Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Expansive, politically tough approach eyed to combat online election deceit

No fewer than 34 distinct but collaborative actions by governments, technology companies, candidates, the media and the education system are required to successfully combat digital deceptions and protect the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, a pair of non-profit groups argues.

The groups, MapLight and the Institute for the Future, say the United States was collectively slow to comprehend – and remains far behind in combatting – the pervasive influence on public opinion of political bots, troll farms, fake social media accounts, networks of disinformation websites and deceptive digital advertising. And technology companies and the campaigners themselves are not acting nearly aggressively enough to prevent the specious practices that made headlines in 2016 and 2018 from being repeated and magnified in the future.

But the sprawling roster of proposals in their new report, unveiled today, includes almost two dozen that would require bipartisan collaboration at a sharply divided Capitol or assertive actions by a Trump administration that has so far seemed disinterested in playing a strong regulatory hand in politics.


Legislation is needed to stiffen disclosure requirements for online political ads, force more donors to reveal their identities, and create a new government authority to investigate the true source of funding for digital political activity, for example. None of those bills has much of a chance in the current Congress, and the groups' proposed new federal regulations on data usage, consumer privacy and online antitrust are similarly a longshot.

In addition, the more systemic changes the groups propose – such as making media literacy and civics more central to public education, and establishing more international cooperation in regulating online behavior – are many years away from fruition.

"Both the 2016 and 2018 elections have served as glaring reminders of the vulnerabilities in our democracy in the information age," said Ann Ravel , the co-author from MapLight and a member of the Federal Election Commission from 2013 to 2017. "We cannot respond to the challenges with paralysis and inaction. We must put in place protections now to safeguard our political process,"

"There's no magic-bullet policy that is going to automatically safeguard our elections and wind back the clock to the era before digital communication was a primary feature of political campaigning," said Samuel Woolley of the Institute for the Future. "We need our full society to be involved in responding to these problems."


Read More

Vote pins

Vote pins

Photo provided

Sharp Gender Divide Among Latino Voters

A new analysis from the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute (LPPI) and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) reveals significant political differences between Latinas and Latino men in California — especially among younger voters and those without bachelor’s degrees. The findings, drawn from the May 2026 Berkeley IGS Poll of 1,912 Latino registered voters, challenge the notion that California’s Latino electorate behaves as a single political bloc.

California Latinas are more likely than Latino men to prioritize protecting immigrant communities, opposing the Trump administration’s agenda, and defending democracy and voting rights. According to the report, 69% of Latinas say protecting immigrant communities is “very important,” compared with 52% of Latino men. On “fighting the Trump agenda,” the gap is identical: 68% of Latinas versus 51% of Latino men. Democracy and voting rights receive the strongest support across both groups, with 87% of Latinas and 77% of Latino men rating the issue as very important.

Keep ReadingShow less
unrecognizable businessman giving speech to professional audience

Brain science explains why voters reward charisma over results — and why the leaders who "fix" the most get credit for the least. A behavioral look at elections.

alvaro gonzalez/Getty Images

The Résumé Should Outvote the Smile

There's an old joke about a couple who finally solved years of arguing over decisions. "Since you're the man of the house," the wife said, "you handle the big things -- our stance on foreign wars, who we send to the Senate. I'll take care of the small stuff: groceries, the mortgage, where we live, what we eat." The husband agreed happily, certain he had won the better half of the deal. A few years later he realized the trade had gone entirely the other way. He held forth on geopolitics at dinner parties while his wife quietly ran every detail that actually touched his life: what he ate, where he lived, how his money was spent. What looked like ultimate authority was, in practice, near-total abdication over the things that shaped his days.

Voters make the same trade, and pay for it the same way. We keep hiring leaders for the qualities we would want in a spouse -- warmth, charm, a commanding voice, the sense that they see us -- instead of the qualities we would want in a mechanic: someone who can find what is broken and fix it before the whole system fails. We evaluate candidates the way we choose intimate partners, not the way we hire people to run complex, high-stakes systems.

Keep ReadingShow less