It’s Good to Be Skeptical of Elections

10/23/2024
Mises Wire

By Connor O’Keeffe

We are less than two weeks away from election day. Polls show that the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stands at a virtual tie, and that has many worried about the possibility of a contested election. Sixty-eight percent of Americans are concerned people will resort to violence if they are unhappy with the outcome. Contributing to those fears are recent findings that nineteen percent of Republicans and twelve percent of Democrats say that, if their candidate loses, he or she should declare the results invalid and “do whatever it takes to assume office.”

Those numbers are not surprising to anyone who consumes a lot of political media. Tune into the establishment-friendly press and you’ll be inundated with stories about voter suppression in red states, recaps of the most dramatic skirmishes that happened outside the Capitol on January 6, and warnings about how Trump and his allies could actually take power after losing the upcoming election.

The fear, from the establishment’s perspective, is that after losing, Trump will successfully pressure Republican legislators in battleground states to appoint “alternate” electors that will keep Harris below the 270 electoral votes needed to win, which would send the election to the likely Republican-controlled House.

Without very explicit evidence of decisive voter fraud that the political class outright ignores, it’s hard to see a scheme like this working—considering that Trump isn’t already in power, Democrats have passed laws in recent years making it harder to appoint alternate electors, and many of the Republican legislators Trump would rely on have shown a reluctance to go along with the former president absent strong pressure from their constituents. But that hasn’t stopped the fear-mongering.

On the other side, the Trump-friendly alternative media is full of stories about local and state officials overturning election security laws, deleting drop box surveillance footage, actively registering non-citizens to vote, losing entire trays of mail-in ballots, and other tales of vote manipulation and even outright fraud.

Pair these stories with all the left’s freakouts about “voter suppression” in red states and the various assertions of foreign influence operations and it’s easy to see how so many voters became convinced that a victory by the other side would be illegitimate. Now add the establishment panic about a MAGA plot to overturn the election if they lose and the right’s awareness of the political establishment’s preparations to do the exact same thing had they lost in 2020 and it becomes clear why many are worried about what awaits us after election day.

The collapse of the public’s trust in elections mirrors the collapse in trust in several other institutions, like the federal judicial system, public health authorities, and the news media. While uncomfortable, the public losing trust in untrustworthy institutions is a good thing. It’s a necessary first step if the country is ever going to get on a better path.

The federal justice system has been used to go after the establishment’s political enemies since the beginning, public health authorities demolished any credibility they may have had with their deadly, totalitarian response to COVID-19, and the American news media has been actively misinforming the public in politically-expedient ways for essentially it’s entire history.

In the past decade or so, the American public has developed a much healthier level of skepticism toward these institutions. It is perfectly reasonable for that skepticism to carry over to federal elections.

After all, the political class—which includes politically-connected businesses—is making trillions of dollars in revenue thanks to various wars, innumerable regulations that protect them from competition, easy money from the Fed, and other lucrative government programs. It is not much of a jump to assume that, if able, the very people who have repeatedly lied us into unnecessary wars to line their pockets would be willing to use whatever means necessary to expand and protect their power and profits.

Together with the establishment-friendly media, the political class has placed a very high social cost on questioning the security of our elections in every instance except when it conveniently places the blame on a foreign government that Washington wants to demonize. Questioning the legitimacy of elections is “dangerous” unless you’re accusing Russia or Iran.

And whenever someone with a big enough voice casts doubt on past elections in an “unacceptable” way, the establishment is quick to shout them down with the same meaningless denunciation that there is no evidence of “widespread” election fraud.

Of course, if there were to be a conspiracy to either foment or permit voter fraud in a way that successfully flipped a national election, it would not be “widespread,” it would be targeted. Elections like this one come down to a handful of precincts—most of which are toss-up suburban and rural areas that surround blue cities in swing states. A conspiracy to commit or allow “widespread” voter fraud would be pointless and all but guarantee its discovery.

This is not to say you should accept every claim made about voter fraud or even that there is definitive proof that any previous elections were stolen in this fashion. And it’s certainly not to say that violence is an appropriate or productive response if the upcoming election appears like it was stolen.

Only that it would be healthy for more members of the American public to start questioning whether our system really works the way we learned it did in elementary school—where the president represents our collective will and acts as we would act to address the problems we face at home and abroad.

That simple story is an illusion that conveniently frames whatever the government is doing to us as an embodiment of everyone’s wishes and any opposition as a selfish stand against what everybody else wants. Many Americans are appropriately questioning a lot of what they’ve previously accepted as true. They ought to question this too.

Image Source: Mises Institute
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

 


What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.

Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

 


Originally Posted at https://mises.org/


Related Posts

Visualizing 80 Years Of The Gold-to-Oil Ratio

Visualizing 80 Years Of The Gold-to-Oil Ratio

Gold and oil – two of the most influential commodities on the planet – have a fascinating relationship that has evolved over decades, captured in the gold-to-oil ratio.

The gold-to-oil ratio represents the number of barrels of crude oil equivalent in price to one troy ounce of gold.

It is viewed as an indicator of the health of the global economy, indicating when gold or oil prices are significantly out of balance with each other.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows the gold-to-oil ratio since 1946, using data compiled by Macrotrends.

What is the Gold-to-Oil Ratio?

The gold-to-oil ratio expresses the price relationship between gold and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. WTI is a grade of crude oil and one of the three primary benchmarks for oil pricing, along with Brent and Dubai Crude.

A high ratio indicates that gold is relatively expensive compared to WTI crude oil, and vice versa. This can indicate periods of outsized demand for energy in the form of crude oil, or periods of monetary uncertainty when there is higher demand for gold.

Below is the gold-to-oil ratio every decade between 1946 and 2024.

During the 1950s and 1960s, fixed gold prices and stable oil prices kept the ratio between 11 and 13 for 20 years.

Since the 1980s, the ratio has typically traded within the range of 6 to 40 with a notable exception: in 2020 when the ratio reached a high of 91.1. The peak in 2020 was driven by COVID-19, which boosted gold prices as a safe haven while oil demand and prices plummeted due to global lockdowns.

In contrast, between 2000 and 2008, oil prices were relatively high compared to gold. During this period, the ratio dropped to nearly 6 but never rose above 16.

When comparing the two commodities, it’s worth remembering that the crude oil market is around 10 times larger than that of gold, making it the largest commodity market in the world.

If you enjoyed this graphic, make sure to check out this graphic that shows the top countries by natural resource value.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/21/2024 – 18:00

Chris Hedges: Organized Oblivion

from MintPress News: Washington DC — (Scheerpost) — I am in the The Krikor and Clara Zohrab Information Center next to the St. Vartan Armenian Cathedral in Manhattan. I am holding a bound, hand-written memoir, which includes poetry, drawings, and scrapbooked images, by Zaven Seraidarian, a survivor of the Armenian genocide. The front cover of the […]

You Missed

Visualizing 80 Years Of The Gold-to-Oil Ratio

Visualizing 80 Years Of The Gold-to-Oil Ratio

Chris Hedges: Organized Oblivion

Chris Hedges: Organized Oblivion
Russia says US is actively trying to prolong war in Ukraine

False Alarm: Ambulances at Mar-a-Lago Part of JD Vance Motorcade

False Alarm: Ambulances at Mar-a-Lago Part of JD Vance Motorcade

Don’t Ruin Idaho: 42% Say the State Is on the Wrong Track

Don’t Ruin Idaho: 42% Say the State Is on the Wrong Track

The Real Reason Why Men Don’t Approach Beautiful Women

The Real Reason Why Men Don’t Approach Beautiful Women