Election information?

Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people. In contrast, misinformation refers to inaccuracies that stem from inadvertent error.  Disinformation is an managed activity in which people introduce strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to facilitate political, military, or commercial goals.

UNESCO and Ipsos did a survey  (August-September 2023), in 16 countries, asking among other things,  “Are they concerned that disinformation will impact the next campaign?” The effort found the following key points.

  • 56% of internet users in the 16 countries surveyed frequently use social media as their primary source of news, surpassing television at 44%.
  • Trust in traditional media remains high, with 66% of those surveyed trusting television news, 63% trusting radio news, and 61% trusting print media news.
  • Internet users experience a high prevalence of disinformation on social media, with 68% indicating that disinformation is most widespread there.
  • 87% of respondents expressed concern about the impact of disinformation on upcoming elections in their country, with 47% being “very concerned”.
  • 67% of internet users have encountered hate speech online, with a majority believing it’s most prevalent on Facebook (58%).
  • There’s a strong call for regulation, with 88% believing that both governments and regulatory bodies, and social media platforms (90%) should address disinformation and hate speech issues.
  • A majority of internet users (89%) support the idea that governments and regulators should enforce trust and safety measures on social media platforms during election campaigns.
  • Only 48% of surveyed citizens have reported online content related to disinformation in the context of an election campaign.

In the United States, there is no oversight of the social media platforms by the government and social media companies have actually rolled back any self-policing of content for disinformation, because it works against their business model.  Their model is engagement by entertaining, not informing you.  Disinformation is actually amplified by the social media platforms.

The following image illustrates a two-phase framework conceptualizing the dissemination of disinformation on social media. The first phase is “seeding,” in which actors strategically insert misleading deceptions by masquerading or obfuscating statements as legitimate…. The second phase, “echoing,” represents how disinformation circulates in echo chambers through contradictions against opponents in cultural wars and other identity-driven controversies. Participants use falsehoods, selective truths, beliefs, value judgments, and all available controversies to rhetorically enact and exploit their identity in opposition to their perceived opponents.1Diaz Ruiz, C., & Nilsson, T. (2023). Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221103852

Disinformation and echo chamber graphic Citizens in a democracy need a source of information the is not driven by the profit motive of social media platforms and is dedicated to presenting factual information for people to make good decisions.  Donating to this organization will help fund research and implementation of a platform to inform and amplify your voice.  Donate today, before our democracy  dies!

Can We Keep Our Republic?

When Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberations at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked  “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” to which he responded “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

These days it sometimes feels like we are in danger of becoming a autocracy.  In the book How Democracies Die, the authors list four key indicators of authoritarian behavior to test leaders.

  1. Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game.
  2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents.
  3. Toleration or encouragement of violence.
  4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

They maintain a politician that meets even one of these criteria is cause for concern.  In the last century authoritarian leaders have come to power, changing the existing government into a autocracy by fooling the kings or the people into thinking only that leader can fix everything.

Democracy Index map
Democracy Index map

In 2022, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) reported the United States of America (US) as a flawed democracy (overall score of 7.85 of 10), ranking 30 in a field of 167 countries analyzed in their report.  This is a decrease of four spots from 2021 report and kept the US in the flawed democracy group since 2016.  The report goes on to say:

The US’s overall score in the Democracy Index remains weighed down by the country’s intense levels of political and cultural polarisation. Pluralism and competing alternatives are essential for a functioning democracy, but differences of opinion in the US have hardened into political sectarianism and almost permanent institutional gridlock. This trend has long compromised the functioning of government, and the US score for this category remains at a low of 6.43 in 2022, unchanged from 2021….

Political culture is still the weakest category for the US, with a score of 6.25 in 2022, unchanged from 2021. Social cohesion and consensus have collapsed in recent years as disagreements over an expanding list of issues fuel the country’s “culture wars”….

These debates have extended beyond the usual set of actors (such as politicians and activists) and now implicate corporate executives as well as primary school teachers and librarians (over lesson plans and books discussing sexuality, gender and racial identity). A highly politicised media, including popular TV channels and social media platforms, continue to foment and amplify these divisions.

We must pull out of this democratic death spiral or we may end up with an autocracy!  “When American democracy has worked, it has relied upon two norms that we often take for granted—mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance.”1“How Democracies Die” pg 212 The political parties in the United States need to revive these norms and add new ones.  It cannot be done by one leader, it will take all of us! Get involved: vote; write letters to the editor; peacefully protest; contact your representatives; join with organizations like this one to amplify your voice. Do it today, before our democracy dies!

2023 Denver Democracy Summit

The Josef Korbel School of International Studies is pleased to announce that the 3rd Annual Denver Democracy Summit will be held October 25-26, 2023 on the University of Denver campus with proceedings streamed to a worldwide virtual audience. The Denver Democracy Summit will serve as a platform for the DU community and the world’s leading thought leaders on democracy to evaluate ongoing efforts to strengthen democratic norms, values, and institutions. The Summit will include discussions on democratic backsliding, political communication and misinformation, polarization and civil discourse, technology and democracy, and other topics.

More information at Denver Democracy Summit website.

Update 11/2/2023

If you did not have a chance to attend the Denver Democracy Summit you can watch the presentations on their YouTube channel playlist.

What is Liquid Democracy?

Liquid democracy is a hybrid form of democracy that combines elements of direct and representative democracy. It allows citizens to have a more dynamic and flexible role in the decision-making process. In a traditional representative democracy, people vote for elected officials who make decisions on their behalf. In a direct democracy, individuals vote directly on specific issues or policies. Liquid democracy seeks to bridge the gap between these two approaches.

In a liquid democracy, citizens have the option to either vote on issues directly or delegate their votes to someone they trust. Delegating votes means that an individual can choose another person, often referred to as a proxy or delegate, to vote on their behalf. The key feature of liquid democracy is that delegation can be temporary and can be reassigned at any time. This means that individuals can delegate their votes on specific issues to different people based on their expertise, trust, or personal preferences. For example, if you trust someone’s judgment on environmental issues, you can delegate your vote to them for those matters, while delegating your vote to someone else for economic policy decisions.

The goal of liquid democracy is to increase citizen participation and engagement in the decision-making process, while also benefiting from the expertise and knowledge of individuals who are well-versed in certain areas. It offers more flexibility and adaptability compared to traditional democratic models. Digital technology and online platforms have made it easier to implement liquid democracy by allowing for secure and efficient voting and delegation.

Liquid democracy is still a relatively new concept and has been experimented with in various contexts, such as political parties (German Pirate Party, Partido de la Red), organizations, and even some governments (Argentina). Its success and practicality can vary depending on the specific implementation and the cultural and political context in which it is used. Some current open-source software implementations are LiquidFeedback and DemocracyOS.

Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere these days.  AI is used in applications such as self-driving cars (e.g., Waymo, Nuro, and Zoox), some web search engines (e.g., Google Search and Bing), recommendation systems (used by YouTube, Amazon, and Netflix), understanding human speech (such as Siri and Alexa), generative or creative tools (ChatGPT,  Midjourney, and DALL-E),  playing games (such as chess and Go) and even writing U.S. legislation!

AI has added tremendous functionality to applications in most industries, but the regulation is lagging behind the advances.  Governments are slow to create legislation for fear of stifling the industry or out of ignorance of the dangers.

I decided to ask ChatGPT what it recommends for AI regulation by asking “How should artificial intelligence services, like ChatGPT, be regulated?” Here is it’s response:

The regulation of artificial intelligence services, including advanced models like ChatGPT, is a complex and evolving challenge that requires a balanced approach to ensure both innovation and safety. Here are some key considerations and principles that can guide the regulation of AI services:

1. Transparency and Accountability:
– Require AI developers and service providers to be transparent about the capabilities and limitations of their systems. This includes disclosing when users are interacting with AI rather than humans.
– Establish mechanisms for accountability, making it clear who is responsible for the actions and decisions of AI systems.

2. Data Privacy and Security:
– Enforce strict data privacy regulations to protect users’ personal information and prevent misuse of data.
– Implement security measures to safeguard AI systems from cyberattacks and data breaches.

3. Ethical Guidelines:
– Develop and promote ethical guidelines for AI development and usage, including avoiding biases and discriminatory behavior.
– Encourage AI developers to design systems that prioritize user well-being and safety.

4. Fairness and Bias Mitigation:
– Require AI developers to address and mitigate biases in their systems, ensuring that AI services are fair and do not discriminate against specific groups.
– Implement auditing and testing procedures to detect and correct bias in AI algorithms.

5. User Consent and Control:
– Ensure that users are informed about how AI services collect and use their data.
– Give users control over the data they share and how AI services use that data.

6. Certification and Testing:
– Establish certification processes for AI systems, especially those used in critical applications like healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and finance.
– Mandate rigorous testing and validation of AI systems to ensure their reliability and safety.

7. Liability Framework:
– Define liability frameworks that specify who is responsible if AI systems cause harm or make erroneous decisions.
– Consider establishing insurance requirements for AI developers to cover potential liabilities.

8. Continuous Monitoring and Reporting:
– Implement ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements for AI systems in use, especially those in critical domains.
– Create mechanisms for reporting and addressing AI-related incidents and failures.

9. International Cooperation:
– Promote international collaboration and standardization efforts to harmonize AI regulations across borders, as AI is a global technology.

10. Flexibility and Adaptability:
– Recognize that AI technology evolves rapidly, and regulations should be flexible and adaptable to accommodate innovation while maintaining safety.

11. Public Input:
– Solicit input from experts, stakeholders, and the public when formulating AI regulations to ensure they reflect diverse perspectives and needs.

12. Education and Awareness:
– Invest in education and awareness programs to help the public understand AI and its implications, fostering responsible use and informed decision-making.

Regulating AI services is a multifaceted challenge that requires a careful balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring public safety. Regulations should be informed by ongoing research, collaboration among stakeholders, and a commitment to ethical AI development and deployment. Furthermore, it’s essential to strike a balance between regulatory oversight and not stifling the positive potential of AI technology.

Not a bad response for an AI system!  ChatGPT cannot vote, but it probably has a louder voice in the U.S. Congress.  Maybe us humans will just have to get busy, before AI replaces Congress.  Hmm, an idea worth considering.

What Is It That We Want?

What Is It That We Want?

By Michael Copps, originally posted July 10,2023 on Benton Institute blog

Congress is dysfunctional. The courts are a bad and dangerous joke. Independent government agencies are on the cusp of being dismantled. The Administration’s agenda is largely blocked. Companies large and small have pillaged the economy and jacked up prices that impose real pain on American consumers, long after economic circumstances can justify it. The media, which have a solemn obligation to give us real news and information, choose instead to blanket us with infotainment and trifle that divert our attention from the real problems that are undermining our democracy. And we, the people, have let it happen.

“Boy, Copps has turned into an old crank,” some will say. Well, the above paragraph may paint with a somewhat broad brush, but there is enough truth there to justify a deeper look. Stay with me here.

A Dysfunctional Congress

We have a Congress brought low by money, ideology, partisan redistricting, filibusters, and precious little accountability. This is not entirely new—it’s just worse than ever before. Oh, I know—go back through our history and you’ll never find a perfect Congress. And, yes, some important legislation has been passed in the wake of COVID. But we’ve never had the amount of special interest money and high-paid lobbyists buying Capitol Hill votes and setting back democracy as we have right now. Money is poisoning democracy’s well, and if it isn’t curbed—really curbed and really soon—I don’t believe our democracy will survive.

Democracy has been undermined by Congressional redistricting for many years, but never like the ubiquitous and blatant partisan electoral maps as we have today. Whole blocs of citizens have seen their voting power diminished and often destroyed, thereby entirely losing their voices in charting our country’s path. Millions of Americans’ ballots are diluted to the point where they just don’t meaningfully count. Think about that! It could be your ballot I’m talking about.

Filibusters and other legislative end-runs are all the while dooming important legislative proposals and Presidential appointments. We are almost three-quarters through this Administration, and many of the President’s appointments to high office are stuck in the Senate confirmation hell-hole. How does it help our diplomacy when Senate rules allow one Senator to hold up confirmation of dozens of ambassadors and other officials? We have enormous global problems to resolve, but egregious partisanship keeps hundreds of diplomatic posts empty. The last time I checked, over one-fourth of U.S. ambassadorship positions lacked a Senate-confirmed appointee. Talk about dis-serving the national interest! How can government do its jobs without leaders at the helm?

An Out-Of-Whack Judiciary

If there is one branch of government where wisdom, historical knowledge, and beyond reproach integrity are supposed to reign, it is surely the judiciary. But, now more than ever, hyper-partisanship dictates who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. Special interests wield a lot more influence than the general public on who gets nominated. (Sometimes the Senate even finds ways to delay these important nominations until a different and more politically agreeable President takes office.) Increasingly, archaic ideology more than informed constitutionalism informs the dizzying array of decisions the high court pronounces. To make matters worse, our highest court operates without anything approaching a credible code of ethical behavior. Justices, and even their spouses, engage in money-making “jobs” and “opportunities” that cast grave suspicion on their integrity—their sense of what is right and what is wrong. These judges get away with behavior that not even a congressman can do!

Now we are entering an era when judges at local and lesser levels are increasingly selected through expensive electioneering. These contests go largely unreported, but sometimes cost millions of dollars. Those dollars come frequently from wealthy special interests. Judgeships for sale to the highest bidder! Is this how justice is served?

Special interests also know how to court-shop. They find ways to present their lawsuits to judges who are known for their friendly political leanings, i.e., their ideologies. Then a case will often go to a court of appeals whose majority may have opposite leanings, and the initial decision may be overturned. This yo-yo process can continue all the way to the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder, then, that the judiciary is rapidly falling into public disrepute?

Justice is not politics. This is serious business that goes to the people’s faith in securing justice through our legal system. Our democracy cannot allow these abuses to continue. Judicial reform is essential reform—and its time is now. Out-of-touch judges need to understand what their behavior is endangering. And we the people need to insist upon it.

Corporate Responsibility for Inflation and the Economy

Surely there are multiple causes for the inflation that has stalked our economy for so many months. COVID and the costs of alleviating the suffering it brought clogged supply lines around the globe, created huge spikes in energy prices, and wreaked havoc on the world economy. But there was a huge amount of profiteering involved, too, from businesses large and, yes, sometimes small. Airlines, energy producers and distributors, financial services, telecom, meat and food processors jacked up prices, and their quarterly profits zoomed skyward—into the tens of billions—while consumers paid the price. Seeing the big guys profiteer, plenty of smaller enterprises followed suit and took advantage of their opportunity to gouge consumers over and above legitimate price increases. I’m not saying “all”, but I did say “plenty”. A walk down many store aisles is still shocking today. You can’t convince me all those price hikes are justified. Nor are all those shrinking cartons and containers that force us to pay more for less. It’s a far cry from pulling together to overcome a serious problem.

Media That Falls Short

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that I hold media accountable for much of our diminishing democracy. Large corporate media would rather focus on entertaining viewers and listeners instead of informing them of what is actually going on. Instead, we are bombarded with the spitballs Trump and DeSantis hurl at each other every night on the network news. Local news is a shell of its former self because the big guys have swallowed up hundreds of community stations, vastly diminishing local and regional news and important beats at the local and state levels. How can we have better news when we have seen over one-third of newsroom jobs cut in recent years? “If it bleeds, it leads” coverage, weather and sports seem the totality of too many outlets across the country. There are still independent and high-performing community stations around, don’t get me wrong, but it is every day more difficult for them to survive in such a consolidated media environment.

What About Us?

I remarked at the outset that we, the people, have let much of this happen. That’s harsh, I know, but we each must do a better job of fulfilling our responsibilities as citizens. This country of ours, despite its many daunting challenges, remains the world’s best hope—if we do our part. That means voting, yes, but it means insisting on media and reporting that dig for facts, cover all beats, and provide us with fact-based information that enables us to vote intelligently. It means getting involved before and after we vote, holding elected and appointed officials responsible for good and intelligent behavior, pushing them to redeem their electoral promises, and organizing with like-minded fellow citizens to make sure political promises are kept. True reform seldom comes as a gift from beneficent lawmakers on Capitol Hill. It comes when they feel pressure from back home. That means pressure from you and me. It’s hard but necessary work. Without it, we get the mess we have. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is a participatory obligation. Harsh as this piece may seem, I still believe we can stop our democracy’s slide and redeem the promise of America—if that’s what we really want.

About the Author

Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC’s Acting Chairman from January to June 2009. His years at the Commission have been highlighted by his strong defense of “the public interest”; outreach to what he calls “non-traditional stakeholders” in the decisions of the FCC, particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various disabilities communities; and actions to stem the tide of what he regards as excessive consolidation in the nation’s media and telecommunications industries. In 2012, former Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Learn more about Commissioner Copps in The Media Democracy Agenda: The Strategy and Legacy of FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps

Denver Mayoral Election 2023

Since Denver’s Mayor Michael Hancock is term-limited, twenty-one people have thrown their hat into ring.  That number has been reduced to 17 as of Feb. 28, 2023. I listed the each candidates official campaign web site at the end of this article.  As of April 1, 2023 the number of candidates is 16, as Kwame Spearman withdrew from the election.

I have created example ballot of ranked-choice voting using the mayoral candidates for experiment in instant runoff voting.  You can try this out (you don’t need to live in Denver and this is not a real election) by going to Ballot: Denver Mayoral Election 2023 and enter your name.  Please only vote once, but feel free to give your friends the link or QR code below.

QR CodeThe results will be release on April 4, 2023, 7:20 PM.  A link will be provided here for the results when released.

Official campaign websites

Ranked-choice Voting

Ranked-choice ballotRanked-choice voting is a method of voting in which the voters rank their options, giving their preference of first, second, third, fourth, etc. choice on their ballot. Depending on which ranked-choice method is used, the votes are tabulated in different ways based on the ranking of each ballot.  In a traditional “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system, the candidate with the most votes wins. If they do not receive a majority of the votes, in a  two-round system (TRS),  a separate run-off election is required at additional cost and effort.

There are several variations of ranked-choice voting (RCV), each with its own specific rules and procedures. Some of the most commonly used RCV methods include:

  • IRV flowchartInstant Runoff Voting (IRV): This is the most common form of RCV used in the United States, as well as in Australia and Ireland. Under IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in each round until one candidate has a majority of the votes.  The ballots of the eliminated candidate are allocated based on the second choice (in the second round) and continuing until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.
  • Single Transferable Vote (STV): This is a form of proportional representation that is used in several countries, including Ireland and Malta. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and seats are allocated to candidates based on a formula that takes into account the total number of votes received by each candidate.
  • Contingent Vote (CV): Under the contingent vote, voters cast a single vote for their preferred candidate, but also indicate their second-choice candidate. If no candidate wins a majority of the first-choice votes, the two candidates with the most votes proceed to a runoff, and the second-choice votes of the eliminated candidates are redistributed to the remaining candidates.
  • Supplementary Vote (SV): This method is used in the mayoral elections in London, England. Voters cast a first-choice and second-choice vote, and if no candidate wins a majority of the first-choice votes, the two candidates with the most votes proceed to a runoff, and the second-choice votes of the eliminated candidates are redistributed to the remaining candidates.
  • Borda Count: In the Borda Count method, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and each candidate is assigned points based on their ranking. The candidate with the most points at the end of the voting process is declared the winner.

There are other variations of ranked-choice voting, as well as different names for the same methods, but these are some of the most commonly used. The exact number of variations of RCV depends on how narrowly or broadly one defines the concept, but these methods represent the main types of RCV that are used around the world.

Currently ranked-choice voting is used in the United States for state primary, congressional, and presidential elections in Alaska and Maine and for local elections in more than 20 US cities including New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; Minneapolis, Minnesota.  For details on what method is used where see FairVote.org.

To see a demonstration of RCV, vote for your Favorite Fruit on  app.rankedvote.co.

United States gets a B for Freedom!

The Freedom in the World 2022 report from Freedom House gives the U.S. a grade of 83.  The U.S. has been in decline for the last 10 years.

This was a decline from the 2019 score of 86, mostly the result of the January 6th assault on the U.S. Capital by Trump supporters and continued threats and intimidation of politicians and election officials throughout the country.

In a national poll conducted in 2018 by Freedom House, the George W. Bush Institute, and the Penn Biden Center, 68 percent of Americans agree that America’s system of democracy these days as getting weaker.

Can We Keep Our Republic?

The famous warning by Ben Franklin seems appropriate today as it was in the beginning of our country.  Just how do we keep this Republic strong?  This is my take on what is needed now:

  • Educating the citizenry about principles and concepts of democracy;
  • Taking the time to understand the issues and apply critical thinking to avoid disinformation;
  • Voting and protecting that right for all U.S. citizens;
  • Standing up for what is right regardless of party policies or objectives.

In my lifetime, I have seen my rights and freedoms slowly eroded away without knowing what to do about it.  I personally plan to take this organization to the next level to accomplish some of the thing listed above so we can keep our republic!