Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Reply to Lindgren on "Most Corrupt Election":
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225942881


   This is just a quick [1]reply to Jim Lindgren on whether the 2008
   election was, as [2]he claims, "easily . . . the most corrupt
   election" in his lifetime. Jim believes this is "obvious," but [3]I am
   unpersuaded. Even assuming that every allegation Jim has cited is
   true, I still think he overstates his case.

   For starters, it's a bit odd to call an election the "most corrupt"
   when there is no evidence that the corruption altered the outcome. Jim
   notes that there was fairly widespread voter registration fraud and
   illegal campaign contributions, but neither is anything new. I also
   find both to be less significant than the sorts of corruption and
   illegality we have seen in prior elections (ranging from the
   widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans to the "dirty
   tricks" of 1972, both of which Jim mentions). Jim also points to media
   bias, but I don't consider that "corruption."

   We've had [4]illegal campaign contributions before, and actual voter
   fraud (as may have occurred in [5]Wisconsin in 2004). Tallying the
   alleged number of violations does not, in itself, settle the case.
   100,000 faulty voter registrations woud be reason for concern, but
   still less significant than 1,000 fraudulent votes. Similarly with
   illegal campaign contributions, I am less concerned about frequent
   small contributions from foreign nationals than allegations of
   organized efforts by foreign governments or special interests to
   funnel large amounts of money, even if the dollar amount of the former
   is greater. Given there are credible allegations of actual vote fraud
   in prior elections -- and even allegations that vote fraud may have
   altered the outcome (as [6]some believe occurred in 1960) -- pointing
   to widespread registration fraud without corresponding levels of vote
   fraud does not establish that the 2008 presidential election was the
   "most corrupt" in the past fifty-plus years.

   In closing, let me note that Jim has made an extraordinary claim: that
   this election has been the most corrupt election in fifty years. In my
   book, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, and
   in this case I don't see it.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225873033
   2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225822791
   3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225854614
   4. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
   5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576113489495571.html
   6. http://www.slate.com/id/91350/

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to