Quote note (#126)
Election day special:
I claim, the sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis. What is a null hypothesis? Have you ever seen the phrase “no evidence that”? For instance, there is no evidence that voter fraud has a significant impact on American elections.
Like it or not, established religion is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Cuius regio, eius religio. Unless you’re a crazy person, you believe what the sovereign, personal or institutional, orders you to believe. Obviously there is a conflict here, or at least a potential conflict. Because even a normal, non-crazy person will experience difficulty in disbelieving his own eyes.
Which is fine. Sovereigns, though asymptotically infallible, err. They change their mind, or at least have to be thought capable of it. You can change your mind too. Maybe you’re just the first. However, the null hypothesis is what the sovereign orders you to believe, at least until evidence (which should promptly be brought to your master’s attention) convinces you otherwise.
Since the sovereign also sets the bar for how much evidence it takes to convince you otherwise, he can order you to believe in pretty much anything short of outright arithmetic violations. All he has to do is set the null hypothesis to his desired outcome, then set the burden of proof impossibly high. …
If you voted anything other than raw evil today, your democratic voice was cancelled out by a fictional zombie. Not that it remotely matters. (Radical corruption is the norm.)
ADDED: “One of the biggest voter frauds may be the idea promoted by Attorney General Eric Holder and others that there is no voter fraud …” Meta-fraud is the system.
ADDED: NRx-in-unlikely-places watch:
This election is not a shellacking. It’s a speed bump. The long arc of history bends toward an increasingly progressive electorate.
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) November 5, 2014