SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " undated " 12 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
America’s elected officials are living in fear
An investigation found that over a two-year period from 2024 to August of this year, thousands of violent threats inundated the lives of elected officials in unprecedented ways.
Cape Cod restaurant hit with harassment, hoax 911 calls after hosting GOP fundraiser
A Cape Cod restaurant has been inundated by online threats and harassment, even a hoax 911 call resulting in a massive emergency response, in retaliation for hosting a Republican fundraising event.
To read 2,000-year-old burned scrolls, scientists burn their own
Charred papyrus scrolls from a library inundated by volcanic ash in 79 C.E. are largely unreadable. UC Berkeley scientists teamed up to create and burn their own scrolls to test a new way to decipher them.
Something Is Brewing With StarCraft
The official website is suddenly inundated with glitched-out visuals, possibly serving as a teaser for a reveal at BlizzCon.
Data centers \'exploded\' in Pa. politics this year. How will it impact Lancaster County\'s 36th Senate District race?
Voters across the country are being inundated with campaign advertisements about data centers and artificial intelligence ahead of the November midterm election, including in Lancaster County’s highly competitive 36th Senate
Initiative brings Arizona cities and towns together to tackle shared challenges
Municipalities are inundated with data. Police and fire department activity, water usage, development permits, traffic incidents, pavement conditions and resident service requests generate a steady stream of information every day. The challenge is determining how to put that data to its best use to improve residents’ lives.
'Remarkable' storms left 1 dead, Cincinnati businesses, homes flooded
Flooding inundated businesses and homes in Cincinnati, leaving people to clean up and reorganize their lives. It also caused injuries and a death.
AI-Powered Emails Are Influencing Politics on Hot-Button Issues
From California to North Carolina, officials weighing policy changes are being inundated with comments via platforms that tout AI capabilities.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
American Politics Is Already Inundated With AI Deepfakes. It’s Only Getting Worse.
These aren’t your 2024 deepfakes. Bad actors will go for broke using state-of-the-art AI tools to blunt voters’ confidence in elections.
Nine mental-health tips for a happier 2026
Regardless of any resolutions you may have for 2026, one thing is for sure: Everyone wants to have a happy new year.While losing weight or saving money may be great goals, the most straightforward path to happiness is caring for your mental and emotional health. A robust body of research shows that simple cognitive and behavioral strategies can reliably boost happiness and reduce stress – and they’re generally free and accessible to all.These strategies don’t have to be super time-consuming, but they do require intention: They only work if you do them.Here, psychologist Valentina Ogaryan, PhD, clinical director of the Simms/Mann UCLA Center for Integrative Oncology, shares her top tips for cultivating more calm, centeredness and happiness in the new year (or anytime):Make time for playPlay isn’t just for kids, and it’s far from frivolous. The National Institute for Play says engaging in silliness, fun and just-for-pleasure activities reduces stress and increases optimism and resilience. A recent review also found that play improves mental health.“Adults can benefit from play as much as children,” Dr. Ogaryan says, “not just as a reward, but something that helps regulate.”So go ahead and dance with your dog, build something with Legos, tell a joke, sing karaoke or do anything else that feels like fun. Don’t worry about being productive, just enjoy yourself. And, if you can, opt for more analog play, Dr. Ogaryan suggests, as a respite from our ever-more-digital world. Move your bodyWhether you dance, ski, do yoga, play pickleball, ride a bike, roller-skate, hike or lift weights, physical movement benefits overall happiness and well-being. A 2018 review study of more than 1.2 million adults in the U.S. found that doing any kind of exercise was “significantly and meaningfully associated” with better self-reported mental health.The sweet spot was 45 minutes of movement three to five times a week, but even short bursts of physical activity can boost brain health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“Movement helps support mood and regulate the nervous system,” Dr. Ogaryan says.Plus: exercise can improve sleep quality, and sleep is essential for mental health.Prioritize sleep“Sleep plays a major role in managing stress,” Dr. Ogaryan says. Research shows that lack of sufficient sleep increases the risk of various diseases, including depression.While stress can interfere with sleep, practicing good sleep hygiene can make logging ZZ’s easier. That means maintaining a consistent bedtime; keeping the bedroom cool, dark and quiet; and avoiding social media, news and stimulating shows before bed.Consume lessWe live in a consumer culture, inundated by endless streams of content and advertising everywhere we go, which makes it easy to get overstimulated.“Something really helpful for stress reduction is to simply consume less,” Dr. Ogaryan says – less news, less social media, less information, less noise, less screen time. “It’s about reducing the input,” she says.Consider setting a maximum number of news articles per day, for example, or a time limit on scrolling. Maybe even go device free for an afternoon or a whole day.Practice present-moment awarenessWith so much coming at us all the time, focusing on the here and now can make life feel more manageable, Dr. Ogaryan says: “When everything feels super overwhelming, when everything feels larger than life, let’s make our world a little bit smaller for that moment in time.”She suggests taking things one day, or even one hour, at a time. Ask yourself: What’s my next right action? Release the need to know how everything turns out and liberate yourself from having to handle everything right now. Let the future take care of itself and just focus on the current moment. Then the next one. Have a daily anchorFrom work to the daily commute to family and life responsibilities, our days can feel jam-packed. Dr. Ogaryan recommends creating a centering daily anchor that can fit into even the busiest day.Maybe it’s a 10-minute walk during your lunch break or mindfully enjoying your coffee in the morning. Let your anchor adapt to your needs each day, she says, but be intentional about using that time to ground yourself and calm your nervous system. You might even say to yourself, “I choose this walk to help me become centered,” or “My day already feels stressful, so I’m going to take the next 10 minutes to enjoy this cup of coffee, feel the warm mug in my hand and just be present.” Having an anchor won’t erase the busy-ness from your day, but it will allow you to approach it more calmly.Be kind to yourselfMost of us have a harsh inner critic in our heads who works overtime. But that critical voice only increases our stress, triggering the same fight-or-flight response as caustic words from another person.To feel happier, we need to replace that inner critic with a kinder, more compassionate voice, Dr. Ogaryan says. Studies show that self-compassion is a source of eudaimonic happiness – the kind of happiness associated with purpose and meaning in life.While our knee-jerk reaction may be to self-criticize – “How could you let it get to this point? You didn’t manage your time well and now the project is going to be late. You’re so inept.” – we fare better mentally by treating ourselves with kindness, like we would a friend. That might sound like, “You’ve got a lot on your plate, but you are capable and you’ll get it done. I believe in you.”We may think that speaking kindly to ourselves means letting ourselves off the hook, so we end up becoming lazy do-nothings. But research shows the opposite: People who are self-compassionate are more likely to try harder in the face of failure and ultimately reach their goals.You can thank your inner critic for its good intentions, but resolve to talk to yourself in a kind, compassionate voice.Connect with othersHumans are social animals built for connection. Stress can be isolating and cause us to withdraw, but connecting with others is a salve for the psyche, Dr. Ogaryan says.“We know that not all relationships are always easy, but if we can think about intentional, nourishing connection – even in really small doses – it could really help center us,” she says.Take a moment to laugh with your colleagues, hug your pet, have a conversation with a friend or smile at the barista making your coffee. A study found that even tiny interactions with casual acquaintances and strangers decreases loneliness and improves happiness and well-being.Seek supportIf you try these practices and happiness remains elusive, or if you can’t access the wherewithal to follow these tips, seek support from your physician or a therapist. Mental health conditions are among the most common health issues in the U.S. and around the world – more prevalent than diabetes or heart disease. One in five people in the U.S. experiences a mental illness each year, with depression and anxiety the most common, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.“We can all think about these tips,” Dr. Ogaryan says. “But it’s important to recognize if you’ve done everything you can and you’re still really struggling, it’s really important to seek help.”
New photos from Epstein’s personal collection show Trump, Clinton and much more
The undated photographs are from Epstein’s email account and computer, according to Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, who published the photographs on Friday.