On November 5, around 240 million eligible US American voters across 50 states will elect the next president, choosing between two candidates: the Republican former President Donald J. Trump, and current Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris (CBS News, 2024).

Harris, the first Black and South Asian woman to serve in the White House, took over as the Democratic presidential nominee after President Joseph R. Biden stepped down following a poor debate performance that elevated concerns from both Democratic party leadership and voters about his advanced age and capacity to win re-election (ABC News, 2024). Trump, who was first elected in 2016, lost the race in 2020 to President Joe Biden. Following this loss, President Trump made numerous claims that the election was “stolen”. During the certification of the Electoral College on January 6 2021, the Capitol was stormed by Trump supporters following a rally on the National Mall. The aftermath of this event has led to hundreds of arrests and continued false claims of election fraud in 2024.

The United States has a de-facto two-party system prone to creating an “Us vs. Them” dynamic (Avlon, 2017). In presidential elections, a candidate must win in the Electoral College by securing 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes, with each state allocated a set of “electors” or votes based on its population. The Electoral College has been criticized as an antiquated process that undermines the popular vote. In addition to the presidential election, voters in the U.S. will elect representatives for both chambers of Congress as 33 of 100 Senate seats, and all 435 House seats are up for re-election, creating a complex, decentralized federal election process that will likely lead to delayed election night results divided along partisan accusations.

The political majority that emerges from the totality of these elections will define the nation’s stance on major global and domestic challenges, from ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine to climate change mitigation efforts to tech policy regulation. We’ve seen the 2008 and 2012 campaigns of former President Barack Obama leverage social media as a grassroots approach to appeal to younger voters and push digital ads. The world also witnessed the improper use of data in 2016, where digital consultants to the Trump campaign misused the data of millions of Facebook users to create voter profiles to target political content to sway the election (The New York Times, 2018).

Now, there are warnings about extremist paramilitary groups using AI surveillance cameras to monitor ballot drop boxes for noncitizen voting while using Telegram, the anonymous messaging platform, to coordinate across states (Owen, 2024). When digital technology is layered with racially exploitative fearmongering, it increases voter intimidation and threatens to erode trust in election integrity. This escalating risk makes it crucial to address and counteract these manipulation and disinformation efforts to ensure a safe and secure election outcome.

Manipulated political discourse on social media

Digital hyper-partisan tactics—from online ads misrepresenting candidates to bots shaping opinions on divisive issues—are designed to undermine public confidence in the electoral process. Social media platforms have fundamentally reshaped how candidates campaign, connect with voters and discuss their key positions. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram enable candidates to instantly engage with millions, amplify their messages, and mobilise support (Hendricks and Schill, 2017).

However, this shift has also introduced new challenges, particularly the rise of manipulated political communications. One concerning development is the use of automated agents to disrupt the election process. These agents, first widely recognized during the 2016 election, have been used to spread misinformation, inflame divisions, and influence voter behaviour. For example, research claimed that social bots were deployed to promote certain candidates while discrediting their opponents, disseminating political hashtags, flooding social media with thousands of tweets that directed users to websites containing fake news (Ferrara, 2016, Chang et al., 2021). Some research and reports have linked these agents to foreign entities like Russia (Bastos and Frakas, 2019; Microsoft, 2023).  With the development of AI-powered bots in the upcoming election, the issue has become more difficult to control (Sydell, 2024). Advanced bots can generate convincing content and manipulate online conversations in ways that are harder to detect (Ferrara, 2023).

Although research shows that these bots’ impact on election results may be limited (Deb, 2019), they remain a troubling issue. In the context of the US elections, it is estimated that bots could have made up around at least 5%-10% of social media activity related to political discourse in the last two elections, amplifying misinformation alongside human users who also spread falsehoods, whether intentionally or not (Badawy, 2018; Chang et al., 2021; Hackenberg and Margetts, 2024). Many users have a limited awareness or distorted awareness of the presence and influence of bots (Yan, 2021). By manipulating emotions and spreading targeted mis- and disinformation about voting systems and government institutions, these bots undermine public trust, making it harder for voters to discern fact from fiction before, during, and likely after the election. This, in turn, they can sway public opinion, confuse voters, and polarize the electorate along partisan and racial divisions (Ferrara, 2016; Keller, 2019). As these tools become more advanced, easier for disruptive actors to access, and harder to detect, the risk of false narratives influencing election outcomes grows even more.

Fact-checking the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

As election mis- and disinformation increasingly burden the U.S. political landscape, the need for reliable, fact-based election information becomes even more urgent. Fact-checking, carried out by independent organisations to verify the accuracy of claims, is necessary to ensuring voters have access to up-to-date election information. Fortunately, the U.S. is home to 17% of the world’s 442 active fact-checking organisations (Duke Reporters Lab, 2024), with initiatives such as PolitiFact (2024) and FactCheck.org (2024) actively verifying election-related claims.

Research indicates that fact-checking can be a powerful tool in deterring misinformation and promoting truth in the political arena. It discourages politicians from spreading misinformation by increasing the reputational risks they face (Nyhan & Reifler, 2015) and reduces belief in misinformation among the public (Walter et al., 2020). Even those who distrust fact-checkers are less likely to believe or share false information when exposed to countering efforts such as warning labels on social media posts (Martel & Rand, 2024).

Fact-checking must reach the public to be the most effective, especially during this tumultuous election period. Real-time fact-checking during debates can potentially inform wider audiences than social media alone, such as when the ABC News debate moderators fact-checked Trump and Harris last month (Frazier, 2024a). Initiatives like CBS News’ QR codes, directing viewers to live fact-checks, could further expand this impact (Frazier, 2024b).

However, the trend in social media seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Politicians are exempt from fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram due to company policies regarding freedom of expression and newsworthiness (Meta, n.d.), limiting the fact-checkers’ scrutiny of this political content (Fisher et al., 2024).   This lack of fact-checking is very concerning, especially as experts warn of potential challenges to the upcoming election, similar to the false claims made in 2020. Trump has already signalled an expectation of disputes over Election Day results, including the accuracy of the vote counts in swing states, the reliability of mail-in ballots and noncitizens attempting to vote Cohen & Dale, 2024).

Fact-checking provides accurate information and helps correct false claims, but it is not a panacea. Even when misinformation is debunked, it does not always change what people believe or how they behave. In fact, studies show that some voters may acknowledge a politician is lying and still choose to support them (Swire et al., 2017). This highlights the limits of fact-checking—while it is valuable, it might not enough to overcome deeply ingrained beliefs and loyalties, and has even been depicted as an attempt to censor freedom of expression (Jankowicz, 2024).

Racial fearmongering threatens to further divide the electorate

Extremist rhetoric and racial bias can severely undermine counter-disinformation efforts, as evidenced by recent events in Springfield, Ohio. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups, amplified by political figures, spread false claims that the Haitian immigrant community was killing and consuming pets (NBC News, 2024).

Despite debunks by city officials, these dehumanizing claims transformed into threats of harm, exploited residents’ concerns, and invoked white supremacist ideologies (Vox, 2024). This incident highlights a broader trend of declining public trust in government, increased ‘othering’ of immigrants, and efforts to limit voting rights across the states. This is further exacerbated by recent Supreme Court decisions rolling back anti-discrimination protections for voters, resulting in the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people from marginalized communities (Crayton, 2023). These developments, coupled with the rise of online politicized disinformation and foreign election interference, underscore the complex challenges facing the American democracy and the integrity of its electoral processes.

Given the two assassination attempts on Trump (New York Times, 2024), and at least one individual charged with assassination threats against Vice President Harris in August, with the additional layer of Harris being targeted with “misogynoir,” or anti-Black misogyny, concerns are rising about the normalisation of political violence and partisan distrust. Online threats against the election itself such as poll worker and administrator intimidation, are also intensifying anxieties about potential violence on Election Day and the overall safety of voters and elected officials alike.

Digital technology, a changing media ecosystem, and confidence in the election system

Digital technology has profoundly impacted Americans’ ability to navigate a media ecosystem dominated by advancing tools (Barrett, Richard-Carvajal, & Hendrix, 2024). In this contentious US presidential election year, political influencers, foreign agents, and non-human entities are benefiting from the diverse landscape and evolving tools, spreading election disinformation as well as racist and violent rhetoric that targets marginalised communities, possibly impacting voter turnout and Americans’ confidence in the election system. This manipulation and interference often outpace fact-checking and counter-messaging efforts, undeterred by the dedicated response strategies by media researchers and independent organizations. As the world’s second-largest democracy, the US elections have had millions—if not billions—of eyes worldwide waiting to see its outcome and whether the US can uphold its Constitution and promise of free and fair elections.

REFERENCES

Asare, J. G. (2020, September 22). Misogynoir: The unique discrimination that Black women face. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2020/09/22/misogynoir-the-unique-discrimination-that-black-women-face/

Avlon, J. (2017, January 10). George Washington’s farewell warning. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/washingtons-farewell-address-warned-us-about-hyper-partisanship-214616/

Badawy, A., Ferrara, E., & Lerman, K. (2018, August). Analyzing the digital traces of political manipulation: The 2016 Russian interference Twitter campaign. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 258-265). IEEE.

Bailey, M. (2024, August 15). We don’t need misogynoir to critique Kamala Harris. Yes! Magazine. https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2024/08/15/harris-kamala-election-election

Barrett, P. M., Richard-Carvajal, C., & Hendrix, J. (2024, February). Digital risks to the 2024 elections: Safeguarding democracy in the era of disinformation. NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/publication/digital-risks-to-the-2024-elections-safeguarding-democracy-in-the-era-of-disinformation/

Bastos, M., & Farkas, J. (2019). “Donald Trump is my President!”: The internet research agency propaganda machine. Social Media+ Society, 5(3), 2056305119865466.

Brennan Center for Justice. (n.d.). State voting laws. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-reform/state-voting-laws Chang, H. C. H., Chen, E., Zhang, M., Muric, G., & Ferrara, E. (2021). Social bots and social media manipulation in 2020: The year in review. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, 1, (pp. 304-323). Routledge.

Cohen, M., & Dale, D. (2024, September 30). Fact check: 12 election lies Trump is using to set the stage to dispute a potential 2024 defeat | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-election-lies-2024/index.html

Crayton, K. (2023, July 17). The Voting Rights Act explained. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained

Deb, A., Luceri, L., Badaway, A., & Ferrara, E. (2019, May). Perils and challenges of social media and election manipulation analysis: The 2018 US midterms. In Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 237-247).

Downs, B., & Ramos, R. (2024, August 22). What to know about Kamala Harris’ record as California attorney general. CBS Sacramento.

Duke Reporters Lab. (2024). Fact-checking database with dates [Dataset].

Edwards, G. C., III. (2019). Why the Electoral College is bad for America (3rd ed.). Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300243888/why-the-electoral-college-is-bad-for-america/

FactCheck.org. (2024). Presidential election 2024. FactCheck.Org. https://www.factcheck.org/tag/presidential-election-2024/

Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96-104.

Ferrara, E. (2023). Social bot detection in the age of ChatGPT: Challenges and opportunities. First Monday, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i6.13185

Fisher, S., Kira, B., Arabaghatta Basavaraj, K., & Howard, J. (2024). Should politicians be exempt from fact-checking? Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i2.170

Frazier, K. (2024a, September 11). The moderators have fact-checked Trump. Politico. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/09/10/trump-harris-presidential-debate-tonight/abc-fact-check-donald-trump-00178478

Frazier, K. (2024b, October 2). The moderators fact-check JD Vance—Twice. Politico. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/01/vance-walz-vp-debate-tonight/moderators-fact-check-00182066

Global Witness. (2024, July 31). No ifs, many bots? Partisan bot-like accounts continue to amplify divisive content on X, generating over 4 billion views since the UK general election was called. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/no-ifs-many-bots-partisan-bot-accounts-continue-amplify-divisive-content-x-generating-over-4-billion-views-uk-general-election-was-called/

Gregorian, D., & Richards, Z. (2024, August 5). Virginia man charged with threatening to kill Kamala Harris. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/virginia-man-charged-threatening-kill-kamala-harris-rcna165280

Hackenburg, K., & Margetts, H. (2024). Evaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(24)

Hendricks, J.A., Schill, D. (2017). The Social Media Election of 2016. In: Denton Jr, R. (eds) The 2016 US Presidential Campaign. Political Campaigning and Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52599-0_5

Isenstadt, A. (2024, September 11). Conservatives are not happy with all the Trump fact checking happening on stage.  Politico. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/09/10/trump-harris-presidential-debate-tonight/trump-fact-checks-00178510

Jain, Y., & Walk, T. (2024, August 15). Disinformation about US elections targets communities of color: Safeguarding accurate information needed to ensure free and fair elections. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/15/disinformation-about-us-elections-targets-communities-color

Jankowicz, N. (2024, October 5). JD Vance claimed Democrats are censoring the internet. He’s lying. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jd-vance-claim-democrats-censoring-conservatives-rcna173859

Karni, A. (2024, October 5). As lawmaker claims Trump’s shooting was inside job, G.O.P. indulges him. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/us/politics/eli-crane-trump-assassination-conspiracy-theories.html

Keller, T. R., & Klinger, U. (2019). Social bots in election campaigns: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological implications. Political Communication, 36(1), 171-189.

Mansfield, E. (2024, September 24). Swing state officials prepare for intense scrutiny of 2024 election certification. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/24/swing-state-officials-2024-election-certification/75350963007/

Martel, C., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x

Meta. (n.d.). Fact-checking policies on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Meta Business Help Center. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613

Microsoft. (2023, September 17). Russian election interference efforts focus on the Harris-Walz campaign. Microsoft on the Issues. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/09/17/russian-election-interference-efforts-focus-on-the-harris-walz-campaign/

Nguyen, B. (2023, December 13). 2024 candidates are using AI in their campaigns—Here’s how to spot it. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/12/13/2024-candidates-are-using-ai-in-their-campaigns-heres-how-to-spot-it/

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on elites: A field experiment on U.S. state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628–640. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24583087

Owen, T. (2024, October 11). Leaked docs from far-right militias show history of voter intimidation plans. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-messages-militias-ap3-voter-intimidation-plan/

PolitiFact. (2024). All fact-checks for elections. https://www.politifact.com/elections/

Ridderbusch, K. (2024, October 24). Police work to protect poll workers amid election threats. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/24/nx-s1-5161457/police-poll-workers-election-threats

Rogers, K. (2024, July 12). Americans were worried about Biden’s age long before the debate. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/538/americans-worried-bidens-age-long-debate/story

Rogers, K. (2018, April 4). Cambridge Analytica scandal fallout. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html.

Sanchez, G. R., & Middlemass, K. (2022, July 26). Misinformation is eroding the public’s confidence in democracy. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/misinformation-is-eroding-the-publics-confidence-in-democracy/

Shah, H., & King, N. (2024, September 17). The anatomy of a smear: How a lie about Haitian immigrants went viral. Vox. https://www.vox.com/podcasts/372206/springfield-ohio-pets-haitian-immigrants-conspiracy

Swire, Briony, Adam J. Berinsky, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ullrich K. H. Ecker (Mar. 2017). “Processing Political Misinformation: Comprehending the Trump Phenomenon”. Royal Society Open Science, 4(160802), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802

Sydell, L. (2024, September 12). Twitter’s new AI bot “Grok” stirs concerns over election misinformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/12/twitter-ai-bot-grok-election-misinformation

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). The Constitution and the census. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

U.S. Government. (n.d.). Electoral College. USA.gov. https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college

Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894

Yan, H. Y., Yang, K. C., Menczer, F., & Shanahan, J. (2021). Asymmetrical perceptions of partisan political bots. New Media & Society, 23(10), 3016-3037.

Zadrozny, B. (2024, September 13). Trump, neo-Nazis pushed false claims about Haitians as part of hate campaign. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/trump-neo-nazis-pushed-false-claims-haitians-part-hate-campaign-rcna170796