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

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less