Challenges to electoral integrity are growing, eroding public trust and paving the way for a climate of fear and uncertainty surrounding our democratic institutions. (Illustration/iStock)
Confronting misinformation and building voter trust: Q&A with Mindy Romero
Romero, an expert on voter behavior and political representation, offers insights into what it will take to restore trust in America’s electoral process and safeguard inclusive democracy.
Election Day is less than a week away and U.S. intelligence agencies are issuing new warnings about the threat to democracy posed by disinformation campaigns.
From allegations of voter fraud to attacks on ballot boxes and threats of violence against election officials, challenges to electoral integrity are growing. These accusations erode public trust and pave the way for a climate of fear and uncertainty surrounding our democratic institutions, USC experts say.
To understand these challenges and their implications for the health and inclusivity of our democracy, USC News spoke with Mindy Romero, the founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy and a research assistant professor at the USC Price School of Public Policy. A political sociologist by training, Romero focuses her research on the dynamics of voting and the patterns of political underrepresentation, particularly among youth and communities of color across California and the United States.
Romero shares her insights into the current state of misinformation in U.S. politics and the urgent need for strategies to restore public trust in American democracy.
How would you describe the current state of election-related misinformation in the United States?
We generally see three main types of misinformation. One involves creating doubt in election systems and their administration. This includes undermining trust in voting machines or the accuracy of ballot counting processes. The second type of misinformation often aims to benefit a particular candidate or, in some cases, simply to destabilize democratic institutions. The third type of misinformation involves generalized attempts at voter suppression. This isn’t always tied to a specific candidate or issue but instead aims to discourage certain groups from voting, while sometimes encouraging others.
There are various actors: foreign governments, domestic actors, campaigns, and political parties, or at least those who support them. There are all sorts of domestic actors who engage in disinformation that may not be immediately obvious. The real danger lies in the fact that disinformation is often targeted, and as researchers or as a society, we don’t fully understand its extent due to its insidious distribution.
What do you think are some of the biggest threats that misinformation poses to inclusive democracy?
A healthy, robust democracy requires that its citizens and residents be well-informed. Disinformation is nothing new in our democracy. Since its founding, political actors and others have always circulated information intended to influence elections and decision-making. While this is not new, it is still damaging.
Today, the speed and scale at which misinformation can spread — thanks to advancements in technology — pose unique challenges. A piece of misinformation can go viral within minutes, potentially reaching millions almost instantly. Now, as we begin to understand the impacts of generative AI, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for most Americans to tell fact from fiction.
Typically, disinformation is not spread en masse but is highly targeted, which can make it especially insidious. In the modern era, disinformation is often used to favor one candidate or party over another, or to sway opinion on specific issues or topics.
What are some of the long-term impacts on our democracy if misinformation continues unchecked?
The strength of our democracy is at risk. Disinformation has ramped up, especially with technology and AI advancing in recent years. We see this happening in 2024 more clearly than before, but we still don’t fully understand its reach, nor can we respond to it in real time at its current scale.
We already face rising levels of distrust in our elections, including how they’re run and their outcomes. There are also a lot of indicators that tell us we already have low levels of participation in our democracy — whether it’s civic, political or specifically electoral. In fact, the U.S. has some of the lowest turnout rates among established democracies, which can be jarring for Americans to hear.
We also see significant disparities in participation levels across different groups, meaning that certain demographics are underrepresented in the electoral process. This lack of diverse representation can skew policy decisions and diminish the overall effectiveness of our democracy.
What are some strategies to re-engage disillusioned voters?
One approach is to encourage individuals to recognize when information seems designed to tug at their emotions and whether it feels credible. However, this takes a lot of effort, and access to resources can vary widely across different communities. For example, some communities may have fewer fact-checking sites or less access to trusted ethnic media, making it even harder for them to engage critically with information. Disinformation campaigns often target these trusted sources, as we’ve seen with initiatives like the recent “Doppelganger” campaign carried out by Russian operatives.
The other two areas to focus on are self-regulation by social media platforms and content creators, including those using AI-generated content, as well as government regulation. There are significant issues with self-regulation.
But the bottom line is that there isn’t much happening overall. People are still largely on their own when it comes to needing to educate themselves about disinformation. I’ve worked with many election officials across the country who are trying to counter misinformation by putting out messaging about how elections are administered, why it takes time to count ballots and how safe voting machines are. However, they are often underresourced for this type of outreach because building trust isn’t typically part of their job description.
Election officials are doing their best to answer questions and be transparent, but the level of communication they feel they need to engage in has increased significantly. They are not only addressing public doubts and concerns but also facing attacks that can sometimes escalate to violence. While they are trying to educate the public, it’s an uphill battle.
