Can America have a fair election in the future for the good of the American People

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The one factor they can't change: it has to be believable.

They know this. So they went about ginning up hatred toward any and all republicans starting from Bush when they lost Bush V Gore.

They were pretty good with hating on Reagan too tho'.

And NOBODY believed Reagan or Bush won. The first time I remember the left threatening to leave the country was when that cowboy actor who was going to get us all killed won.

So now what will they do, that so many no longer believe it? 75 million people is a huge amount of doubt, and it's growing.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You let it die it's natural death.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When has their actually been a truly fair election?

Within the last 60 years, I am sure there has always been some sort of medaling and/or fraud when it comes to any presidential election. Which, is what I am assuming the Op is referring to, not just a generic election

This explains best the idea (false beliefs, keeping false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) I am trying to relay:

How do people update beliefs in light of new information, and why do false beliefs often persist despite countervailing evidence? An epistemically rational agent makes evidence-based inferences guided by the pursuit of accuracy1. However, belief updating can exhibit desirability effects, such that, given evidence, beliefs are more often updated towards a desired state. For example, people update their beliefs about an expected election winner less following polls that show a projected loss (versus win) for their preferred candidate, discounting undesired outcomes2. In politics, desirability effects can take the form of partisan asymmetries, with members of opposing groups interpreting evidence in a way that favours their party. Such effects can lead to belief polarization, with partisan groups increasingly diverging in their beliefs3,4,5, even if they are exposed to similar evidence6,7,8. Beyond politics, this dynamic extends to many of the most important issues of our time, from vaccine uptake to climate change9,10,11,12,13.

According to current theories, these desirability effects are the result of irrational, biased reasoning (‘directional motivated reasoning’14,15): beliefs are selectively updated to support desired conclusions. Often the conclusions are those that help maintain positive emotions, self-esteem and social identities4,16. Put simply, people ‘believe what they want to believe’. If this is the case, the role of evidence in combatting false beliefs is unclear.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: TonyS

Doesn't rest on my shoulders (at least in its entirety).

Seriously though. What would you have had us do?

What would you have us do now?

We've had fair elections since george washington set em up. It's just not everybody likes the outcome.
Just Like a child not getting its way. I voted for trump twice, He lost once whether he admits it or not. I won't waste my vote on him this time

a reply to: quintessentone

That does nothing to answer the question that was asked.....

a reply to: vance

Do you take the ground view of the election, i.e. voting day and the counting, or do you include events leading up to the election into account when you decide your opinion on fair elections?

Even post election, such as the struggles in Bush V Gore.

Is part of a fair election the legal warfare post counting?

I have a larger view of elections than I used to have. And like Christmas season in the stores, coming earlier every year, we are now always in an election season.

Something needs to change, we will die of the power struggle.

We MUST have a cooperative democracy.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That does nothing to answer the question that was asked.....

It absolutely answers the question being asked, you just reject the thought of it being based on false beliefs.

a reply to: quintessentone

I asked you when has there been a fair election, not what a "false belief" is. So yeah, you dodged the actual question as always

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When has their actually been a truly fair election?

Within the last 60 years, I am sure there has always been some sort of medaling and/or fraud when it comes to any presidential election. Which, is what I am assuming the Op is referring to, not just a generic election

This explains best the idea (false beliefs, keeping false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) I am trying to relay:

How do people update beliefs in light of new information, and why do false beliefs often persist despite countervailing evidence? An epistemically rational agent makes evidence-based inferences guided by the pursuit of accuracy1. However, belief updating can exhibit desirability effects, such that, given evidence, beliefs are more often updated towards a desired state. For example, people update their beliefs about an expected election winner less following polls that show a projected loss (versus win) for their preferred candidate, discounting undesired outcomes2. In politics, desirability effects can take the form of partisan asymmetries, with members of opposing groups interpreting evidence in a way that favours their party. Such effects can lead to belief polarization, with partisan groups increasingly diverging in their beliefs3,4,5, even if they are exposed to similar evidence6,7,8. Beyond politics, this dynamic extends to many of the most important issues of our time, from vaccine uptake to climate change9,10,11,12,13.

According to current theories, these desirability effects are the result of irrational, biased reasoning (‘directional motivated reasoning’14,15): beliefs are selectively updated to support desired conclusions. Often the conclusions are those that help maintain positive emotions, self-esteem and social identities4,16. Put simply, people ‘believe what they want to believe’. If this is the case, the role of evidence in combatting false beliefs is unclear.

www.nature.com...

Oh, like all of your false beliefs about Trump?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

I asked you when has there been a fair election, not what a "false belief" is. So yeah, you dodged the actual question as always

It is you who dodged the underlying problem, "I will believe what I want to believe".

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When has their actually been a truly fair election?

Within the last 60 years, I am sure there has always been some sort of medaling and/or fraud when it comes to any presidential election. Which, is what I am assuming the Op is referring to, not just a generic election

This explains best the idea (false beliefs, keeping false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) I am trying to relay:

How do people update beliefs in light of new information, and why do false beliefs often persist despite countervailing evidence? An epistemically rational agent makes evidence-based inferences guided by the pursuit of accuracy1. However, belief updating can exhibit desirability effects, such that, given evidence, beliefs are more often updated towards a desired state. For example, people update their beliefs about an expected election winner less following polls that show a projected loss (versus win) for their preferred candidate, discounting undesired outcomes2. In politics, desirability effects can take the form of partisan asymmetries, with members of opposing groups interpreting evidence in a way that favours their party. Such effects can lead to belief polarization, with partisan groups increasingly diverging in their beliefs3,4,5, even if they are exposed to similar evidence6,7,8. Beyond politics, this dynamic extends to many of the most important issues of our time, from vaccine uptake to climate change9,10,11,12,13.

According to current theories, these desirability effects are the result of irrational, biased reasoning (‘directional motivated reasoning’14,15): beliefs are selectively updated to support desired conclusions. Often the conclusions are those that help maintain positive emotions, self-esteem and social identities4,16. Put simply, people ‘believe what they want to believe’. If this is the case, the role of evidence in combatting false beliefs is unclear.

www.nature.com...

Oh, like all of your false beliefs about Trump?

What are my false beliefs about Trump?

a reply to: quintessentone

Keep dodging the question you don't have the answer to, good job bud. We all understand you don't know everything you can stop the charade

a reply to: quintessentone

All of them

a reply to: musicismagic

No.

We're in the end stages, the dying of a Republic.

a reply to: musicismagic


Does that mean the candidate you prefer has to win for it to be fair in your mind?

What I hope for is something, anyrthing better than a Biden or Trump as a choice. Both parties have failed the country when those two are who they come up with.

Ah yes, Martial Law. That good old standby of CT's everywhere. What event is going to trigger it this time?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When has their actually been a truly fair election?

Within the last 60 years, I am sure there has always been some sort of medaling and/or fraud when it comes to any presidential election. Which, is what I am assuming the Op is referring to, not just a generic election

This explains best the idea (false beliefs, keeping false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) I am trying to relay:

How do people update beliefs in light of new information, and why do false beliefs often persist despite countervailing evidence? An epistemically rational agent makes evidence-based inferences guided by the pursuit of accuracy1. However, belief updating can exhibit desirability effects, such that, given evidence, beliefs are more often updated towards a desired state. For example, people update their beliefs about an expected election winner less following polls that show a projected loss (versus win) for their preferred candidate, discounting undesired outcomes2. In politics, desirability effects can take the form of partisan asymmetries, with members of opposing groups interpreting evidence in a way that favours their party. Such effects can lead to belief polarization, with partisan groups increasingly diverging in their beliefs3,4,5, even if they are exposed to similar evidence6,7,8. Beyond politics, this dynamic extends to many of the most important issues of our time, from vaccine uptake to climate change9,10,11,12,13.

According to current theories, these desirability effects are the result of irrational, biased reasoning (‘directional motivated reasoning’14,15): beliefs are selectively updated to support desired conclusions. Often the conclusions are those that help maintain positive emotions, self-esteem and social identities4,16. Put simply, people ‘believe what they want to believe’. If this is the case, the role of evidence in combatting false beliefs is unclear.

www.nature.com...

Oh, like all of your false beliefs about Trump?

What are my false beliefs about Trump?

All of them!!

Let's start with what you think you're right about?

a reply to: SourGrapes

We don't have time to wait for that list

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Keep dodging the question you don't have the answer to, good job bud. We all understand you don't know everything you can stop the charade

The charade is all things politics and you are all playing right into the game/programming, but you all must really feel safe there so I'll leave you all alone with your security blankets.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When has their actually been a truly fair election?

Within the last 60 years, I am sure there has always been some sort of medaling and/or fraud when it comes to any presidential election. Which, is what I am assuming the Op is referring to, not just a generic election

This explains best the idea (false beliefs, keeping false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) I am trying to relay:

How do people update beliefs in light of new information, and why do false beliefs often persist despite countervailing evidence? An epistemically rational agent makes evidence-based inferences guided by the pursuit of accuracy1. However, belief updating can exhibit desirability effects, such that, given evidence, beliefs are more often updated towards a desired state. For example, people update their beliefs about an expected election winner less following polls that show a projected loss (versus win) for their preferred candidate, discounting undesired outcomes2. In politics, desirability effects can take the form of partisan asymmetries, with members of opposing groups interpreting evidence in a way that favours their party. Such effects can lead to belief polarization, with partisan groups increasingly diverging in their beliefs3,4,5, even if they are exposed to similar evidence6,7,8. Beyond politics, this dynamic extends to many of the most important issues of our time, from vaccine uptake to climate change9,10,11,12,13.

According to current theories, these desirability effects are the result of irrational, biased reasoning (‘directional motivated reasoning’14,15): beliefs are selectively updated to support desired conclusions. Often the conclusions are those that help maintain positive emotions, self-esteem and social identities4,16. Put simply, people ‘believe what they want to believe’. If this is the case, the role of evidence in combatting false beliefs is unclear.

www.nature.com...

Oh, like all of your false beliefs about Trump?

What are my false beliefs about Trump?

All of them!!

Let's start with what you think you're right about?

What are all of them? Define one belief so we can discuss.