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

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less