Mediaboss Marketing

The biggest challenge that we face is disinformation, about the 2020 election in particular, and more generally about the election system itself, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, said in an interview.

Their battle against mis- and disinformation comes at a tenuous time for American democracy, as an already diminished faith in the U.S. electoral system risks slipping further still in 2022. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans believed democracy was in crisis and at risk of failing.

Not to be hyperbolic, but our democracy is at stake, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, said. This year, more than ever, trying to combat mis- and disinformation is crucial not just for trust in democracy but for those of us that are on the ballot this year. It is very real.

She is one of the roughly twenty secretaries of state up for reelection this year, many of whom have drawn challengers who have spread misinformation about election systems.

The struggles stemming from misinformation vary state-to-state, from dealing with threats of violence against election workers at all levels to contending with so-called insider threats election workers who themselves pose a security challenge to the system.

Not to be hyperbolic, but our democracy is at stake

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver

And on top of that, many secretaries say local election officials in their states are facing pressures on other fronts, from physical and cybersecurity-related dangers to a potential retirement crisis looming in a field rife with burnout. Its a lively time in secretary of state offices, said Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, a Democrat. And it seems like every day some new issue crops up.

Merrill, who has been in office for over a decade, called misinformation the issue of our lifetime, and said that she anticipated combating misinformation to be a focus of her tenureship as co-chair of the National Association of Secretaries of State elections committee.

One of the most concerning things administrators have to prepare for is those insider threats spawned by misinformation, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said.

Griswold said her office has investigated potential instances in three counties where there may have been unauthorized access to election equipment, aided by election officials in the counties, with two continuing and one being cleared.

Its incredibly concerning that the people elected to oversee elections are working from within to undermine them, and that phenomenon in itself is increasing, she said. States need to get ready for situations where folks in the secretary of states office or the county clerks office, or the county clerks themselves, are working to undermine the elections from within.

Griswold and other election officials expressed concerns that proponents of former President Donald Trumps lies about the 2020 election are running for election administration positions. Trump himself has endorsed three secretary of state candidates and his followers have trained their attention on secretary of state and other election-related positions up this year.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold speaks during a press conference about the Mesa County election breach investigation on Thursday, Aug. 12, 2021 in Denver.|RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post via AP

Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who Griswold is seeking to bar from overseeing elections this year after Peters allegedly allowed an unauthorized person to access county voting machines, announced on Monday that she would be running to challenge Griswold in November.

Election officials also expressed concern at the increase of election mis- and disinformation coming from state lawmakers. Secretaries said that they were concerned that legislators and other elected officials are using their platforms to give a veneer of legitimacy to untrue claims about election systems, while also looking to introduce legislation that looks to act upon those conspiracies.

Its one thing if it is just some Twitter profile with an egg icon and 60 followers, said Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, a Republican.

He said he generally doesnt think it is worth responding to pseudo-anonymous accounts spreading conspiracies, which would risk spreading and legitimizing it.

The biggest problem Ive got with regards to misinformation is weve got a sitting state senator whos going around the state conducting a tour alleging that were having corrupt, hacked elections, Adams said. Its not just fighting misinformation that shes putting out to the public, its also finding out the misinformation that shes putting within the legislature.

Election workers are still facing some of the most personal, direct consequences of the election conspiracy theories: threats of violence.

While most secretaries say that threats to their offices and the local officials in individual cities and counties dont carry the same fervor like the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, several pointed to a far right activist in Colorado seemingly calling for Griswold to be hung last week as a sign that that rhetoric is still dangerously common, and could flair up again at a moments notice.

Many secretaries said they expected to focus on a model that emphasized promoting local partners like city and county election officials, civic groups and local media as the most effective way of combating it.

Its incredibly concerning that the people elected to oversee elections are working from within to undermine them, and that phenomenon in itself is increasing.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold

Oregons Democratic Secretary of State Shemia Fagan said she wanted to refocus her office on the concept of pre-bunking misinformation instead of being reactive to it, by trying to put out information about election systems well ahead of the election.

She said her office was in the midst of planning for a series of PSAs about elections in Oregon. And she said that earned media instead of paid advertisements will be important, and that election officials need to build a stronger connection with local journalists to facilitate that.

How do we build that trusted relation with our media to say, if you hear something, reach out to us? Fagan said. Well try and go find you that accurate information to make sure that were not just spreading mis- and dis-information that comes in that maybe looks credible initially, because its more sophisticated.

Election officials also remain concerned about foreign disinformation efforts as well, which Fagan said federal officials have stressed is still active. They expect Russia to be much more involved in spreading mis- and disinformation in 2022 and 2024, she said.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose speaks at the Ohio Republican Party event, in Columbus, Ohio.|Tony Dejak/AP Photo

Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said he believed that local partnerships would be key to fighting off misinformation, foreign or domestic-based. He hoped to revive briefings with local media in his state to help explain the election processes and connect them with local election officials. He also said that he would continue to work with minority representation groups, like the NAACP and local Urban League chapters, because the communities they serve are often the targets of disinformation campaigns.

LaRose touted the benefits of outreach efforts, citing a robocall shortly before the 2020 election from Jacob Wohl, a far right conspiracy theorist. The call went out to Cleveland residents with false information about mail voting.

The moment that [call] went out, my phone started ringing personally from community leaders, ministers, local elected leaders reporting it to us, he said. And thankfully, one of them actually recorded it and passed it along to us.

Misinformation is far from the only problem election officials are dealing with, with other longrunning challenges demanding their attention. Several said they have seen an uptick in retirements after the 2020 election part of an already occurring brain drain that election officials fear could be exacerbated by threats and stress from running pandemic-era elections. And others expressed concerns about cybersecurity threats local offices were facing.

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, said he has heard in the past couple weeks about phishing scams targeting local offices. He said his office has been trying to direct traffic on those scams and make sure local officials had the tools to recognize and report them. I think they have always been lurking, he said. The incidents [have] probably increased.

Election officials said they have increasingly been leaning on national partnerships both with other secretaries and federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to help prepare local election workers.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said that she will soon host a workshop with CISA and local clerks in her state.

It has exploded out of control, Bellows said. Disinformation can lead to people threatening harm to election workers. She also said her office would work on further training for local officials, including de-escalation training, to help protect them in volatile situations.

One of the most recent disinformation campaigns has taken aim at an obscure but important part of Americas election infrastructure, an interstate compact known as the Electronic Registration Information Center. Officials on both sides of the aisle say it is an important part of election security in the United States.

The Electronic Registration Information Center often known as ERIC was originally founded a decade ago by seven states to help maintain voter rolls. Membership has since swelled to 31 states and Washington, D.C.

The organization shares some data between member states to find voters who may have moved, died or are otherwise potentially registered in another state. The organization also develops lists of potentially eligible voters who arent registered, and requires the state to contact them.

But ERIC has increasingly become a focus of some of the latest conspiracy theories, especially after a far right website popular among election deniers published a three part investigation into the organization labeling it a Soros funded group that is essentially a left wing voter registration drive.

(ERIC is funded exclusively by dues from member states, and its board of directors includes an election official from each member state, with membership ranging from the deep blue Maryland to red states like Alabama.)

It is the rare piece of Americas election system where there is broad, bipartisan consensus and has struck up an unusual bedfellows situation of secretaries willing to defend it. In interviews, all nine of the secretaries of state whose members belong to ERIC praised the effort. Secretary John Merrill of Alabama, a Republican, called it a valuable tool, while Merill of Connecticut called it an extremely constructive organization. (The two Merrills are unrelated.)

If Alabama was not a member of ERIC, then we would not be able to gain access to that data, because our state does not have the resources, the personnel or the financial wherewithal to create the kind of check and balance environment that exists with ERIC, John Merrill said. We would just be left out in the cold.

But one secretary has backed away from ERIC: Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, who is also the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, or NASS.

Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin speaks to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2020, in Baton Rouge, La.|Melinda Deslatte/AP Photo

In a late-January announcement, Ardoin offices said that he would suspend the states participation in ERIC, saying in a statement that, after reading about these allegations and speaking with election attorneys and experts, I have determined that it may no longer be in Louisianas best interests to participate in this organization.

NASS does not have an institutional stance on ERIC, and Ardoins office declined an interview request. (An Ardoin staffer told NPR that his office has been in touch with ERIC.)

But his statement triggered grumbling from some other secretaries whose states are members.

It was a little bit out of the blue, and it was unexpected, Oregons Fagan said. I personally was surprised by it.

Read more from the original source:
Election officials are on the frontlines of defending democracy. They didn't sign up for this. - POLITICO

55 Voices for Democracy is inspired by the 55 BBC radio addresses Thomas Mann delivered from his home in California to thousands of listeners in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the occupied Netherlands and Czechoslovakia between October 1940 and November 1945. In his monthly addresses Mann spoke out strongly against fascism, becoming the most significant German defender of democracy in exile. Building on that legacy, 55 Voices brings together internationally esteemed intellectuals, scientists, and artists to present ideas for the renewal of democracy in our own troubled times. The series is presented by the Thomas Mann House in partnership with theLos Angeles Review of Books,Sddeutsche Zeitung, andDeutschlandfunk.

Mohamed Amjahid calls for more emancipatory voices in transatlantic networks. He opposes derailed liberalism and emphasizes the need to show backbone and to stand in solidarity with vulnerable minorities. This effort, he says, is necessary for inclusive democracies to survive. Mohamed Amjahid is a political journalist, author of the bestsellers Among Whites and Whitewash, and a moderator. He was an editor at ZEITmagazin and has received, among other awards, the Alexander Rhomberg Prize and the Henri Nannen Prize. Amjahid is a 2022 Fellow at the Thomas Mann House in Los Angeles.

The video of Mohamed Amjahids talk can be viewed below.

Trigger Warning: Some old white men might feel offended by what I have to say. However, I am pretty sure everybody will survive this episode of 55 Voices, delivered from Thomas Manns desk in Pacific Palisades, where the rich, famous, and powerful reside.

When the violent mob better known as Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington, DC, just over a year ago, a conspicuous group of liberals escorted them. Not necessarily on the streets, rather cheering from the sidelines for years and years.

How the fork did we get here? And what has it to do of all things with Germany?

Stakeholders from politics, media, society, and business, who act in the tradition of a long-established GermanUS friendship, gather under the keyword Atlanticists. They are the often-described old white men in positions of power who become sentimental at the famous sayings of USAmerican leaders from times long past: Ich bin ein Berliner! or Tear down this wall!

In this interdependent relationship between the Federal Republic and the United States, a dangerous understanding of liberalism was born. It threatens many vulnerable communities. Liberalism is in itself a positive term, dont get me wrong, because there is also something good about it: the self-determination and unhindered blossoming of each subject. But what is meant here is a liberalism that fetishizes freedom beyond all limits and elevates the individual sphere at the expense of the well-being of minorities and of society as a whole.

This exclusive understanding of individual freedom is central to simplistic liberalism. The underlying concept of freedom is defined in a fatal way: in a laissez-faire policy towards rightwing extremists and their friends, in exploitative capitalism and the preservation of old, discriminating structures. Unfortunately, many Atlanticists embody this derailed liberalism.

In the spirit of limitless freedom of speech, they say: Say what you want! And so Donald Trump said what he wanted: he reproduced hate speech against women, Black people, refugees, queer people. Millions of voters liked it so much, they made him president. Donald Trump was able to reach a huge audience through many mainstream and social media platforms, build a base, normalize his misanthropic views, alternative facts, and clownish behavior. Meanwhile, in Germany, the extremist AfD is being established as a legitimate political force in a deep-seated liberal belief. Even though they are no better than what Thomas Mann was fighting against from exactly this desk.

More than half a year after the storming of the Capitol in Washington, right-wing extremists tried to occupy the Reichstag in Berlin in August 2021. Armed with Nazi-symbols they got onto the stairs of the Federal German Parliament building. These events show that both US and German societies are threatened by the interaction between right-wing nationalist movements and hyper-liberal tolerance for them. Before the storms began on both sides of the Atlantic the radicalized views of the stormers were normalized by hyper-liberalism. That should be a warning for all our political decision makers. We cant let history repeat itself.

The rest is here:
55 Voices for Democracy: Mohamed Amjahid on the Antiquated Atlanticists - lareviewofbooks

Ants in pants anxiety over state voting rules has mostly focused on efforts to curtail the liberal ballot access procedures put in place for the pandemic-year election of 2020.

New laws to restrict mail balloting, use of drop boxes, early voting days and handing out water or snacks in election day voting lines are deserving of concern.

But far more frightening, less publicized changes could allow partisan actors in some states to nullify votes and overturn elections if they dont accept the results as valid.

They open the door to sham elections like those in authoritarian-governed countries where the dictators dictate election outcomes so they never lose.

Could this happen in America, the worlds oldest democracy?

It almost did in the last presidential election. Incumbent Donald Trump, the clear loser, attempted to stay in power with strong-arm tactics to reverse the results under the false claim of a stolen election.

Whats more, he continues to peddle his electoral lie. Sadly, a recent public opinion poll revealed 50 percent of registered Republicans believe it. Trumps conspiracy theories are trusted more than evidence that no widespread fraud occurred.

The most dangerous effect of the lie believers is playing out in states with Republican legislatures influenced by Trump. They are considering, and a few have passed, partisan election review laws.

Georgia is a prime example. Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger heroically refused Trumps coercive attempts to alter the twice-confirmed election results giving Democrat Joe Biden a 0.2 percent victory margin in Georgia.

Yet Georgias Trump- friendly legislature was not so valiant. Last year, it diluted the secretary of states election oversight powers by removing the office from heading the State Election Board. Instead, the chair is now appointed by a majority of state legislators or, if they are not in session, the governor.

Additionally, state lawmakers expanded the boards powers to allow it to intervene in county election board and probate judge election certification and voter eligibility responsibilities if those office holders underperformed.

So if a candidate contests election results and wants them changed to his or her advantage, the partisan mechanism is in place to nullify ballots and change outcomes, provided the candidates party controls the State Election Board.

Georgia Republicans insist it is not a return to Jim Crow-era voting laws. But if it looks like Jim Crow, flies like Jim Crow and caws like Jim Crow, then it probably is Jim Crow.

The Brennen Center for Justice at New York Universitys School of Law reported this month that similar legislation to manipulate election outcomes for partisan gain are under consideration in 13 states, many of them key battlegrounds such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina.

Alan I. Abramowitz is a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta and a senior columnist for Sabatos Crystal Ball, a political analysis newsletter produced by the University of Virginia Center for politics. He believes public fears that voter access restrictions suppress voter turnout are misguided.

Abramowitz bases his conclusion on his comparative study of state election turnouts in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. In both instances, he said, passion for or against the candidates drove voter participation.

Abramowitzs research found only marginal differences in the percentage of voter method preferences between 2016 and 2020 in comparing mail-in ballots, early days voting, ID requirements and in-person voting even though several states relaxed absentee voting requirements due to the pandemic in 2020.

Voting rules did not appear to have much impact on turnout and had no measurable impact on vote margins at the state level in the 2020 presidential election, he said in a recent article titled, Why Voter Suppression Probably Wont Work.

Current efforts by Republican legislatures to suppress turnout among minorities and other Democratic-leaning voter groups by imposing restrictions on absentee voting, early in-person voting and use of drop boxes or by requiring that voters present photo identification in order to vote are unlikely to bear fruit, opined Abramowitz.

He did acknowledge, however, in an interview with CNN host Michael Smerconish last week that the greater threat lies in votes lawfully cast being counted and results accepted by election officials, by the candidates and by their parties.

When all is said and done, our democracy depends on it.

BILL KETTER is CNHIs Senior Vice President of news. Reach him at wketter@cnhi.com

Visit link:
KETTER: Voter nullification remains threat to democracy - Sharonherald

Data crunching by this newspaper shows state legislative assemblies averaged just 30 sittings a year over the past decade. Anecdotally familiar, this devaluation of legislative democracy is still shocking when framed by data. All the more so because many states where electoral politics is high-tempo manage considerably fewer sittings than the already appalling national average. Among them are Punjab, Haryana and Delhi assemblies that meet less than 20 days a year, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and mighty-important UP, less than 25. Punjab and UP are witnessing fierce poll battles and government and opposition will equally ignore assembly duties post-poll. Not that, as data shows, Lok Sabha is an exemplar of legislative seriousness its yearly average is just 63 sittings, much poorer than national chambers of democracies like US, UK, Japan, Canada and Germany.

Put simply, this is unconscionable. So few sittings of MLAs, and indeed MPs, mean legislators are not spending enough time either debating laws or debating governance issues. Note that Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had some time back highlighted how poorly drafted many of our laws are, and how they frequently lead to controversies over interpretation and a raft of litigation. Thats a direct result of legislators not doing their job on legislations. The other outcome is that the executive, whether at state levels or at the Centre, feels increasingly unconstrained by the legislature. Only 13% of bills in the current, 17th Lok Sabha have been referred to standing committees, down from 27% in the previous one, and sharply down from over 60% during the 15th Lok Sabha. It is no accident that higher courts are the institutions that act as the only effective checks on executive overreach.

Therefore, peoples Houses in the worlds largest democracy need a rule a minimum of 100 sittings a year, and a majority of MLAs or MPs from every party in a House present in those sittings. Since culpability on this is cross-party, senior leadership of all major parties should agree at least on this one thing if they are as committed to Indias democratic system as they all say they are. Many senior leaders, across parties, increasingly see governance as almost solely an exercise in executive power, and Houses as at most venues for political theatrics. If legislatures continue to remain as unimportant in governance as they are now, the decline in the quality of democracy, which is different from just winning elections, may become irreversible. Thats a truly troubling thought.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.

END OF ARTICLE

Originally posted here:
House that? Shockingly low legislature sittings cant go on. Leaders must understand the quality of democrac - The Times of India Blog

Fear is supremely contagious, wrote Primo Levi, the Italian-Jewish writer and thinker who survived the horrors of Auschwitz, and who left us prescient warnings about the monopolisation of power and the systemic dehumanisation of others. His words echo in my head when I consider the persecution of the Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities in China today.

We live in an age in which we have too much information, but little knowledge, and even less wisdom. These three concepts are completely different. In fact, an overabundance of information, and the hubris that comes with it, is an obstacle to attaining true knowledge and wisdom.

Every day we are bombarded with snippets of sombre news from all over the world. The escalating humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan where millions are facing starvation; desperate migrants and refugees drowning on Europes borders; attacks on abortion rights throughout the US; the use of rape as a military weapon amid the ethnic cleansing of Tigrayans in Ethiopia; the violent coup in Myanmar. Meanwhile, an escalating climate crisis, an impending financial crisis and a crisis of liberal democracy and pluralism are looming.

[See also: My culture will survive: the Uyghur poet Fatimah Abdulghafur Seyyah on her familys devastating persecution]

A deluge of information necessitates faster consumption. We are catapulted from one piece of news to the next, and we treat each incident as an atomised, separate event and then it simply becomes too much, too depressing, so we switch off and go back to our own lives. When so much is happening at such a large scale every single day, we think, what can I possibly do to change anything? This is how we lose the fight against authoritarianism.

Let us then return to the memoirs of those who have survived the darkest chapters in history, for they will guide us with their sagacity and fortitude. Fear, as Primo Levi rightly warned us, is supremely contagious, and autocrats recognise this all too well. But dictators and demagogues know there is one more thing just as easily transmittable, and that is numbness our indifference and detachment as global citizens. If the Chinese government today can continue with crimes against humanity in its treatment of the Uyghur minority, it is because it understands how numbness works and relies on it.

When is a human rights violation deemed grave enough to draw the attention and ire of the global public? How many more atrocities does it take for governments in the West to react to a genocide in another part of the world? How many more disappearances or cases of forced labour will it take before China crosses the Wests red line? How many more children need to be sent to orphanages, ripped from their families, made to forget their own language and identity? How many more women must be sterilised by force and sexually assaulted?

The truth is that, by now, we know whats going on in China. The Human Rights Watch report published in April last year underlined how Beijing is responsible for policies of mass detention, torture and cultural persecution. Western leaders claim to have red lines hence the United States diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics but its questionable whether they are fixed. Authoritarian rulers benefit from this vagueness, and they gain power every time demands or conditions shift.

[See also: Behind Xi Jinpings Great Wall of Iron]

While the West is grappling with its own apathy, the silence of Muslim-majority countries including some of the wealthiest regarding the persecution of Uyghurs is deafening. It is more than silence: it is a blatant trade-off. In 2019, when a group of mostly European countries signed a letter to the UN high commissioner for human rights, criticising and condemning Chinas mistreatment of its minorities, more than 30 states rushed in to sign an alternative letter. Employing alternative facts, they went as far as praising Chinas remarkable achievements on human rights. When truth is distorted and diluted, that, too, serves authoritarianism.

We must be aware of how oppression in one part of the world encourages it elsewhere. Populist demagogues and dictators are emboldened by each others presence and atrocities. Last June authorities in Belarus, in an unprecedented act of hijacking, forced a plane flying between two EU countries to make an emergency landing so that they could arrest a journalist critical of the regime. A few days later the Turkish government pushed Nato allies into softening their response to this alarming violation of human rights. Belarus openly thanked Turkey for its support.

This new internationalism of authoritarian regimes is something we all need to be deeply concerned about. While too many Americans continue to believe in the empty rhetoric of US exceptionalism and the EU struggles with its own tides of populist nativism, it is tragic to see that dictators are the ones who understand the power of international collaboration far better than their democratic counterparts.

Every time we fail to investigate a gross human rights violation, every time we turn a blind eye to atrocities because we have trade deals or financial engagements, we are closely observed not only by that particular countrys government but also by the authoritarian regimes across the world. For they know that when one of them is met with numbness it will benefit them all.

This is how democracy loses. Not only there but also here, and everywhere.

Elif Shafak is a British-Turkish novelist and activist

This article appears in our series, The Silencing, on China and the Uyghurs

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

This article appears in the 16 Feb 2022 issue of the New Statesman, The Edge of War

Original post:
The Uyghurs' plight shows the biggest threat to democracy is Western apathy - The New Statesman