Age of Digital Dissonance

The Misinformed Voter

By Kristoffer J Martin

The 2016 US elections proved divisive, both in the practical issues common to both presidential and congressional elections. The methods through which the populace learned of the candidates played a huge role in their understanding of current political. In part, these methods relied on digital media. Many factors go into the political process, and the impacts of digital technologies on politics is relatively unexplored. Several issues concerning voting rights, policies, and misinformation were just as influential on US politics as digital media.

There are three categories of digital medium that directly concern politics and elections; 1) social media, such as; Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, etc. 2) News media, including both valid and fake news sources. Lastly, 3) Alt-news sources, such as; Wikileaks, AnonNews, Factcheck.org, Poltifact.com, etc. All three types of media were used in addressing audience in the 2016 election. This shift to digital media proved more valuable in swaying the voter than formal sources of news and propaganda. Social media played a major role in the efforts of all political parties, and ostensibly relied upon confirmation bias, along with limited media scope, in creating narrow perception of individual candidates and social issues.

In their study The Spreading of Misinformation Online Michela Del Vicarioa, and Alessandro Bessib, (et al)¹ discussed the impact of misinformation and fake news sources in social media. In their foreword of their study they state “The wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. However, the World Wide Web (WWW) also allows for the rapid dissemination of unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories that often elicit rapid, large, but naive social responses...” User provided content is a key aspect to social media, conflating opinion with fact and ultimately obfuscating the truth.

Obfuscation of facts with opinion is only a small part of the puzzle revolving around digital media. In the case of Facebook, tailored news sources designed to target a user based on their digital footprint is often the cause for gaps in factual information. Facebook was the number one source for election news in 2016, especially among millennials. Tailored news and advertising sources targeted at specific demographics laid the path for misinformation and the dissemination of false news sites. Click-bait news sources used vague or false news headlines to spur a specific political agenda, especially regarding Hillary Clinton with her leaked email scandal, or against President Obama extending specific racist talking points, all the while gaining profits through ad-revenue. It is no wonder the authors of The Spreading of Misinformation Online concluded; “Digital misinformation has become so pervasive in online social media that it has been listed by the [World Economic Forum] as one of the main threats to human society. Whether a news item, either substantiated or not, is accepted as true by a user may be strongly affected by social norms or by how much it coheres with the user’s system of beliefs...” However, social media, such as Twitter, often worked in opposition to the spread of misinformation. By and large, Twitter, being a spur of the moment form of interaction, allowed for immediate refutation of false claims by politicians. This is especially true of the President-Elect Donald Trump’s tweets. On numerous occasions Trump tweeted false claims, often to be met with rebuke. Twitter also served as a highlight reel for some of Trump’s more outlandish statements and exposed his lack of knowledge and political experience.

Beyond the scope of social media, other digital sources played a major role in this election cycle. Classic media sources (commonly called Mainstream Media), such as CNN, MSNBC, top network news channels, Fox News, and newspapers also reported on scandal rather than present facts. The spin of the mainstream media is just as suspect as fake-news sources found throughout social media. This is in part due to their need to reach an audience that’s moved away from formerly reliable sources, such as; cable and network television, printed news and their respected web presence. The very nature of SEO targeting and ad population as a revenue source drove the propagation of false, misleading, or vague news reports. The ability for mainstream media to deliver content works on the same principles as fake-news found throughout social media. Classic news sources, to compete with online news media, are forced to rely on sensationalized reporting. In many ways, this reflects the advent of click-bait news sources.

Bearing this in mind, alt-news sources can potentially fill in the reality-check for both mainstream media and fake-news sources shared via social media. Unfortunately, alt-news sources are plagued with the same issue the previous two media types contended with during this election cycle, leaving the audience to discern what is real and what was fake. “Many mechanisms cause false information to gain acceptance, which in turn generate false beliefs that, once adopted by an individual, are highly resistant to correction... findings show that users mostly tend to select and share content related to a specific narrative and to ignore the rest... Most of the times the information is taken by a friend having the same profile (polarization)––i.e., belonging to the same echo chamber.”(Del Vicarioa, et al). Despite there being news sources which, in the case of Politifact and Factcheck.org, which act to fact check and correct false information, these sources still rely upon the audience to utilize them. If a person on social media retain their confirmation bias , and to an extent rely upon false consensus bias, and the news they’re reading affirms their beliefs, they tend not to seek out fact checking sources. When presented with such sources debunking the media that affirm their beliefs, they are quick to attack the fact checking source.

In his 2010 article How Facts Backfire² Joe Keohane discussed the political research done by University of Michigan political scientist Brendan Nyhan. From 2005-’06, Nyhan conducted a study where participants with partisan political views were given fact corrected news stories. The study found, despite being corrected, the news articles rarely ever changed the participant’s mind. “In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an under-powered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger”(Keohane). Nyhan suggested it is threatening to admit you’re wrong. When facts contradict strongly held beliefs, the presented facts tend to backfire as a natural defense against cognitive dissonance (Nyhan). The nature of confirmation bias is a tool politicians have used throughout history. It is why propaganda and political attack ads work. Regardless of the means through which the misinformation is presented, be it social media like Facebook, or through mainstream media, misinformation will sway the unassuming or already partisan voter.

The 2016 election cycle did open the door to a different type of digital tool, digital espionage. Alt-news sources, such as; Wikileaks and Anonews, propagated leaked and hacked information from unverified sources. Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails played a huge role in the disillusionment of liberal leaning voters, the results of which were some of the lowest voter turn out in US history. If any technological advancement is a real threat to the election process, it would be digital espionage.

Hillary’s email leak actually represent two sides of the same coin when it comes to digital espionage. There is a surprising positive result stemming from her emails being leaked, that is the revelation of the Democratic National Committee’s collusion with Hillary’s political camp to undermine Bernie Sanders. It illuminated underhanded tactics systemic of the DNC. In doing so, the leaks will prosper greater scrutiny over election processes in both the DNC and GOP. However, the negative side-effect of such leaks drove a dissent among voters, many of whom felt betrayed by a system in which they put their faith. Nonetheless hacking and leaking of information is just another tool in politics and it is nothing new. There are plenty of historical examples of leaked information curving the popular opinion of politicians. Some examples include; the Pentagon Papers (1971), Watergate (1972), the Iran-Contra Affair (1986), the Valarie Plame Affair (2003), Abu Ghraib (2004), Warrantless Wiretaps (2005), and the Afghanistan War Diaries (2010). Digital espionage may prove to be both an invaluable source in exposing the wrong doings committed by our government, and a detrimental force in our politics. This is especially true as more and more technology becomes involved in our politics. But for now, the impact of digital espionage and the digitalscape on the most recent election cycle is questionable at best.

In examining the digitalscape and its potential impacts on our election process and politics, it seems clear the effects of digital media and resources are not the bane of politics. They are, like other resources, a tool which can be manipulated to take advantage of an audience, just as other media sources, historically, were manipulated to the same effect. If digital media, social media, and digital espionage aren’t the express cause behind our election failings and political strife, that begs the question of what is to be blamed?

US politics is plagued by a dichotomy setup between progressive and regressive ideology. It is important to recognize this dichotomy when examining the social motivations of political parties that inhabit either ideology. Vague as this notion may seem, it derives from two very different political demographics that exist in the US population. If the demographics are examined as to who voted for which party, Democratic vs Republican, there is a disparity between the majority of voters who vote for liberal political platforms and voters who vote for conservative political platforms. Minority groups, such as; women, the LGBTQ, African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Christians tend to vote for liberal platforms and therein progressive politicians, while men, and especially Caucasian men, tend to vote conservative. This dichotomy drives policy changes which directly impact who can vote and when. Leading up to the 2016 election-cycle many regressive laws were passed with the specific purpose of curtailing minority voters. Voter ID laws, restrictions on early voting, reduction in poll locations, restrictions in polling times, unlawful purging of voting rolls; all of these efforts were instituted by conservative run state governments with the express intent in reducing voter turnout.

The state of Wisconsin (author note: my home state) instituted some of the strictest Voter ID-laws. In the past, student IDs issued by the University of Wisconsin were acceptable IDs for voting. It so happens one of the largest liberal voting demographics in Wisconsin are university students. In an effort to curtail their voter turnout, the conservative majority in the state assembly, at the direction of Gov. Scott Walker, changed the ID requirements and changed the process in obtaining state issued IDs that met those requirements. While the ID law was challenged in court, ultimately it remained instituted. The University of Wisconsin reacted by changing their IDs to meet the standards, and in reaction, the governor's office issued a new edict with further restrictions. The new process of obtaining a state ID, which made it so all state IDs have to be processed in one location and mailed out with a turn around time of up to one month, meant many people seeking a state ID for the sole purpose of voting could not obtain the necessary IDs in time to vote. Furthermore, the necessary identification papers were changed for obtaining a state ID, such that many people were deterred from voting because they no longer had the necessary paperwork to obtain the required ID.
The case of Christine Krucki, a lifelong voter, went viral this year (2016). Born in 1925, she’s voted in nearly every election since she was first able to in 1948. At 90 years old she moved to Wisconsin with no functional IDs. She’d let her Illinois driver’s license expire, as she didn’t drive anymore. Despite having the expired license, a bank statement, and insurance statement proving her identity and residency, the Wisconsin DMV would not issue her an ID. This happened in 2013 after the first new ID laws went into affect. Despite an ACLU backed lawsuit, retrieval of her birth certificate, marriage license, and attempts to amend documents to reflect marital name changes, the Wisconsin DMV still refused to issue her an ID. 2016 was the first election in her lifetime where she didn’t vote.³

Krucki isn’t an anomaly either, The Nation published an article in September of this year (2016) titled Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in November detailing the illegal refusal by the Wisconsin DMV to provide IDs to two African-American voters, Zack Moore and Claudell Boyd.⁴ Patrick Marley, a journalist at the Milwaukee Sentinel, reported in his October 3^rd article DMV workers at 7 more stations give wrong voter ID info⁵, that several DMV employees deliberately mislead and misinformed voters seeking an ID as to how and what was needed to obtain state IDs. It should come as no surprise that “Democrats on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules proposed holding an emergency legislative session to eliminate the voter-ID law before the election, but Republicans blocked it on a party-line vote” (Berman, footnote 3). Obstruction by regressive politicians with the aim of retaining their political power played a major role in the 2016 election-cycle outcome.

If it appears voting is being made impossible, to understand why, requires a close examination of causal forces behind why people don’t vote. In some cases it is simply they can’t, because of laws and policies preventing them from voting. In other cases it’s because of misinformation, or a sense of being disenfranchised by politicians with a specific agenda; all of which deter voters from participating. The digitalscape, through which many people obtain information, only serves as another media tool. Like all media outlets there are limitations, benefits, and hindrances that come with digital media sources. In this respect, digital media is not to blame for the issues surrounding elections. It is not making voting impossible. What is making voting harder, and what is making politics harder, are the direct efforts by politicians to hinder voters and directly effect voter turnout through oppressive regulations.

In spite of the malign fake-news and click-bait stories designed to garner attention and ad-revenue, many sources remained faithful to the facts. It is through the continued reliance on existing political ploys, designed to take advantage of preconceived notions and confirmation bias held by the voting populace, that influenced voter mentality. The unwillingness to fact-check and substantiate claims remains the same, despite the readily available sources that fact-check politicians and news. In effect, it is not the plethora of news sources available on the internet inflating dishonest news stories that is the problem. Rather it is the long standing attitude of voters to side with politicians who affirm their preconceived beliefs that enabled voter suppression seen during this the 2016 election process.

It is true this year saw the advent of digital espionage, which continues to be an outlier in the digitalscape, in both its scope and ability to affect elections. The potential danger of digital espionage remains to be realized as it has only served as a backdrop to existing historical precedence in regards to leaked material. Even so, the impact of the leaked material seems minimal in comparison to gerrymandering and rigging of elections through new policies and laws designed with the express purpose of deterring minority groups from participating in politics. The arguments that Russia influenced the election, aiding Donald Trump to a win, is a palpable option for voters who are unwilling to blame themselves for the Democrat’s loss. Yet, this narrative is not without some merit, and is hardly solely the result of digital media propagated through social outlets like Facebook and Twitter.

In part, a solution to the current difficulties centered on our election processes, both at the state level and Federal, and in both Congressional elections and Presidential elections, involve the enabling of voting for all eligible voters. Solutions need to be reflected in laws and policies that directly affect voter access to polls. The removal or reformation of ID laws, changing the electoral college to reflect population density rather than state size, increased poll locations, longer early voting periods, and better voting registration, are all needed changes that would guarantee fair representation.

The biggest hurdle in our election process is the participation of well informed voters, who are capable of making the crucial decisions regarding our governance and leadership. Fake news and social media may cloud the pool of information, but it is a benign water-strider floating on the surface of already poisoned murky waters comprised of political propaganda. When our laws are not based on facts, but preconceived notions, emotional responses, and the political agenda of a given party, they cease to serve the people. When people vote for politicians who support unconstitutional laws, that is what makes politics impossible.

[Meta-text: I decided to focus on the US election in response to the prompt because it embodies the nature of digital technologies and how we interact today. It exemplifies the nature of the issue questioned, even if the subject is narrow. The same forces that drive backlash and confirmation bias in other areas of governance drove the divide in the 2016 US elections. Furthermore, the general issues I discussed are transcendental when it comes to politics, regardless of the country or tier of government. What we learned from the US elections is any person or party with an agenda can use media to obscure the truth and twist facts, and they can do so with ever increasing certainty their message will be heard when they use the internet. Yet, when it comes to governance and politics, it isn’t disinformation at fault for the difficulties faced, but rather issues revolving around how people learn, understand, and accept given beliefs. If the populace were to simply ask questions and maintain skepticism of the claims made by politicians, misinformation (however reported or disseminated) would lose the power to sway people.]

1 http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full.pdf The spreading of misinformation online

Michela Del Vicarioa, Alessandro Bessib, Fabiana Zolloa, Fabio Petronic, Antonio Scalaa,d, Guido Caldarellia,d,

H. Eugene Stanleye, and Walter Quattrociocchia,

2 Keohane, Joe How Facts Backfire 2010 Boston Globe http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

3 Berman, Ari A 90-Year-Old Woman Who’s Voted Since 1948 Was Disenfranchised by Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law October 5, 2016 The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/a-90-year-old-woman-whos-voted-since-1948-was-disenfranchised-by-wisconsins-voter-id-law/

4 Berman, Ari Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in November September 29, 2016 The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/

5 Marley, Patrick DMV workers at 7 more stations give wrong voter ID info October 3, 2016, Milwaukee Sentinel