrote about it a few days ago. Last I checked the FBI still had an open investigation on Perriello’s potentially fatal act of vandalism.

    Two cases.

    I’m thinking you’re devaluing the term “avalanche” (your term, no?) just a tad.

    I see your two and raise you a whooooole lot more.

  18. As to Salem, the Obama Task Force has been whittling their way through the numerous cases in MN – I’m sure you’ve seen the number of Ponzi schemes reported in the media?

    Yes. but that’s not what I’m talking about, and I think – or perhaps “hope against hope” – that you know that.

  19. I’m currently checking

    How’s that search for Pinal county going, DogPrescottPile? Why don’t you locate that first, or can we expect your current fact checking to mission to last as long? Funny who you bring stuff up and never, ever follow up.

  20. If you want to present that as an example of how a voter fraud could occur – shouldn’t you also present it as how voter fraud could not occur, since it apparently DID NOT?

    Once again – “apparently”, based on one election worth of allegations handled by a thoroughly politicized SOS and AG office (even the NYTimes has commented on the bald-faced politicization of the MN AGO), and a whole bunch of fresh allegations that largely haven’t even gotten to the official level yet.

    You’ve set your goalposts at the fifty, DG. Which is your right in a purely legalistic sense, but I have a pretty strong hunch it’s going to give you a whole bunch of words to eat.

  21. Part of my problem with the whole claim to voter fraud occurring is that all of the instances of claimed voter fraud pretty much disappear into a puff of smoke when it comes down to it.

    Er, yeah. And how do these “disappearances” happen?

    In some cases, because there’s no merit to the case.

    In others – as in, hundreds of MNMajority’s cases, because people who should not have voted were able to escape prosecution because Minnesota’s law says ignorance is an excuse. Unethical to be sure, but the law says what it says, in black and white. No way around it – short of changing the law (are you listening, GOP caucus?)

    In others, convictions are made (Milwaukee), but they “disappear” because the media don’t want to distract from the meme that there really is no problem.

    In still others, because the powers that be want them disappeared. The whitewashing (ahem) of the New Black Panther incident in Philly – which you were proclaiming not so long ago was proof of both an unblemished electoral system and positive proof that conservatives were teh racist – is looking like evidence of a politicized USDOJ.

    In still others? Well, the 2010 cycle of claims is still mighty young. Stay tuned.

  22. Doggy;

    You keep stating “apparently” did not this, did not that.

    Apparently, you haven’t got a clue as to whether or not it actually happened, either. You are just like the RCA dog listening to the Victrola spewing the mantra of the Brian Melendez and the rest of the DFL Scumballs.

  23. You make a lot of claims — ballots going into jails in IL! Oh MY!

    Not aware that I ever wrote about that.

  24. In some states even FELONS can vote legally

    Right, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

    (that is the trend worldwide btw).

    So? “The world” is wrong about most things.

  25. In Minnesota in the overwhelming number of cases, when a prisoner is let out of incarceration, they regain their right to vote.

    Please provide a cite to actual state numbers.

  26. If there is occasional confusion over exceptions to the rule, that is not hard to understand, and does not constitute intentional illegal voting much less organized Democratic party initiated voter fraud.

    The conviction count currently stands well over two dozen, with only two counties in play.

    And without even going into any of the vouching and ballot-stuffing allegations from two weeks ago.

    I did ask you some time ago what level of corruption you found acceptable. You never answered, but it looks like “lots”, provided it’s not the GOP doing it.

  27. There is a legal process for dealing with Alzheimer’s patients to stop them from driving cars (and that is a helluva battle) and to remove their right to vote. Absent that, it is not illegal for someone to vote if they want to vote and can do so with legal assistance.

    Yet another strawman.

    It’s not the voting. It’s the filling in the ballot for the patient. The term for that is “ballot-stuffing”, and there is a growing body of evidence that that was fairly widespread in this past election.

    Which may not be “apparent” to you, yet, but I suspect that’s more a function of which curtains you allow yourself to look behind.

  28. Overwhelmingly, when investigated, voter fraud is not found to occur.

    Ah.

    I’m interested in seeing that idea taken to its conclusion. Overwhelmingly, males from 16-24 are prone to committing crimes. Shall we just throw them in jail on accusation, and avoid the whole “trial” phase? Think of the money we’d save?

    No?

    Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that the prosecution of more than a few of these cases depends on politicized prosecutors (see the New Black Panther case, the MN AGO), any purported record has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any current claims.

    But you seem to want to sweep these new claims under the rug.

    Why?

  29. regardless of whether there is a GOP or DFL majority in power at the time. THAT says something, backed up with proof and investigation.

    Well, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t.

    That “something” might be “GOP states are cleaner, and Dem jurisdictions whitewash corruption claims against themselves”.

    It’s as likely as “there really is no problem in Minnesota”, really.

  30. Last I checked the FBI still had an open investigation on Perriello’s potentially fatal act of vandalism.

    But fraudulent voting? Case closed.
    Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

  31. You are promoting accusation, but not investigation, and not proof;

    I am promoting accusation. Absolutely.

    I am investigating. That that investigation doens’t meet your self-serving and seemingly highly conditional timetable is your issue, not mine.

    I am promoting investigation; I am actively soliciting other bloggers to start digging into these stories. All of them.

    and you fail to mention when that accusatioin is disprove,

    First: Nonsense. If I am aware of it, I mention it. I am not a newsroom; I don’t pretend to be able to cover all the bases. I can’t even complete all my own extended stories! So I feel no obligation to tie up every loose end.

    And as much as you seem to value it in my blog, you seem to be casual enough about it on your own that I can treat the accusation accordingly.

    That is not fair, objective, or balanced.

    I AM NOT OBJECTIVE! I am a thoroughly, admittedly, and proudly biased reporter!

    I seek fairness – partly by existing; my mission is to counterbalance the unbalanced, unfair, unobjective mainstream media, which acts as a de facto arm of the DFL in MN and the Democrats nationwide.

  32. It is an unfounded attack on a system which appears to work well

    Again with the logical fallacies (the presumption that “the system works well!” used as evidence that the system works well) and the weasel words. “Apparently?” Well, to me, the system “apparently” has issues, and those issues need investigation, no matter how “apparent” it may be to you (and the people you get your opinions from) that everything is hunky dory.

    By your leave!

  33. People who do not believe that fraudulent votes can turn an election should study the Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004.
    I’ll include a link to the Wikipedia article because many of the original sources are behind paywalls:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004#cite_note-wenworld3-27

    The money graf is towards the end of the article:

    The trial began on May 23, with both sides presenting their evidence of manipulation. On June 6, 2005, Judge John E. Bridges ruled that the Republican party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible -or for whom they were cast- to overturn the election.[27] Judge Bridges noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state,[28] but found that the only evidence submitted to show how those votes had been cast were sworn statements from four felons that they had voted for Rossi.[28] He stated that the judiciary should exercise restraint; “unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the court.”[29] Nullifying the election, Bridges said, would be “the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism.” He also concluded that according to his interpretation of the Washington Administrative Code, “voters who improperly cast provisional ballots should not be disenfranchised.” He also rejected all claims of fraud and the Republican Party’s statistical analysis, concluding that the expert testimony of the Republican party was “not helpful” and that the proportional reduction theory was not supported under any law in the state. Striking another blow against Rossi’s court case, he stated that “the court is more inclined to believe that Gregoire would have prevailed under statistical analysis theory,” rejecting the Rossi campaign’s claim that improperly cast ballots led to Gregoire’s victory.[27]

    Bridges removed the five votes from the final count: four for Rossi and one for Ruth Bennett.[30] No evidence was brought before the court of any of the illegal votes benefitted Gregoire.[30] The final margin of victory for Gregoire over Rossi was 133 votes.[31] Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court[32] and the Washington State Republican party settled the case after paying $15,000 in court costs to the Democrats.[33]

    1600 fraudulent votes, victory margin 133. Judge handed the victory to Gregoire because once an illegal vote is cast, it is very, very difficult to remove it from the count. This is all the more reason to have strict registration criteria, photo ID requirements, and publicized, severe punishment for committing vote fraud.
    One sign of the insanity of the Democrats is that while they do whatever they can do to cast doubt on the integrity of the ballot system their statist policies require the trust of the electorate. They need to cheat to win, but if they win, they can’t succeed if they are thought of as cheaters.

  34. But any system operated by people will have an occasional hiccup. A hiccup differs from fraud in that it is unintentional, accidental, and does not systematically benefit one side or the other, and is not organized by one side to take something from the other.

    Right – but the allegations from 11/2 are neither accidental nor occasional. To pick one of several examples, Students Organizing For America – run by the DNC – is accused of running a vouching ring – that is to say, stuffing the ballots.

    Group home and nursing home residents orchestrating their charges’ voting is not accidental, if true (and I believe it is).

    THAT isn’t fraud.

    Yes. If true – and there is good reason to believe it is – then it is fraud.

    It is actionable.

    It is a felony.

    It created dozens, hundreds or thousands of votes, each of which negates the vote of an honest (and, let’s be honest, probably Republican) voter.

    Keep hiding your head in the sand (or worse, tring to browbeat me into silence based on nothing but platitudes and “apparent” bad logic).

    I’ll still be here.

  35. What? The evidence of a politicized USDOJ.???
    Say it isn’t so! Next you’ll be saying the Dept. of Homeland Security is more interested in returning war veterans than it is Muslim terrorists!

  36. It should be beyond question that fraudulent voting regularly occurs. People vote at the wrong precinct, they register near their work place rather than their home, they register without meeting length of residency requirements, they may even feel that they are entitled to vote in two jurisdictions if they are part-year residents.
    It is indeed begging the question to argue that a voting system which does not do well at detecting voter fraud is secure because no voting fraud has been detected.

  37. Terry points at a bigger issue; any scientific study can only be as accurate as its instrumentation (in the conceptual, rather than hardware, sense) allows it to be.

    Everybody knows the voting systems in Chicago, Philly and Newark are as corrupt as the day is long. But if your metric is “convictions”, then all three are “apparently” fairly clean.

    It’s the sort of thing that led a slew of not-very-bright leftybloggers a few years back to say that North Dakota was the most corrupt state in the union, because it had the most convictions per capita. Doy – they caught, tried and convicted the small number of fraud cases that occurred. Chicago, Philly and Newark either didn’t bother, or labored under legal systems that allowed (for technical or political reasons) the corruption to go unpunished.

    So “apparently” North Dakota is corrupt and Chicago is pure as the driven snow.

    If you’re an idiot.

  38. DG is trying to master Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals the way an alcoholic tries to master the 12 steps.

    She’s obviously stuck because she’s not writing to an ignorant 3rd tier audience and the leftist playbook tells her she should be getting glowing results instead of the continually contemptuous (and well deserved – my god HS juniors in debate club would blush at her “magical thinking” arguments ) response she is receiving.

    Like any true believer DG comes here thinking that somehow her “perfect” exposition will capitulate us all to her point of view. What a raging egotist!

  39. Mitch, I give you a lot of credit for patience.

    And one last point for Mrs. Teasdale — you continue to miss an important point. This election is done. Whatever malfeasance that has happened can’t be undone. What can be done is this: malefactors can be identified and punished, which will have salutary effects in the next election cycle.

  40. I think you guys have got Dog Gone’s MO wrong.
    Dog Gone believes that she doesn’t have arguable opinions about politics. Her opinions are facts. It is a fact that the first three letters in the alphabet are A, B and C, in that order. Making a good or a bad argument for the first three letters of the alphabet being A,B,C doesn’t make it any more or less a fact.
    This is a common fault with liberals; they have facts, you have ignorance at best, bigotry at worst.
    Never mind that they don’t understand how facts are determined (cf Dog Gone’s remarks about courts of law determining what are and are not facts). Never mind that they believe the weirdest things are facts, like “sexual orientation” is a scientific term, that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that importing a million or two unskilled laborers each year has no effect on the wages of unskilled workers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.