How this medieval philosopher would debunk Trump’s election claims
By David Von Drehle,
If William of Occam, medieval philosopher, were transported by time-travel to the present moment, he might not find everything to be unfamiliar. Much of his career was devoted to one of the epic election disputes of all time, King Louis of Bavaria pitted against Pope John XXII over control of the Holy Roman Empire — a battle that raged across Europe in the 14th century and echoes to this day in one of humanity’s great works of art, Dante’s “Divine Comedy.”
William’s enduring contribution is the logical principle that bears his name, Occam’s razor, which cuts keenly into today’s election controversy. He teaches that the simplest explanation that fits observable facts is probably the nearest to the truth.
In his plain Franciscan tunic, William steps from his time capsule into 2020, razor in hand, and applies himself to the available facts. For more than four years, the political scene has been dominated by a rare genius of publicity, an attention hog whose personality Americans find almost uniquely compelling. Enrapturing supporters and enraging critics, the incumbent president has stoked such passions that many consider his reelection bid to be among the most important elections in U.S. history. Billions of dollars have been raised and spent to maximize voting. More votes are counted than ever before.
Two explanations are offered to old William to explain the numbers. One is that the intensity of publicity and depth of passions drove record participation. The other is that the U.S. Postal Service engaged in a widespread conspiracy to steal ballots and sell them to co-conspirators who filled them out using fake identities and delivered them inside food trucks to counting stations. The FBI and Justice Department know all about it, but are covering it up.
Hmm, says William after a brief contemplation. The first explanation seems a good deal simpler — and thus more likely.
Next the philosopher turns to the number of votes for each candidate. Given the huge turnout, William is not surprised to learn that the incumbent president received many, many votes. In another year, his 74 million would be a record, but his opponent received even more: 81 million. What could explain this?
Someone points out that the results accord with months of data collected by the nonpartisan Gallup Poll. The venerable survey never found more than 49 percent of the public approving of the incumbent, and found just 43 percent of the public approving of him in the final pre-election poll. His share of the vote was 47 percent — squarely in the range of his approval rating during the five months leading up to the election.
Meanwhile, the share of Americans who disapproved of the president had never sunk below 50 percent in that same period and wavered between 52 and 55 percent for six weeks before Election Day. In the event, 51.3 percent voted against him.
But an alternative explanation is also offered: Despite the surveys, the incumbent actually won in a landslide; however, a computer program devised for a long-dead Venezuelan dictator turned millions of the president’s votes into votes for his opponent, leaving nary a trace. A conspiracy of Republicans and Democrats worked seamlessly to install these computers in key states. Like the truckloads of fake ballots, this conspiracy worked under the knowing eye of the president’s own Justice Department.
Says William: It seems the results were pretty much exactly as expected. That’s a very simple explanation! Why drag in Venezuela (whatever that is)?
Another version of Occam’s razor, one that approaches logic from the opposite direction, was popularized by astronomer Carl Sagan in his television series “Cosmos.” “Extraordinary claims,” Sagan taught, “require extraordinary evidence.” In other words, a theory that fails to meet Occam’s rule of simplicity must be buttressed with sturdy proof to be credible.
Yet the now-dismissed lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the state of Texas, joined by other Republican-led states, endorsed by a majority of Republican U.S. representatives and championed by the president, offered only a patchwork of supposition and insinuation in support of its extraordinary claim that results should be erased in four key states.
I suppose it’s a testament to the nation’s strength that so many of its leaders feel safe playing games with our elections and our courts. They violate the laws of reason to advance a theory they can’t really believe: that our nation is as corrupt as a failed Latin American petro-state; that the highest office in the Republic is easily stolen while law enforcement turns a blind eye.
When the Supreme Court, well-stocked with the president’s own appointees, inevitably whistled their game to an end — no, Texas cannot tell other states how to run their elections — it was a victory for reason. But the fact that the madness got this far must discourage old William of Occam.
Read more from David Von Drehle’s archive.
Read more: Matt Bai: Let’s take a closer look at Trump’s supposedly intimidating 74 million vote total Max Boot: Why the Republican cult of victimhood is so dangerous Max Boot: There’s no room for complacency about our post-election crisis Greg Sargent: A scorching reply to the awful Texas lawsuit frames the stakes of the moment Jennifer Rubin: Republicans record their names on a list of shame The Post’s View: Trump and his GOP enablers are slandering American democracy
