Voting and elections

Two new research papers by scientists from MIT and other institutions find that AI chatbots are successful at shifting the political beliefs of voters, and that the “most persuasive chatbots are those that share lots of facts, although the most information-dense bots also dole out the most inaccurate claims,” reports Sarah Kuta for Smithsonian Magazine. “If you need a million facts, you eventually are going to run out of good ones and so, to fill your fact quota, you’re going to have to put in some not-so-good ones,” says Visiting Prof. David Rand. 

A new study by MIT researchers has found that “AI chatbots were surprisingly effective at convincing people to vote for a particular candidate or change their support for a particular issue,” reports Alex Wilkins for New Scientist. “Even for attitudes about presidential candidates, which are thought to be these very hard-to-move and solidified attitudes, the conversations with these models can have much bigger effects than you would expect based on previous work,” says Visiting Prof. David Rand. 

Researchers at MIT and elsewhere “examined how popular chatbots could change voters’ minds about candidates in the United States, Canada and Poland,” reports Will Oremus for The Washington Post. 

Researchers at MIT have studied how chatbots perceived the political environment leading up to the 2024 election and its impact on automatically generated election-related responses, reports Patrick Kulp for Tech Brew. The researchers “fed a dozen leading LLMs 12,000 election-related questions on a nearly daily basis, collecting more than 16 million total responses through the contest in November,” explains Kulp.  

Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with USA Today reporter Chris Brennan about misinformation surrounding the integrity of the election process in the U.S. "What we're seeing now are groups that are arising specifically to keep the controversy going and to make money on it and to try to expand the view," says Stewart. 

Prof. Ariel White speaks with NPR reporter Elena Moore about how voting laws for formerly incarcerated individuals vary from state to state. “The right to vote is going to vary quite a bit across different states in the U.S.,” says White. “It can be really challenging for people to get accurate information about what the law is and how it might be applied to them.”

Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with McClatchy reporter Brendan Rascius about mail-in ballots for the 2024 election. “The USPS processes a total of 300 million pieces of mail each day,” says Stewart. “The total number of mail ballots will be something in the neighborhood of 50 million which, of course, will generate a total of 100 million pieces of mail – a volume that will be stretched out over several weeks. Therefore, this is not a major surge in volume.” 

Prof. Adam Berinsky speaks with Boston Globe reporter Aidan Ryan about misinformation in the age of generative AI. “I don’t think that AI is necessarily going to make misinformation better, in the sense of making it more persuasive,” says Berinsky.“But it’s easier to create misinformation.”

Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with The Guardian reporter Rachel Leingang and Votebeat reporter Jen Fifield about restoring faith in the U.S. election process. Of hand-counting ballots, Stewart explains: “I don’t see any evidence that something like this [hand-counting votes] would be the silver bullet that would restore confidence among the mass public.”

Prof. Charles Stewart III and Ben Adida PhD ’06 speak with Fast Company reporter Spenser Mestel about how to restore the public’s faith in voting technology. Adida discusses his work launching VotingWorks, a non-profit focused on building voting machines. VotingWorks is “unique among the legacy voting technology vendors," writes Mestel. “The group has disclosed everything, from its donors to the prices of its machines.”

Prof. Adam Berinsky speaks with MSNBC’s Morning Joe about the impact of misinformation on democracy and the upcoming 2024 election. “The larger issue is that there is this climate of distrust,” says Berinsky. 

Prof. Emeritus Frank Levy and Louisiana State Prof. Scott Abrahams have published a working paper titled “The Revival of U.S. Populism: How 39 Years of Manufacturing Losses and Educational Gains Reshaped the Electoral Map,” reports Thomas B. Edsall for The New York Times. The paper makes “the case that polarization and institutional gridlock have roots dating back more than four decades,” explains Edsall.

In an article for The Hill, Prof. Arnold Barnett and Arnaud Sarfati MBA ‘21 examine whether Americans can trust the polling system in the U.S. “To put it simply, believe the polls, and pay particular attention to the local polls in toss-up states,” they write. “Pollsters that were broadly successful in the last presidential election are unlikely to fail colossally in the next one.”

Writing for The Hill, Prof. Emeritus Henry Jacoby and his colleagues explore how younger GOP voters seem to increasingly favor lawmakers taking action on climate change. “For the sake of the planet, we can only hope that younger Republicans speak out forcefully and that their elders start listening,” they writes, “and, most importantly, that dissatisfaction with the party’s failure to address climate change is expressed in the voting booth.”

Politico reporter Joanne Kenen spotlights Prof. Adam Berinsky’s new book, “Political Rumors: Why We Accept Misinformation and How to Fight it.” The book “examines attitudes toward both politics and health, both of which are undermined by distrust and misinformation in ways that cause harm to both individuals and society.”