Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Weeding out election denialism

American flags surrounded by grass
NoDerog/Getty Images

Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Anyone who has been pulling weeds in their gardens this spring understands that while weeding is tedious and may not be very satisfying, it is necessary for optimal growth.

Consider the following metaphor: Our constitutional republic is a garden. Our free and fair elections are the plants. Bipartisan election officials are the gardeners, working tirelessly to produce the best garden harvest as possible. Election denialism represents the insidious weeds, which began propagating before the 2016 election and have only taken off since 2020.


Weeds rob nearby plants of water and nutrients. If large enough, weeds can compete for sunlight. Weeds can be home to pests and some can even secrete chemicals into the soil that inhibit growth of nearby plants.

And so it is with election denialism.

In April, the county where I live held municipal elections. Ahead of the election, our county election authority held a phone town hall led by the director of the election authority. Residents were encouraged to call in. The director shared information about the upcoming election and then opened it up to questions.

Voters inundated the director with questions that were primed by copious amounts of disinformation. One asked if our county uses Dominion Voting Systems machines. Another asked if our county uses drop boxes and, if so, whether they are monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Yet another asked what measures the county takes to prohibit illegal immigrants from voting.

The director answered all their questions, without judgment, and attempted to uproot the weeds one by one by addressing the misinformation that was behind each question.

As a concerned citizen and a self-described democratic botanist, I will call out the infectious weeds referred to above.

Invasive species No. 1 involves Dominion Voting Systems. The election technology company had alleged that it was defamed by Fox News in the wake of the 2020 election, claiming network hosts allowed lawyers affiliated with Donald Trump to falsely claim that the company had rigged the election against the former president.

Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., ended up striking a deal with Dominion, averting a trial in the defamation suit and paying Dominion $787.5M for the false statements made on air.

Dominion CEO John Poulos told reporters following the settlement: "Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion that caused enormous damage to my company, our employees and the customers that we serve. Nothing can ever make up for that. Throughout this process, we have sought accountability. Truthful reporting in the media is essential to our democracy."

Invasive species No. 2 is the vilification of ballot drop boxes. For the record. my state does not allow for drop boxes so this one is not even applicable.

There have been many conspiracy theories surrounding drop boxes, including those fueled by the completely debunked movie “2000 Mules.” Dinesh D’Souza’s film suggested that Democrat-aligned ballot “mules” were supposedly paid to illegally collect and drop off ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

All of the claims made by the film have been revealed to be false. Ballots dropped in a box, mailed or hand-delivered to an election location are verified by signature and are tracked closely.

The newest variety of weed is invasive species No. 3 — voting by illegal immigrants. Trump and many other Republicans are again pushing the unsubstantiated claims that noncitizens are voting in federal elections.

It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal and state elections. Those who break that law are eligible for prison time and fines.

During a recent press conference, Speaker Mike Johnson repeatedly cited the immigration crisis at the southern border while talking about alleged voter fraud. When pressed for proof from reporters, Johnson became exasperated saying: "We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections," Johnson said. "But it's not something that is easily provable."

There continue to be many elected Republicans like Johnson who are proliferating noxious disinformation thistles into the fertile soil.

Weeds can be tricky and are difficult to control once they have broken ground. They can also get in the way of growing what we want or living in a desired way. The same goes for our elections.

It appears that for the short term, the plants in America’s democratic garden are going to have to live among those weeds. Those who can identify unwanted and interfering falsehoods surrounding our democratic process owe it to the rest of the citizens to yank them out as effectively as possible, roots and all. This is difficult and backbreaking work, but very necessary.

I am hopeful that American democracy will thrive again and be bountiful. It will only happen as long as we keep eradicating the distortions of election fraud.


Read More

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters
Woman typing on laptop at wooden table with breakfast.

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters

When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)

Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote “Pygmalion,” the play upon which “My Fair Lady” was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the “created” is greater than the “creator.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less