ProPublica and FirstDraft conducted a study of "Facebook posts using voting-related keywords — including the terms 'vote by mail,' 'mail-in ballots.' 'voter fraud' and 'stolen elections' — since early April [2020]." According to ProPublica, Donald Trump and conservatives have misprepresented that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud. That assertion has not been substantiated. For example, the Washington Post found states with all-mail elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington— had only 372 potential irregularities of 14.6 million votes, meaning just or 0.0025%. According to a recent study by Prof. Nicolas Berlibski and others, unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud can negatively affect public confidence in elections. The false claims can significantly undermine the faith of voters, Republican or Democratic, in the electoral process, even when the misinformation is disproved by fact-checks.  

In the study, ProPublica and FirstDraft found numerous posts on Facebook that contained misinformation about mail-in ballots. The study concluded: "Of the top 50 posts, ranked by total interactions, that mentioned voting by mail since April 1, 2020 [to July 2020] contained false or substantially misleading claims about voting, particularly about mail-in ballots." ProPublica identified the popular Facebook posts by using engagement data from CrowdTangle.

Facebook’s community standards state that no one shall post content that contains “[m]isrepresentation of the . . . methods for voting or voter registration or census participation.” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently said on his Facebook page in June 2020 that he stands against “anything that incites violence or suppresses voting,” and that the company is “running the largest voting information campaign in American history . . . to connect people with authoritative information about the elections . . . crack down on voter suppression, and fight hate speech.” Facebook reportedly removed more than 100,000 posts from Facebook and Instagram that violated the company's community standard against voter suppression from March to May 2020. As ProPublica reported, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla stated that "Facebook has removed more than 90% of false posts referred to it by VoteSure, a 2018 initiative by the state of California to educate voters and flag misinformation."

However, according to the joint project by ProPublica and First Draft, Facebook is still falling well short in the efforts to stop election misinformation. Facebook fails to take down posts from individual accounts and group pages that contain false claims about mail-in ballots and voter fraud, including some portraying "people of color as the face of voter fraud." 

Facebook is reported to be considering banning political ads in the days before the election, but that hardly touches the core of the truly rampant fraud— misinformation of the public about mail ballots. False claims are far more widespread in posts than ads, according to the ProPublica and FirstDraft study.

--written by Yucheng “Quentin” Cui

from Facebook's policy

Facebook recently reported that it removed various networks, accounts, and pages from its Facebook and Instagram platforms for violations of its foreign interference policy.

Facebook defines “foreign interference” as “coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a foreign or governmental entity.” Thus, removals resulting from a violation of the foreign interference policy are based on user behavior – not content. The removed networks originated in Canada and Ecuador, Brazil, Ukraine, and the United States.

According to Nathanial Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Security Policy, these networks involved “coordinated inauthentic behavior” (CIB). This means individuals within each network coordinated with each other through fake accounts to mislead people about who they were and what they were doing. The network removals resulted from the focus on domestic audiences and associations with commercial entities, political campaigns, and political offices.

As outlined in Facebook's report, the Canada and Ecuador network focused its activities on Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  Individual accounts and pages in this network centered on elections, taking part in local debates on both sides. Some individuals would create fake accounts, posing as locals of the countries they targeted; others posed as “independent” news platforms in the countries they targeted. This network alone had 41 accounts and 77 pages on Facebook, and another 56 Instagram accounts; 274,000 followers on one or more of the 77 Facebook pages and 78,000 followers on Instagram; spent $1.38 billion on Facebook advertising.

The Brazil network spawned 35 Facebook accounts, 14 Facebook pages, 1 Facebook group, and 38 Instagram accounts. The Brazil network’s efforts used a hoard of fake and duplicate accounts – some posing as reporters, others posting fictitious news articles, and pages alleging to be news sources. This network collected nearly 883,000 followers, 350 group followers, 917,000 followers on their Instagram accounts, and it also spent $1500 on Facebook advertising.

The Ukraine network created 72 fake Facebook accounts, 35 pages, and 13 Instagram accounts. According to Facebook, this account was most active during the 2019 parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine. Nearly 766,000 followed one or more of this network’s fake pages, and 3,800 people followed at least one of the Instagram accounts.

The United States network possessed 54 Facebook accounts, 50 pages, and 4 Instagram accounts. Individuals in this network posed as residents of Florida – posting and commenting on their own content to make it appear more popular. Several of the network’s pages had ties to a hate group banned by Facebook in 2018. According to Facebook, this network was most active between 2015-2017. This network gained 260,000 followers on at least one of its Facebook pages and nearly 61,500 followers on Instagram. The network also spent nearly $308,000 on Facebook advertising.

In the past year alone, Facebook has removed nearly two million fake accounts and dismantled 18 coordinated public manipulation networks. Authentic decision making about voting is the cornerstone of democracy. Every twenty minutes, one million links are shared, twenty million friend requests are sent, and three million messages are sent. Despite Facebook’s efforts, it’s likely we will encounter foreign interference in one way or another online. So, each of us must take steps to protect ourselves from fake accounts and foreign manipulation.

--written by Alison Hedrick

Rigged by David Shimer presents a historical account and comprehensive analysis of how American and Russian covert electoral interference has changed over the last three decades. American operations have transformed from covert operations to public aid through non-profit organizations. Russians, however, remain committed to covert strategies – using tactics like cyber-hacking, trolling, and developing “fake news” posts on popular social media platforms, as reported by Luke Harding in a book review for the Guardian. To prepare for the book, David Shimer interviewed over 130 officials, from a former KGB general to eight previous CIA directors, and scoured archives across six countries.

Shimer defines “covert electoral interference” by three elements:

1. Covert – “non-attributable,” e.g. “the hand of the actor is hidden,”
2. Electoral – “targeting a democratic vote of succession,” e.g., casting ballots for a candidate, and
3. Interference – “deploying active measures” to achieve the result.

Accordingly, in Rigged, “covert electoral interference” identifies “a concealed foreign effort to manipulate a democratic vote of succession.”

Rigged highlights American and Russian covert electoral interference operations worldwide

Shimer explains the origin of American and Russian interference in elections of third countries culminated during the Cold War. Their reasons were obvious: Americans wanted to keep the communist Russians out; Russians wanted them in. In 1947, for the first time, the CIA acted to ensure the success of pro-democratic leaders. The first operation took place in Italy, where the CIA supplied the Christian Democratic party with money, had Italian Americans write letters home, and worked closely with the Church. Three years later, the CIA conducted similar operations in Guatemala, Iran. The KGB simultaneously directed money to communist-friendly leaders in Latin America and African nations. Alternately, Russian electoral interference began in 1919, twenty-nine years before the United States’ operations, as Shimer explained to CBS.Russia first tried interfering in American elections in the 1960s and 70s, targeting Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Those attempts failed. In Rigged, Shimer highlights Russian interference in the 1960, 1968, 1976, 1984, and 2016 elections.

Rigged reveals additional details about Russian interference in 2016 US presidential election

President Obama knew there was undeniable evidence showing Russia was interfering in the 2016 election but did nothing to stop it. Whereas many believe voting tallies were not affected, some, like Harry Reid, say there is no doubt Russian interference included vote tampering.

In Rigged, Shimer argues that Putin succeeded where all other Russian leaders had failed – he has successfully divided American society and placed a Russian-friendly leader in the White House. One goal of Rigged is to dispel the myth that the 2016 election was a new phenomenon. It wasn’t. Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was a continuation of its tried and true covert operations through exploiting new technologies. Social media platforms enabled Russia to use its disruptive tactic with ease.

Shimer is certain of one thing: Russia influenced the minds of over 100 million American voters leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

Russia is targeting American minds

According to Shimer, Russia seeks to delegitimize the American presidential election by casting doubt on the fairness of the result. The goal is to undermine the American democratic system, not necessarily support one candidate over another. During the CBS interview, Shimer reminded us: “Because what Putin's after here, is chaos, is dysfunction, is corrupting democracies. Trump is a means to that end. But there are other ways of achieving it, one of which is just making Americans wonder whether their election was fair at all.”

In Rigged, Shimer argues Putin’s chief goal is to change the landscape of American politics – to elect leaders who will degrade American democracy and remove Americans’ faith in the electoral process – something we need to resist.

-written by Allison Hedrick

The United States is experiencing another wave in coronavirus infections, with twenty-one states seeing an increase in their daily infection rates. With alarm bells ringing, many have expressed logistical concerns about the upcoming presidential election. There are two main concerns about Election Day 2020, which is November 3, 2020:

1. Postponement or cancellation of the election; and
2. Mitigation of the increasing coronavirus infection rate at polling locations.

Canceling or postponing Election Day 2020 is highly unlikely.

The president does not have the legal authority to cancel the November 3rd election. First, federal statute specifes "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" shall be federal Election Day. Moreover, the states are the ones who conduct the operations of elections in each state. And only states have the power to change their election laws, according to Jason Harrow, executive director and chief counsel of Equal Citizens.

Rest assured, overstaying one’s welcome at the White House is not possible. The Constitution prevents presidents from remaining in office past their elected term. Under the 20th Amendment, the president’s term automatically ends on January 20th at noon after a four-year term.  If a candidate hasn’t been elected by then, Congress decided long ago the Speaker of the House will become acting president. 

Congress can’t cancel the election either. But Congress can postpone the election by passing a new federal law. Under Article II, § 1 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to determine the date the election takes place. Thus, Congress could pass a bill before November – but it’s unlikely. As Jerry Goldfeder explains, American presidents and legislators have never canceled or postponed any of the fifty-eight previous presidential elections – not for wars, not for terrorist attacks, and not for the Spanish flu. There is little doubt the presidential election will take place. Nonetheless, the logistics are unclear.

How can Americans stay safe and exercise their constitutional right to vote?

It’s reasonable to say Election Day this year will not be postponed or canceled. So, what other options do Americans have? Currently, four ideas are being pushed forward:

1. Expanding the number of polling places;
2. Encouraging early voting;
3. Developing a time span (e.g., two weeks) within which people can vote; and
4. Expanding voting-by-mail and absentee voting.

After conducting the research, voting-by-mail is the most tenable path forward to mitigate risks of exposure to the coronavirus.

Reports by the Brennan Center for Justice and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights show polling place expansion is unlikely. Since 2012, states around the country have closed nearly two thousand polling places. The pandemic has fanned the flames of this trend. For this to work, states need to open more locations where voters can cast their votes and train a horde of new polling volunteers before November – both of which are not likely.

Early voting would help with social distancing measures by reducing crowd sizes. But some states, like Utah, have canceled their early voting options. As more Americans contract the coronavirus, it is unclear whether this is will be an option for voters in November. Legislators have not yet jumped on the “time-frame” option for in-person voting. The fourth option, voting-by-mail, is the most controversial.

Fact Check: Cases of Voter Fraud in the Voting-by-Mail Context Is Rare.

Twitter sparked controversy when it added a “fact check” label to President Trump’s tweet about California’s expansion of voting-by-mail procedures for the presidential election. In the tweet, President Trump claimed voting-by-mail expansions would lead to “rigged elections.” But Trump himself voted by mail in 2018, and, in the past, Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Kayleigh McEnany, Bill Barr, Besty DeVos, Larry Kudlow, Wilbur Ross, Kellyanne Conway, and Alex Azar [source]. 

But should Americans be concerned about voter fraud in the context of voting-by-mail?

According to surveys and polls, 72-78% of American voters want the option to vote-by-mail in the upcoming presidential election. At this time, 33 states allow voting-by-mail without an excuse. 5 states conduct all elections by mail.  In response to the pandemic, many states have changed their voting procedures – forty-six states, both Democratic and Republican controlled, now allow voting-by-mail in some form.

According to MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab, voting-by-mail began during the Civil War, where soldiers on both sides cast their ballots from the battlefield. Since then, instances of voter fraud have been rare. Two most infamous cases occurred in Florida (acts of false witnessing) and Georgia (selling votes). More recently, a Republican campaign representative in Maryland got caught collecting blank ballots and filling the ballots out in favor of a former congressional candidate, Mike Harris.

Experts reject the recent hype about voter fraud in the voting-by-mail context. Over the past two decades, 250,000 votes were submitted via mail-in ballots. Based on the Heritage Foundation’s database on voter fraud, only 1,285 instances of voter fraud were found, yielding 1,110 criminal convictions. From the 1,110 convictions, only 204 cases concerned alleged fraudulent use of absentee ballots. You can find a detailed record of every voter fraud case here. This means over twenty years, there have been about ten cases of voter fraud per year.

The risk of voter fraud in this context is only a fraction of a percent, 0.0816%. Context: You are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime, with a 0.033% chance, than to witness “widespread” voter fraud taking place during the 2020 presidential election. Perspective: The chances of dying from coronavirus in the United States is 4.795%.  Of course, with any voting procedure, safeguards need to be implemented. Professor Ned Foley, an election law expert, has identified a need for states to clarify their procedures should a candidate contest the results of mail-in ballots, in a much discussed article "Why Vote-by-Mail Could be a Legal Nightmare in November." Foley recommends: "But states — especially battlegrounds in the presidential election — should clarify as soon as possible the rules that their own courts are supposed to use in litigation that might arise over counting absentee ballots. It is not enough that state law has rules for casting ballots. There needs to be clarity on whether ballots can still count if something has gone wrong in the process of casting of them, especially if the problem is not the voter’s fault."

Standing in long lines, for countless hours, is not a reasonable option this election season because it will certainly increase the spread of the deadly virus. Foley warns: "There’s no question that, for public health reasons, expanding vote-by-mail is a wise decision for states to be making right now."

It’s clear:  Voting-by-mail is not perfect or full-proof. There are rare instances that justify some degree of concern. However, states should allow voting-by-mail due to the higher risk of contracting the coronavirus.​

-written by Allison Hedrick