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:

November 4, 2014admin 10 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Democracy

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to this entry

  • brian Says:

    this year, i’m writing in gnon for all elected positions.


    Posted on November 4th, 2014 at 7:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    GOP does it too, during primaries.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    but who cares about rightwing fringers who get denied nominations amirite


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Yeah, it was done for the good of the party, got to get electable candidates on the ballot. You know, ones smart enough to slide along with the overton window. Can’t push back the overton window unless you elect moderate leftists to counteract the extreme leftists, right?


    Posted on November 4th, 2014 at 8:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#126) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 4th, 2014 at 9:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    So in California what did you guys end up voting for? What about that water bill?


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 3:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I took Jim’s advice and didn’t vote. First time ever I’ve consciously chosen not to vote. Fuck em all, is my basic philosophy at the moment. If the Republicans do something useful, maybe I will give them a look in ’16.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Local elections still matter, see overcomingbias.


    Kgaard Reply:

    I take the opposite view: Local elections matter far less than 100+ years ago because so many powers have been nationalized. Most obviously, the federal tax rate is 30%+ and the state tax is 0-6%. Twenty years ago I was a local newspaper reporter and at every council meeting I went to the people on the council were complaining that they were just rubber-stampers for decisions forced down on them by the state (in this case Pennsylvania). Can’t imagine it’s any better now.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Two categories of local elections still matter a lot: sheriff and judges.

    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 3:26 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment