Month: January 2022

Last week I addressed the shortcomings of one common argument in favor of expanding voting access. However, I failed to examine the appropriate use of that argument.^[1]Thank you to reader Roy Lefkowtiz for pointing out this oversight. This week, I’d like to quickly address that gap in my analysis, and then do something similar for an equally nonsensical argument against the (alleged) reality of a male-dominated society.

In my previous critique of the arguments in favor of expanding voting access, I observed that the fact that voter fraud is so uncommon as to be statistically insignificant is inappropriately applied. If anything, I argued, the fact that instances of fraud are rare speak to the efficacy of the current laws. Therefore, the rarity of the offense is a good argument for the preservation of the law, rather than a reason for the laws to be repealed or relaxed. However, I did not explain how the fact—that instances of fraud are rare—can be (and has been) used appropriately.

The appropriate deployment of the fact that instances of voter fraud are rare is in response to a preposition like, “the United States ought to have tighter regulations on voting eligibility and access.” The argument usually goes that if (or, more typically, since) voter fraud is a problem, we should legislate against it. Empirically, voter fraud is a statistical non-issue, so the argument that we need to legislate against it is unsound. Even if you agree with the conditional statement “If voter fraud is a problem we ought to legislate against it” the fact that the hypothesis “voter fraud is a problem” is false, means there’s no action-oriented commitment to the conclusion, “we ought to legislate against it.”

Another way of thinking about the application of voter fraud statisticsis that they are an appropriate defensive argument against the proposition “the United States ought to have tighter regulations on voting.” It is a response to an allegation. However, the same fact is an inappropriate offensive argument for the proposition “the United States ought to relax its existing regulations on voting.” It is not a reason for action. Just because an argument is properly employed defensively does not mean it is equally properly employed offensively.

In an alleged “destruction” of feminism by Dr. Jordan Peterson, the psychologist refuted British journalist Helen Lewis’ claim that society is male dominated by pointing to the typical role of men in (North American? Western? Global?) society. According to Peterson, society cannot be male dominated because “most people in prison are men, most people who live on the street are men, most victims of violent crime are men, most people who commit suicide are men, most people who die in wars are men and people who do worse in school are men.” So, according to Peterson, “it’s like, where’s the dominance here, precisely?” These points, while factually accurate, constitute a similarly flawed reason as in the voter fraud case.

Here, Peterson seems to be confusing the results of the policies issued by a governing body and the makeup of the body itself. We could, for example, imagine a society that is ruled by a king who is fantastically wealthy compared to his subjects. We could then imagine that king making a decree whereby everyone earning more than 10x the income of the lowest earning wage laborer in that society shall pay a higher tax (presumably they’re some kind of enlightened despot). Despite the fact that the king themself would be the target of that decree, we would’t say that he is not in charge, or isn’t, to use Lewis’ phrase, dominant. Similarly, just because many men suffer as the result of government policy and social values generally, does not mean that those policies and values cannot come from men directly. Indeed, it doesn’t even need to be the case that those policies and values come from men solely; If we imagine the ing replaced by a council of 4 men and 1 woman, where the 4 men always agree and the one woman always dissents, we could still say that society is male dominated, meaning the values  and policies of that society have their genesis in men.

Not only is Peterson’s rebuttal flawed logically, it clashes with his own philosophy generally. I’ll temper this statement by saying I might misunderstand his philosophy, but, based on my understanding of his work, Peterson believes that women and men play, and have played, fundamentally different roles in society. Under Peterson’s psycho-social framework, females have selected from among the most fit (the top of the hierarchy), and males have decided the criteria of that hierarchy, i.e. what places someone at the top, versus the bottom. Evolution, for Peterson, is not merely a natural process, or a process that happens independent of the machinations of the beings evolved, especially conscious beings. So while he might disagree that society is male dominated, I think he would agree with Lewis’ implied proposition, that males, determine the hierarchical structures that guide our society and most (if not all) societies historically. Therefor, I read Lewis’ assertion as saying that any structural, systemic shortcomings of our society (and perhaps societies generally) can be directly attributed to not just men but The Male generally. Peterson’s rejoinder is thereby reduced to the observation that individual men (and even men as a group) also suffer as a result of the hierarchical structures created by The Male. As one gazes long into the void, the void gazes long into them, sort of thing.

Determined not to make the same argumentative oversight as last time, I will now attempt to explain what Peterson might have meant, or how his statement has some appropriate application. Perhaps Peterson is arguing that “men” is not the most appropriate categorization of the individuals who dominate our society. Though he didn’t make this point, perhaps old, rich, or white might be  a better description. If we agree that the criteria Peterson offers for establishing dominance (which I’ve already demonstrated are actually irrelevant) do in fact appropriately categorize ‘the dominant,’ I believe that old, rich and white fit the bill. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “in 2018 black males accounted for 34% of the total male prison population,” while “white males [account for] 29%.”^[2]https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf. The age group most represented in prison populations is 31-41, with that group representing about 78,000 people in federal prisons, compared to about 9,000 imprisoned people over the age of 60.^[3]https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_age.jsp Additionally, “in 2014 dollars, incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to their incarceration, which is 41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages.”^[4]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html The average age range of a victim of violent crime is 18-24 (individuals under 18 represent roughly 68% of reported violent crimes, versus the 22% represented by individuals 50 and up)^[5]https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf, and the ethnic demographic with the highest rates of suicide are Native Americans and Native Alaskans, at 21.8 per 100,000 people, compared to 19 per 100,000 for whites. Rather than continue to bombard you with more incredibly depressing statistics, I’ll leave it to your discretion (and that oft maligned practice, your own research) to determine if my hypothesis, that Old, Rich and White fail to describe the average unhomed person, victim of violent crime, individual who commits suicide, individual who dies in combat, and individuals who do worse in school, is in fact correct.^[6]“White” is actually going to fail to meet these criteria in several cases, especially if one looks at total number versus percent of the population. There are simply more whites than non-whites … Continue reading If I’m wrong, please point me towards a source.   

Peterson’s point is not a trivial one. All parties, even those who share some features with those in power, suffer as a result of a system which privileges capital over humanity and age over ability. At the same time, all parties, even those who share no features with those in power (besides being a human) benefit as a result of the same system. All of our lives are far, far easier than that of our ancestors. Both those of us living today and those of us who have come before us have a reason to be grateful for our existence and reasons to find beauty in even the most wretched of circumstances. My favorite kind of people have always been those who do just that. I am, and would recommend being, wary of anyone who wants to paint a purely pessimistic picture, and anyone who would want to categorize those worthy of praise or blame with the broad strokes found in the socially constructed concepts of race and gender.

In this post I am going to highlight the dire shortcomings of one line of argumentation used in support of expanding voting access. I am not, however, going to give my opinion on whether or not voting access should be expanded. If you are a proponent of expanded voting access, this should be a welcome critique; by highlighting some areas needing improvement in the popular argument, I hope to create an opportunity to make a better, stronger argument. For the opponent of expanded voting access, I hope to provide some ammunition to help shoot down this frustratingly common and painfully sophomoric line of reasoning. For the agnostic, undecided or uninformed, I hope to provide an alternative analysis to the issue of voting rights. All of this is to say, whichever side of the argument you prefer, you’re welcome 🙂

Before I begin, I will acknowledge that there are other, better arguments in favor of expanding voting access than the one which I am going to critique. I am specifically, deliberately, examining only one argument, and the weakest one at that. Nothing I say should be taken to settle (or even attempt to the settle) the question of whether or not to expand voting access. If the reader finds the concept of critiquing an argument without necessarily rejecting a proposition incoherent, they would probably be more comfortable consuming a processed, artificial and easily-digestible argument like, “your team bad, my team good.” Social and corporate media have no shortage of these kinds of positions, so simply close this tab and open twitter and the world should start to make sense again.

“If the reader finds the concept of critiquing an argument without necessarily rejecting the proposition incoherent, they would probably be more comfortable consuming a processed, artificial and easily-digestible argument like, “your team bad, my team good.”

Assuming the above was sufficiently brusque to drive away those with flimsy philosophical sensibilities, I will now examine the argument in defense of expanding voting access on the grounds that voter fraud is relatively uncommon.

That voter fraud is uncommon is a typical response to claims about “rigged” elections. In a study by Dr. Lorraine C. Minnite of Columbia University, it was concluded that voter fraud claims are typically false, typically made “by the loser of a close race,” and typically the result of “mischief and administrative or voter error.”^[1]http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf. The Brennan Center’s seminal “Truth About Voter Fraud” report found incident rates “between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent.”^[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/truth-about-voter-fraud. Given the low rate of incident, the argument goes, we needn’t guard against the occurrence, or, more specifically, we should feel comfortable relaxing the requirements intended to prevent it from occurring. Hopefully the mere articulation of the logical steps makes the flaw in the argument obvious. If not, consider an analogy.

In the UK, private ownership of handguns has been prohibited by law since the 1996 Dunblane Massacre, where over 30 people, mostly children, were killed or injured. By way of comparison, we’ve had about 8 school shootings with more than 20 casualties in the US since 1996, to say nothing of mass shootings that took place outside of schools, or schools shooting where less than 20 children were murdered or injured (there are dozens of these). Presumably, the far lower rates of gun violence in the UK versus the US^[3]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/ are a result of their more restrictive policies. You simply cannot shoot someone if you don’t have a gun. 

However, If we apply the logic of the voting rights advocate to this case, we would end up with something like, “because a lot of people don’t shoot each other under the status quo, we should feel comfortable repealing the gun ownership laws we have.” This assumes that because something is the case (very few people shoot each other) it will continue to be the case, even if circumstances change. ^[4]For a wonderful account of how circumstances and situation determine behavior, especially moral behavior, I recommend John Doris’ Lack fo Character available here. Instead, the opponent of expanded voter access should argue that, rather than existing in spite of the current laws, the dearth of voter fraud is actually the result of the current voting laws. Therefore, an argument that uses the positive consequences of a given law as evidence that the law should be repealed or relaxed is nonsensical. While many good arguments in favor of expanding access can be made, the fact that voter fraud is currently rare is not one of them.^[5]The ironic inversion of positions here, regarding the necessity of federal authority, is not lost on me. I am currently working on a paper examining the role, (or lack thereof) of logical consistency … Continue reading  

“The opponent of expanded voter access should argue that, rather than existing in spite of the current laws, the dearth of voter fraud is actually the result of the current voting laws.”

As one counter, the proponent of expanding voting rights access might argue that the law is not the fundamental detriment to illegal action. Rather, they might assert, individuals are socialized to follow the rules of society. The social permissibility of an action is the primary (de)motivator in moral situations, such as the general impermissibility lying and cheating, both of which undergird intentional voter fraud. British people are not choosing not to shoot each other because they don’t have access to firearms, or because murder is illegal, the argument could go, but simply because they’re good, solid Brits. This is actually an assertion to which I am sensitive, and with which I tend to agree. However, even the least cynical among us would have to admit that if you have a gun in your home your chances of accidentally shooting someone are infinitely higher than if one is never present. Whether one feels this represents an unacceptable cost given the benefit, the need for personal responsibility or the justification for government intervention will roughly divide the individual into the relevant camps, with regard to gun control.

Stepping away from the central thesis somewhat, I also see the argument for expanded voter access as missing the point. Even under current voter access, we typically see around half^[6]http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data of the eligible electorate declining to cast their vote. Naturally, those who make their living engaging with the electoral process (politicians, campaign operatives, news networks) will tell you that this is some kind of failing on the part of the voter, that non-voters are lazy, selfish or immoral. Instead, I would like to offer the possibility that low voter turnout reflects a failing on the part of the politicians and political system. One of the truisms of campaign work (and here I am speaking from 5 years of professional electoral and issue campaign management experience) is that “not-the-other-guy” fails to motivate the majority of the time. As much as people may hate the opponent, if they don’t love something about their candidate they aren’t going to get up and vote on election day. If we assume this is true, what does our dismal voter turnout tell us about our candidates? To me it says there’s nothing about them worth liking.

“What does our dismal voter turnout tell us about our candidates? To me it says there’s nothing about them worth liking.”

In the 2020 election the United States saw record high eligible voter turnout, with nearly twenty million more people (representing about a 8% increase) casting their votes than in the previous presidential election.^[7]Ibid In an interesting correlation, President Biden began his term with an approval rate of 57%^[8]https://news.gallup.com/poll/329348/biden-begins-term-job-approval.aspx. One year later, he has dropped to 40%,^[9]https://news.gallup.com/poll/389033/biden-year-one-approval-ratings-subpar-extremely-polarized.aspx not even two full basis points higher than former-President Trump, who holds the dubious distinction of the all-time lowest year one approval rating.^[10]Ibid If we assume that people voted in such volume because they approved of Biden’s campaign promises, it is not unreasonable to assume that, seeing him fail to fulfill these promises, many people might wish they hadn’t voted for him, or even voted at all. Indeed, the roughly 40% of Americans who chose not to vote might point to Biden’s actual performance, rather than his campaign promises, and say “this is why.”

Incidentally, just as I do not see not wanting to vote for a poor candidate as a personal failing on the part of the voter, I do not see the failure to do a good (or even passably acceptable) job leading the country as a failing of the particular individual who gains power. (See, I told you I had a rosy view of humanity.) Rather, I see this as systemic failing. It is not possible, under our current system, to be both the kind of person who can win an election and the kind of person who will be a good ruler. However, that is a topic for another post. 

“Saying you want more people to play, while knowing the game is rigged, might only signal virtue, rather than actually be virtuous.”

Assuming that my tangent is actually relevant and somewhat convincing, what ultimate good will expanding voter access accomplish? Is merely allowing more people the opportunity to participate in a farcical election really of value? Saying you want more people to play, while knowing the game is rigged, might only signal virtue, rather than actually be virtuous. Would not the greater, more significant value be to make the elections actually mean something, or to make the elected beholden first (or, ideally, exclusively) to the electorate? In cases like this, I try to remind myself of Volatire’s aphorism; the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Regardless of how much faith one places in the types of individuals who seek political power, it should be irrefutable that evidence of the lack of voter fraud is not a sound argument for repealing existing voter fraud prevention measures. Those who wish to make a convincing argument for expanded voter access would do well to abandon this line in favor of a stronger argument. I, for one, look forward to hearing it.

Here’s to the day.