In Plutocracy We Trust
(Part One)

What does it mean to hold a free and fair election – that essential, regular feature of democratic political systems – today?

It’s a question that all democratic states now need to answer, and to revisit regularly, in light of the current realities of rapid technological and other transformations taking place at scale. It’s also a question worth raising specifically in the context of the 2024 US Presidential election.

Answering this question is not a task that long-established democratic states are especially used to doing – at least not in relation to themselves. At the international level, the first documented acknowledgement of the importance of free and fair elections was made by the UN in 1957, following Togoland’s independence referendum.1 Since then, election observations by international bodies such as the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union (EU), the Commonwealth and the Organisation of American States (OAS), have proliferated in countries transitioning to democracy. In 1983, US Congress created the National Endowment for Democracy, a government-funded, non-profit organisation for the growth and strengthening of democracy worldwide. The same year, two NGOs were also established: the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute2, both of which made election observation abroad a core part of their work.3 Between 1989 and 1992, large foreign aid donors including the US, UK and France declared that their funding decisions would bring together two ideas: good governance and economic liberalisation.4 ‘Good governance’ included democracy promotion – and by extension, the strengthening of conditions for free and fair elections.5

It was only a decade later that international election observation in established democracies began. The OSCE took a particularly active role, observing, for the first time, the US and French presidential elections in 2002;6 the elections of the UK’s devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in 2003;7 Canada’s and Italy’s parliamentary elections in 2006;8 and Germany’s and Norway’s parliamentary elections in 2009.9 Since then, the OSCE has regularly conducted election observations across its 57 participating states in Europe, Central Asia and North America.10 Both the OSCE and OAS observed the 2024 US Presidential election. But more on these later.

What is a free and fair election?

The principles are expressed succinctly in the following quote:

“Freedom relates to the freedom of a voter to make a choice on a ballot without any undue pressure from any source. The fairness relates to conditions under which the candidates, political parties are able to compete in an electoral campaign.” 11

Thus, to be considered a free election, there must be an absence of undue pressure, undue influence12 or coercion:

“Freedom entails the right and the opportunity to choose one thing over another. Coercion implies the absence of choice, either formally or in reality: either all options but one are disallowed, or certain choices would have negative consequences for one’s own or one’s family’s safety, welfare or dignity….

“…the ‘freedom’ dimension should include elements relating to voters’ opportunity to participate in the election without coercion or restrictions of any kind (with the possible exception of economic limitations). Thus ‘freedom’ primarily deals with the ‘rules of the game’….”

In a similar vein:

“Those entitled to vote must also be able to decide freely. To this end, voting must be secret, and no undue pressure must be exerted on the electorate in the run-up to or during the election.”13

The fairness of an election refers to its:

“impartiality. The opposite of fairness is unequal treatment of equals, whereby some people (or groups) are given unreasonable advantages. Thus fairness involves both regularity (the unbiased application of rules) and reasonableness (the not-too-unequal distribution of relevant resources among competitors.”14

In 2021, as part of his larger work entitled Free and Fair Elections? Standards, Curiosities, Manipulations (Dietz press), Prof. Dr. Michael Krennerich, of the University of Erlangen-Nurnberg (Germany), produced his own list of ‘free’ and ‘fair’ criteria, for before, during and after election day. This schema can be accessed here https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/18215.pdf at p22 and is well worth consulting.

Was the 2024 US Presidential Election Free?

Did the 2024 US Presidential Election contain elements of undue influence, undue pressure and/or coercion? Consider the following:

The AmericaPAC ‘Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms’, only accessible via US servers (https://petition.theamericapac.org/)

Facts

From 7 October 2024, the America Political Action Committee (AmericaPAC) offered a cash reward for each referral of a registered swing state voter that resulted in that voter signing a ‘petition’ in support of the first and second amendments to the US Constitution.15 The ‘swing states’ were identified as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.16 Between 19 October 2024 and 5 November 2024, registered swing state voters were openly invited to sign the ‘petition’ in exchange for the chance to win $1 million each day. At the giveaway announcement, it was specified the prize would be awarded ‘randomly’.17

Signatories of the ‘petition’ had to provide their first name, last name, email address, cell phone number and mailing address.18 Optionally, they could identify by email or cell phone number the person who referred them. From the AmericaPAC general website, those wishing to refer registered voters were taken to the same ‘petition’ website as signatories, with the same required data fields.19 At no stage was it revealed when, why or how the ‘petition’ would be used – ie what concrete actions were the signatories petitioning for, to whom or in what circumstances or on what occasion the ‘petition’ would be presented. Nor was it explained why, if the contents of the ‘petition’ were so important – so fundamental to America (or at least to AmericaPAC) – eligibility for both referrals and signatures was limited to registered swing state voters only.

The ‘petition’ indicated the goal was to get 1 million registered swing state voters to sign.20 On 30 October, AmericaPAC claimed to have sent out more than 87,000 cheques to those who referred registered swing state voters, with another 100,000 to be posted the following day.21 To the best of our knowledge, no information about the final numbers of ‘petition’ signatories or referrals has been released publicly. The 2024 US Presidential election results revealed the total number of Republican votes in excess of Democrat votes across the seven swing states amounted to 763,235.22

On 4 November 2024, a lawyer for AmericaPAC clarified that the $1 million prizewinners were not “chosen by chance”, but on account of their personal histories.23 The prizewinners also signed a contract with AmericaPAC.24

Background

The Trump campaign-linked Cambridge Analytica scandal during the 2016 US Presidential election revealed publicly the possibilities and realities of digital, individual, psychological microtargeting for political gain, relying on social media data, amongst other sources.25 If, in the digital sphere, it is best to “think of your personal data as nude selfies”,26 then the political opportunity arising from the data collected by the AmericaPAC ‘petition’ is apparent. All the more so, when AmericaPAC’s top funder, by a large margin, is the owner of X/Twitter27; is regularly cited as the world’s richest person;28 and limits on political campaign-related spending by individuals and corporations have been virtually abolished in light of the US Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission(2010)29 and McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014)30. These cases have led to ever-increasing levels of campaign fundraising and spending by both the Republican and Democratic parties.31 However, in the 2024 US Presidential election campaign, only one of these parties had the public support of a social media platform owner with both direct access to the data provided by more than 106 million Americans,32 and ultimate control over the workings and content of the platform itself.

Academic studies support this concern regarding the impact of political microtargeting. As noted by Krennerich in 2021:

“Personalised election advertising, which with the Internet has gained significantly in importance, must also be regulated. Thanks to sophisticated methods of data collection, personality profiles of eligible voters are now often created, which are then used without their consent for individually tailored voting information and election advertising, and influence or even manipulate their voting decisions.” 33

Some studies have found that individuals are more strongly persuaded by political advertising “that match[es] their own personality traits”.34 In other words, “individuals’ levels of perceived manipulative intent were low when ads were targeted successfully in terms of fit”.35 As a consequence:

“Individuals’ critical evaluation of targeted political advertising (TPA) might be limited, especially when fit is perceived as high, which manifests in fewer reflections about the appropriateness of an ad or advertising strategy (ie perceived manipulative intent) and a stronger prevalence of perceived benefits for democracy related to TPA. Losing out on critical evaluation of advertising appeals could also imply that individuals cannot activate their defense mechanisms or coping strategies… Hence, individuals might be unable to equip themselves against manipulative attemptsof invasive advertising strategies, like targeting. Therefore, regulations and regular evaluations of TPA gain importance…individuals might potentially underestimate the negative societal consequences of TPA when they are successfully targeted by ads that fit their party preferences and issue interests.” 36

This suggests that political microtargeting relying on psychological or personality-based traits may circumvent the target’s rational thinking altogether – a phenomenon already identified within the wider digital “attention economy”.37 In the latter context, Tristan Harris has described this bypass of critical engagement in favour of psychological triggers as “the race to the bottom of the brain stem”.38 Earlier this year, researchers raised the alarm concerning personality trait-based political microtargeting in conjunction with the use of generative AI tools, making possible “a highly scalable ‘manipulation machine’ that targets individuals based on their unique vulnerabilities without requiring human input.”39

Conclusion

Putting all this together, it would appear that a fundamental human right – namely, freedom of thought – is well on its way to being transformed into freedom from thought in the US, in the absence of further intervention from law and/or policy. There are very real and compelling reasons to doubt that the 2024 US Presidential Election was free, given the means, motive and opportunities for undue influence, undue pressure and/or coercion concentrated in the hands of so few. While the election result is still fresh, many more searching questions need to be asked – and quickly. Not just those immediate questions with presently unknown answers, but also wider questions, which may bring public scrutiny closer to the ‘unknown unknowns’. Even more crucially, all of these questions need to be answered thoroughly, in public, by those with direct knowledge, involvement and understanding of the relevant events. Safeguarding American democracy today, and for the future, depends on it.

Once the outcome of the 2024 US Presidential Election was known, the owner of X posted on his own platform a photo of himself with the president elect, under the heading ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ (‘New Order of the Ages’, in Latin).40 This phrase appears at the bottom of the pyramid on the back of the Great Seal of the United States, which itself appears on the back of the American one dollar bill.41 Based on the discussion here, and inspired by a different motto also appearing on the American one dollar bill, a more fitting response to the 2024 US Presidential Election might have been: In Plutocracy We Trust. Except the ‘trust’ is more like blind faith/unquestioning loyalty to opaque, unaccountable decision-making; and the ‘we’ is no longer the American people, but simply the sum total of human capital units from which value or gain is extracted.

The main plutocrats remain the tech bros, however. And just like giant chunks of the economy until now, American democracy has been automated.

Possibly. Probably.

If democracies die in the dark – and politicians are blindfolded and/or unwilling to turn the lights on – then how is the rest of the population ever to know for sure?42

1United Nations General Assembly, ‘The Future of Togoland under French Administration’ (24 September 1957) https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n57/263/51/pdf/n5726351.pdf , p5.
2‘About NDI’, https://www.ndi.org/about-ndi and ‘About IRI’, https://www.iri.org/about-iri .
3The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, ‘International Election Observation: Origins and Evolution of International Observation – Collapse of Communism and New Oppportunities’ https://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/international-election-observation/iii.-origins-and-evolution-of-international#_ednref19 , para 4.
4The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, ‘International Election Observation: Origins and Evolution of International Observation – Collapse of Communism and New Oppportunities’ https://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/international-election-observation/iii.-origins-and-evolution-of-international#_ednref19 , para 2.
5It should be noted that the notion of ‘good governance’ is not without controversy. Its meaning, measurement, formulation and implementation have long been debated and criticised, without much by way of conclusion. Nevertheless, what is relevant here is  that a pro-democracy strand is apparent in various ‘good governance’ approaches: see, for instance, the description of ‘good governance’ as ‘broadly equat[ing] to more democratic political systems and Weberian bureaucracies, but with the emphasis less on formal organisational structures than on how they actually work’: S. Unsworth, ‘Focusing Aid on Good Governance: Can Foreign Aid Instruments be Used to Enhance ‘Good Governance’ in Recipient Countries?’ GEG Working Paper No. 2005/18, University of Oxford https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/196281/1/GEG-WP-018.pdf , p3. The ways in which ‘good governance’ has been tied to liberal economics, even at the expense of liberal politics, is explored in R. Jenkins, ‘Mistaking ‘Governance’ for ‘Politics’: Foreign Aid, Democracy and the Construction of Civil Society’. In S. Kaviraj and S. Khilnani (eds), Civil Society: History and Possibilities (2001)(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 250-268, 262.
6OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), ‘General Elections, 5 November 2002’ [United States] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/usa/115639 and OSCE ODIHR, ‘Presidential Election, 21 April and 5 May 2002’ [France] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/france/115597 .
7OSCE ODIHR, ‘Devolved-Administration Elections, 1 May 2003’ [United Kingdom] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/uk/115661. The OSCE observed at the UK-wide general election in 2005: OSCE ODIHR, ‘General Election, 5 May 2005’ [United Kingdom] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/uk/115662 .
8OSCE ODIHR, ‘Parliamentary Elections, 23 January 2006’ [Canada] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/57884 and OSCE ODIHR, ‘Parliamentary Elections, 9-10 April 2006’ [Italy] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/57888 .
9OSCE ODIHR, ‘Parliamentary Elections, 27 September 2009’ [Germany] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/germany/eoms/parliamentary_2009 and OSCE ODIHR, ‘Parliamentary Elections, 14 September 2009’ [Norway] https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/57884 .
10As the OSCE performs election observation in relation to the EU member states, EU election observation missions (EOMs) have take place outside the European area. Since 2000, the EU has conducted more than 180 EOMs in 65+ countries: European Union External Action, ‘EU Election Observation Missions’ (2023)https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-election-observation-missions-1_en.
11Hrair Balian, then OSCE ODIHR chief, quoted in S. Martin, ‘OSCE: What are ‘Free and Fair Elections’?’ (2 February 2000) Radio Free Europe/Radio Libertyhttps://www.rferl.org/a/1093375.html . Emphasis added.
12The point about undue influence is from M. Krennerich, Free and Fair Elections? Standards, Curiosities, Manipulations (2001, Dietz press) https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/18215.pdf.At p112,Krennerich maintains: ‘It is therefore the responsibility of the electoral authorities to ensure that all registered voters can vote without undue influence and that a secret ballot is guaranteed.’ Emphasis added.
13Krennerich, ‘Free and Fair Elections?’, p 21.
14J. Elklit and P. Svensson, ‘What Makes Elections Free and Fair?’ Journal of Democracy (1997) 8(3):32-46, at p35.https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/104117297/Elklit_Svensson_8_3_1997_32_46.pdf
15M. Whitfill Roeloffs, ‘Elon Musk’s PAC is Paying $47 for Each Solicited Petition Signature from a Swing State Voter – Here’s Why it’s Controversial’ (7 October 2024). Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/10/07/elon-musks-pac-is-paying-47-for-each-solicited-petition-signature-from-a-swing-state-voter-heres-why-its-controversial/.
16‘America: Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms’ [undated] https://petition.theamericapac.org/.
17M. Dale, ‘Musk’s PAC Claims $1 Million ‘Winners’ Not Chosen by Chance’ (4 November 2024) PBS Newshttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musks-pac-claims-1-million-winners-not-chosen-by-chance.
18‘America: Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms’ [undated] https://petition.theamericapac.org/ .
19Link entitled ‘Make a Difference’ under the heading ‘Refer Voters and Earn Cash’ on theamericapac.org website goes directly to the ‘petition’ website https://petition.theamericapac.org/. Accessed 27 November 2024.
20America: Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms’ [undated]  https://petition.theamericapac.org/.
21AmericaPAC post on X (30 October 2024) https://x.com/america/status/1851435453091602781.
22This figure is compiled from state-by-state numbers published in A. Leach, E. Gargan et al, ‘US Election 2024 Results Live: Donald Trump Wins Presidency, Defeating Kamala Harris’ (6 November 2024) The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/nov/06/us-election-results-map-2024-live-donald-trump-kamala-harris-president.
23M. Dale, ‘Musk’s PAC Claims $1 Million ‘Winners’ Not Chosen by Chance’ (4 November 2024) PBS Newshttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musks-pac-claims-1-million-winners-not-chosen-by-chance
24M. Dale, ‘Musk’s PAC Claims $1 Million ‘Winners’ Not Chosen by Chance’ (4 November 2024) PBS Newshttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musks-pac-claims-1-million-winners-not-chosen-by-chance
25N. Confessore, ‘Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far’ (4 April 2018) New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html .
26C. Cadwalladr, ‘How to Survive the Broligarchy: 20 Lessons for the Post-Truth World’ (17 November 2024) The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/17/how-to-survive-the-broligarchy-20-lessons-for-the-post-truth-world-donald-trump .
27As of 27 November 2024, Open Secrets has revealed Elon Musk donated more than $118 million to AmericaPAC: Open Secrets, ‘Organizations Disclosing Donations to America PAC (Texas), 2024’ [undated] https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail/2024?cmte=C00879510&tab=donors_all . The next highest donation to AmericaPAC by any individual donor was just $1 million.
28On 29 November 2024, Forbes’ ‘The Real-Time Billionaires List’ ranked Elon Musk as number one, based on his net worth: https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#41c131ae3d78 .
29‘Citizens United v. FEC’ [undated], The Federal Election Commissionhttps://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/ . For comprehensive critiques of the ‘coordination’ restriction coming out of the Citizens’ United decision, see, for example, M. Wang, ‘Uncoordinated Coordination: Six Reasons Limits on Super PACs are Barely Limits At All’ (21 November 2011) ProPublicahttps://www.propublica.org/article/coordination-six-reasons-limits-on-super-pacs-are-barely-limits-at-all.
30‘McCutcheon et al. v. FEC’ [undated], The Federal Election Commissionhttps://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mccutcheon-et-al-v-fec/.
31A. Durkee, ‘Trump vs Harris Fundraising: Harris Outraises Trump by Nearly 5-to-1 Among Last Minute Big Donors’ (4 November 2024) Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/. National Public Radio (NPR) reports that one estimate of the cost of the 2024 federal election cycle comes to nearly $16 billion, about $1 billion more than in 2020:  C. Donevan, C. Dorning and S. Yenigun, ‘Consider This: Who’s Paying to Elect the President?’ (5 November 2024) NPRhttps://www.npr.org/2024/11/05/1211598176/the-billion-dollar-campaign
32‘Leading Countries Based on Number of X (formerly Twitter) Users as of April 2024’ (29 April 2024) Statistahttps://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/.
33Krennerich, ‘Free and Fair Elections?’, p100.
34B. Zarouali, T. Dobber, C. de Vreese and G. de Pauw, ‘Using a Personality-Profiling Algorithm to Investigate Political Microtargeting: Assessing the Persuasion Effects of Personality-Tailored Ads on Social Media’ (2022) Communication Research 49(8): 1066-1091, abstract. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093650220961965 .
35M. Hirsch, M. Stubenvoll, A. Binder and J Matthes, ‘Beneficial or Harmful? How (Mis)Fit of Targeted Political Advertising on Social Media Shapes Voter Perceptions’ (2023) Journal of Advertising 53(1):
19-35, ‘Theoretical and Practical Implications’, para 2.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00913367.2023.2175081#d1e1466 .
36M. Hirsch, M. Stubenvoll, A. Binder and J Matthes, ‘Beneficial or Harmful? How (Mis)Fit of Targeted Political Advertising on Social Media Shapes Voter Perceptions’ (2023) Journal of Advertising 53(1):
19-35, ‘Theoretical and Practical Implications’, para 2. Emphasis added.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00913367.2023.2175081#d1e1466.
37For further discussion, see J. Williams, Stand Out of Our Light (2018). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38Tristan Harris, quoted in J Kluger, ‘Time100 AI: Tristan Harris’ (7 September 2023) Time https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6308793/tristan-harris-ai/.
39A. Simchon, M. Edwards, and S. Lewandowsky, ‘The Persuasive Effects of Political Microtargeting in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence’ (2024) PNAS Nexus 3(2): 1-5, abstract https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/2/pgae035/7591134 .
40Post by Elon Musk (7 November 2024) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1854313368401613146?lang=en.
41‘United States One Dollar Bill, Reverse’ [image].  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_one_dollar_bill,_reverse.jpg
42Of course, ‘Freedom is only one part of the ‘free and fair election’ equation. In the second part of this post, the fairness of the 2024 US Presidential Election will be analysed.

Share this:

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.