Election Interference At The Gas Pump?

The 2022 midterm election day was approaching and because there were the occasional and rare political ads popping-up infrequently, no more often than once or twice a minute, I was perhaps primed to pay attention to that most visible of inflationary indicators: gas prices. I’ve been surprised at how erratically gas prices can change as the economy has had to react to the COVID and now post-COVID periods. Usually, I would hear something about some event that either pre-ordained the price changes or that post-change explained why the change had occurred. But for some reason, I was neither primed to expect an increase or provided with a reasoned explanation for why an increase had occurred. Perhaps the political ads had just taken up all the air in the room and there just wasn’t any room or time to ‘inform’ the public; not that there is all that much time dedicated to ‘informing’ the public anyway.

But regardless of what or why I noticed during the week before election day, I did notice that gas prices were rising again. The “most visible” sign of inflation was at play. At the time, I noticed that the prices were up again; and I did what I often do, I thought about what “cause and effect” events could be at play. One of the thoughts that passed by was “could this be an attempt to influence the election?” And so I thought, what would demonstrate that? And it occurred to me that this would make for a great conspiracy theory whether it was true or not. I decided to see if I could find the data that would help address the question. A week after the election, I did some analysis.

Here is what I found.

Starting a week before election day, the price of gas in the US rose an average of 2.3% by election day. A week after the elections, the price of gas in the US dropped to an average of 1% below where it had been the week before the elections. Whether these modest gas price differences are viewed as large enough to matter or not; remember, they are on top of gas price levels that are viewed as very high. Now, remember that this analysis was based upon a thought that occurred before election day and was the kind of hypothesis idea that STEM-based perspectives provide to analyze things. The results provide a basis for asking more questions, because the results don’t prove a connection, nor do they don’t disprove the original question. “Could someone be tampering with gas prices to influence voters?”

I believe this makes for an interesting intelligence test; and thus here we go. [A word of caution: I have not said a test of what.]

Let’s begin.

Question 1: Could someone have attempted to increase gas prices before the midterms to influence the vote? A. Yes B. No

Question 2: On the theory that someone had tried, who might it be? A. Biden Administration B. Republican National Committee C. Democratic National Committee D. Republican-leaning oil companies E. Democratic-leaning oil companies F. Oil companies in general G. A foreign government(s), for example: Saudi Arabia H. A powerful shadow group that operates across the global

Question 3: Which political party would be expected to benefit from such an attempt use gas price increases? A. Democratic B. Republican C. Some other political party

Question 4: How would someone cause the price of gas to increase just to influence voting? A. Raise the price of oil B. Raise the price of gas to gas stations C. Instruct gas station owners to raise their prices D. Alert gas stations owners that the prices of gas will be increasing for their next delivery E. Some other way

Question 5: Did the price at the pump influence your vote? A. Yes B. No C. I can’t remember.

Ok, that’s the test part; and I should mention that the is a sub-title to this post: “How To Start a Conspiracy Theory”. This at some level is its own interesting test that may be given later. So, let’s move on to the answers.

Answer to Question 1: The rational answer is No. If you want to argue that there is always a possibility, no matter how small, that someone could have “attempted” to influence voters by increasing gas prices the aspect of that argument which is critical is the “how small” factor. In considering what the ‘smallness’ of that factor is, one needs to consider how likely someone would think of doing it (let’s say 1 in 100 people). Then you have to consider what are chances that 1 person could act to make the change (let’s say 1 in 100,000). Then you have to consider if that person would decide to act (let’s say 1 in 2). What are the chances that person would be able to make the increases without others supporting the change (let’s say 1 in 1,000,000). Finally, if such a person had tried, how likely is it that no one involved would ‘tell’ (let’s say 1 in 1,000). The “small” here is 5 trillionth of 1%. It is small, and can rationally be dismissed as vastly improbable. The answer is No.

Answer to Question 2: The reason to ‘attempt’ to use gas prices to influence voters would be premised upon a benefit to be derived. So, the answer would need to benefit your choice(s). Based on this the candidate choices who might benefit would exclude A: Biden Administration and C: Democratic National Committee. Answer E: Democratic-leaning oil companies, if there are any, would be in a position of conflict since they would benefit financially at the pump; however the Democratic-leaning would imply that they don’t want to harm Democratic chances in the election. So, E is not a valid answer. The other answer choices are all potential beneficiaries and thus might be considered as possible candidates who could have. However, these choices would still need to be able to act to accomplish this change in gas prices. This is where what it actually takes to make these increases comes into play. Even here there is little chance that any of the remaining choice options could or did do anything that would support an assertion that someone tried.

Answer to Question 3: Based upon the political ads that preceded the elections, the logical choice is B: Republican party. This just recognizes a political reality, it conveys no evidentiary proof or accountability. If you didn’t get this question right, I’d be very surprised.

Answer to Question 4: All of these answers would represent ways that could cause the price at the pump to increase; however that doesn’t reflect whether any of these are practical means of doing so. A: Raising the price of oil would work, but only a few people could do that and they would have to do so either with the cooperation of others or be vulnerable to competitive prices in the global market at the time. It’s not likely. B: Raising the price of gas to the stations would evoke some questions about why they are being raised. The explanation to numerous people and entities would be a risk, and you have multiple companies and individuals who could become a risky problem for trying to manipulate the prices. C: Instructing station owners to raise their prices is like telling the world, “We are trying to influence the election”, it is far too risky. D: This may be a less risky strategy, but it fails subject to involving far to many people and you just can’t trust that situation. Not as bad as B or C, but no where near a good approach. E: I am sure someone will think of some other way, but I would not put any faith in it being without far more risks than some of the worst ideas above.

Answer to Question 5: This is the classic easy answer. Only you can decide if it did or didn’t, or you really don’t know. That answer is correct, but not sure how meaningful or relevant it is to the question of whether ‘someone’ tried to use the price of gasoline to influence the elections.

And now what?

Where does this leave us on the question? People may have thought of it. After all, I did. But, thinking of the idea is not the same thing as being able to execute a strategy and plan for bringing it off. The best explanation, the Occam’s razor answer is: The price increase of gasoline just prior to the midterms was just coincidental, there was no ‘conspiracy’ to change the outcome of voters’ choices. The extent that gas prices had an impact on the election was due to how the public understanding of the “cause and effect” relationships that they were attributing to the world, nation, and politics of the situation. I am sure that for some voters the price of gas had an effect on their votes, but what that effect was doesn’t require a nefarious entity intent upon changing the price just before the election. The months of political advertising was more than sufficient to have whatever impact the price changes had.