S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. I'm Andrew Bowen in for Jade Hindman. One year after the Hamas attacks on Israel , we look at how the war in Gaza could influence the upcoming election. It's midday edition , bringing you conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and make you think. We'll explore how political leaders are handling young voters concerns about the war in Gaza.
S2: There is an opportunity for both parties to bring young people into the electorate on this issue. I would argue on really any issue.
S1: Plus how foreign actors influence democratic elections , then how voters make sense of ballot measure ads. That's ahead on midday Edition. One year ago today , Hamas militants launched an unprecedented attack on Israel , killing 1200 people. Since that day , Israel's retaliatory war has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians in Gaza. That's according to the Gaza Health Ministry. And 90% of the Palestinian population is homeless , as hundreds of thousands struggle to find food and clean water. The war in Gaza is also top of mind for many American voters ahead of the November election. Last week , Midday Edition host Jayde Hyndman discussed how the war could influence voting behavior with Mindy Romero. She's the founder and director of the center for Inclusive Democracy , part of the USC Soul Pryce School of Public Policy. Here's their conversation.
S3: So you study voting behavior with a focus on youth and communities of color in California. By and large , how are young voters thinking about the war in Gaza.
S2: Well , I think we know that for a lot of young people , it's a very significant issue , right ? One that they care deeply about. That's not the case for all young voters. Right. But we have seen a lot of movement. The protests , for instance , across the country led by youth. It's an issue that they're thinking about. And for some one that they are equating or at least connecting to their vote this November , and whether they're going to turn out and who they're going to vote for. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. Well , and you mentioned campus protests that popped up earlier this spring. Many speculated that President Biden's handling of the situation could influence voter behavior , with Vice President Harris at the top of the ticket.
S2: People wanted to see many young people , right , who care deeply on this issue about the war. Wanted to see what Harris was going to say. Would her policies be different ? She's part of the Biden administration. And yes , a lot of the focus for young people was on the Biden administration versus Trump. And that's because , of course , um , the Biden administration is representing , right in setting US policy with regard to the war in Gaza and specifically also , of course , its policy with regard to Israel. So I think there's an opportunity for , um , Harris to kind of for voters to kind of rethink how they're thinking about her on this issue , or at least on the Democratic ticket. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S2: Um , certainly there's varied opinions , right. As we throughout this whole last year , um , people see this issue as one , many as one that is deeply concerning , um , deeply salient. But there are different opinions in terms of the US reaction , right. Many young people being concerned with it. Um , I think the same thing with Harris. I mean , you know , she's tried to thread a needle here in terms of , uh , declaring and confirming , um , her support in the US government , support for Israel and , uh , indicating that it will continue to support them. Right. At least at this point. Right. With , with , uh , aid and , uh , and military help. Um , at the same time making it clear at least they're trying to make it clear that she also strongly is concerned and , uh , about and does not want , you know , to continue in terms of the violence and the disruption and the loss of life in Gaza. But , you know , depending on where you're coming from , I think there definitely are a lot of young people , um , that have demanded , uh , not a threading of the needle , but want to see the US demand an immediate ceasefire , want to see the US pull its support from Israel. Um , and to really take a take a stand more in favor of of the Palestinian people. And so if you come from that perspective , what um , Harris has done , you know , is disappointing , right ? And we've seen that. Right. It's disappointing for many people , many young people.
S3: California is is also home to our country's largest Arab American population. Yeah , Arab and Muslim American support for this Democratic party has really plummeted since October 7th , in response to President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza.
S2: How much ? I don't know yet , really , because we just don't have significant polling on that. Right. But we do know that support has declined. Um , we do know there's a lot of concern around again , Biden and now Harris is , um , policy , you know , stances. And what it matters is it matters a lot in terms of the presidential race. The reality is California is not a swing state. So both Harris and Trump , you know , putting all attention and all resources on those six , seven swing states. And certainly there are large Arab-American populations , Muslim-American populations in those swing states , Michigan , for instance. But when it comes to California , um , you know , we don't get a lot of attention , period , right ? When it comes to the presidential race , even though every vote matters in the end in the Electoral College. And , um , certainly , you know , candidates will come here for donations and for other reasons. But when it comes to courting voters , uh , you know , Arab-American and other groups as well , we don't see as much attention on that. Um , and that's the reality of being a deeply blue state and a not a noncompetitive non battleground state.
S3: Right ? Well , California is also home to the second largest Jewish community outside of Israel in Los Angeles.
S2: I think , again , there's some indication that there are , you know , concerns , just as there are with Arab and Muslim Americans. There's concerns with Jewish Americans in terms of the Biden administration's policies , right. Maybe perceived in different ways , but still concerns. Um , and I think that's part of what you're seeing. Again , Harris kind of threading the needle. Right. Um , in her conversation around the war , um , the Jewish vote is an important vote , as every group is again , in California. We're not a swing state. It can make a difference , potentially , if people sit out of the race , um , on statewide and local races , particularly in areas that might have large. Right , um , for instance , Arab American or Muslim American populations or Jewish populations. But in terms of the presidential race , again , all eyes are on those swing states. You know , the national narrative matters. It matters for swing states , what happens in California and what Californians say if they're vocal in the media and press does get picked up nationally. So I don't want to minimize that. Um , but all of the conversation right now and the focus in their , in their resources and their strategic thinking is , is largely around these battleground states how to run up the numbers of their supporters they already have and how to maybe peel off. Right. Um , some of those swing voters in their direction.
S3: Well , there's also those considering or planning to withhold their votes in this election. You've got those folks and you've got the uncommitted movement also , all of this due to the war in Gaza specifically.
S2: If we're talking about , again , the presidential race , every vote matters. You know , if we look at the primary , we saw , um , a thousands of voters that , um , wrote in another candidate we know in 2020 , for instance , that the Arab American vote was quite substantial , right in favor of Biden. Um , so they were part of the victory story for Biden in states like Michigan. Um , so now Harris doesn't want to lose those votes or those supporters and all of that really is in play , right ? There's a question mark , and I know there's state level polling. There's , you know , people that are working on trying to identify what exactly could happen come November. But the other thing to remember is when you , uh , when you have talk of withholding a vote , right ? Or even in a primary , when you see people taking an action to vote for a third candidate or to to stay out of a race , it doesn't mean that that's going to actually happen in a general election. Um , often just third party votes , for instance , on for whatever set of reasons people will vote one way when they don't feel as it's consequential , but when it's actually the vote , the kind of the deciding vote. You can see people , um , ending up voting that maybe had planned not to. When we're hearing these conversations or looking at some polling on these conversations. There can be a difference actually on Election Day. And for those people that are talking about this being an important issue. The question is that the most important issue that are actually affect their vote , for some it will. For some they may change that calculation. For some , what's happening right now in the in the escalation in the region could change that right calculation , um , could make them right , be even more salient. And maybe , maybe they cared about this issue , but it wasn't going to be how they voted and now they are going to vote. But for others , there could be other things that happen between now and November or other issues , period that , um , end up being their quote unquote priority vote. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. Another thing I wanted to ask you is how are black voters , um , perceiving this whole situation ? How might their votes be impacted ? Yeah.
S2: Well , if I may , I'll just say voters of color. Right. Um , period. And young voters , we know that , you know , a lot of the conversation nationally when we talk about the potential political ramifications of the war in Gaza , a lot of the conversations looking at young people , right. But young people do and can vote in coalition with voters of color , um , voters of color periods. Racial and social justice issues are very important and very salient. And , you know , I think the the polling is , is not really there for us to be able to really , um , get a strong sense at this point. Um , but we do know that there are a lot of voters of color , including black voters , that also are concerned right about the war and want to be in coalition with others. Uh , pushing back on America's current right foreign policy with regard to the war. By the way , just to be clear , it's not just about the the votes that are cast. Right. And that is actually what determines what president we have. But young people just being active , period , on this topic and other voters being active on this topic has caused write in the media and presidential candidates debate even more attention , which can influence other right potential voters , too. And I think we've seen that happen. So young people , particularly the protests that we've seen across the country and other activities , has just made this even more salient when it comes to the election. And so I want to give credit there , um , to that , to that , um , heightening of an issue that obviously should be discussed. Right. Um , and people should be thinking about how they feel about it. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. Well , how can political candidates and the electoral process in general do a better job listening to young voters ? What limits are there.
S2: Historically in the United States ? For most of our history , young voters right under 21 couldn't vote number one. Um , and for most of our history , if they wanted to have a political effect , um , they had to take to the streets , right ? They , you know , we think about the civil rights movement , we think about the war in Vietnam. Um , actually , what came out of the war in Vietnam was the 27th amendment. Right. And and giving the right to vote to 18 year olds. But candidates , even today don't actually do a lot to court young voters. We've seen some recent steps that's gotten a lot of attention , you know , from the Harris campaign , TikTok and things that she's worked on , um , and that they put out there. But overall , the vast majority of the outreach , mobilization , contact asking to vote , um , in a presidential election. And by the way , other elections too. Um , it's going to go to older voters and voters that model out to be the likely voters for candidates and young people because they historically have low turnout rates or low they do vote , but they have lower turnout rates. They often fall out of those likely voter models , and they get very little outreach and mobilization period. And so young people that are making the decision about whether they want to participate and and they're considering the war in Gaza as well , they're doing it within a context that we just have to be really honest about. Um , they're not getting a whole lot of typically a whole lot of contact from the presidential campaigns , again , much less at least , than older voters , youth of color even less. And so they make their decisions , um , often without even a counter narrative , if you will. Right. Or a counter attempt , right to kind of bring them , bring them into the fold. And so it's important for young people on whatever issues they care about , um , to be active and to be involved. Um , but often they're not even candidates are not even fully addressing their issues or talking to them about whatever topic it is. And young people have to not only vote at the ballot box , but they have to have their voice and their concerns heard through other means , like protests , right ? Or spreading the word right through things like social media. Right.
S3: Right. But so then how do they work beyond the challenges that exist in terms of engaging young people ? Yeah.
S2: Well , again , a lot of the challenges self-inflicted , right ? It's the campaigns or using likely voter models that leave young people out , period. Um , so they need to really make a committed effort. And of course , again , our electoral system is designed kind of one election at a time in terms of the instead of thinking about the long term benefit right for a party or cause or a candidate. So moving away from those likely voter models as much as possible , right , to find the incentive and understand that , um , if they do put the investment in , um , and they use trusted messengers and they , you know , don't just ask maybe a young person right to vote a week before the election , but they actually build a case for voting over time. Um , they're more likely to get young people to participate. We know research shows that if you do make that kind of more sincere , longer term effort with young people , they will turn out to vote. So there is an opportunity for both parties Republican , Democrat , other parties as well , to bring young people into the electorate on this issue. I would argue on really any issue , just acknowledging that this is obviously a difficult issue to navigate. Um , but parties and candidates don't do it. Um , and young people are left on their own to kind of make , to find or figure out the reasons why voting is important and to make the case themselves for participation. Yeah. Um , and that that really , by the way , doesn't just disadvantage young people. At disadvantage is our whole democracy because we have an electorate , those that are actually voting that doesn't actually represent , you know , their full population.
S1: That was Mindy Romero , founder and director of the center for Inclusive Democracy , speaking with Midday Edition host Jade Hindman. Coming up , how to increase local trust in the voting process.
S4: One of the key findings about trust in elections is that the more people participate , when you participate , you have more trust in the system.
S1: And listeners , we want to hear from you. Are you planning to vote this November or will you make a point of staying home ? Give us a call at 228 or email us at midday at KPBS. Org. Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm your host , Andrew Bowen. Mail ballots have been sent out , and on today's show , we're talking about what drives voting behavior in San Diego and beyond. Our next guest studies trust in elections around the world and the impact of foreign influence. Lauren Prather is an associate professor of political science at UC San Diego , and she's co-author of the book Monitors and Meddlers How Foreign Actors Influence Local Trust in Elections. She joined Jade Hyneman last week to discuss implications for the presidential election next month.
S3: Let's start with your book monitors in Meddlers. It looks at election monitoring in Tunisia , Georgia and the United States.
S4: So Tunisia , we studied it was the first election after the Arab Spring. So it really represented a new democracy with a blank slate of democratic participation similarly. Um , Georgia is a developing democracy that hasn't had democracy for that long but is more developed than Tunisia. And many experts recognize it as a partial democracy with elements of authoritarianism , but nevertheless still having elections. And then we wanted to study the United States because the United States represented a consolidated democracy , a long standing democracy , but a democracy that was experiencing and has experienced Experience some challenges. Wow.
S3: Wow. Well , about that title monitors and meddlers.
S4: On the one hand , we have countries that attempt to promote democracy and lift it up. On the other hand , we have countries that attempt to influence a country's elections for the worse. Um , election monitoring is one of the primary ways that the international community helps to support elections around the world. International organizations send teams of observers to elections to simply document what they see and observe , and report on how well that election followed. Domestic law and international law. On the other hand , foreign malign influence takes many forms. It can take forms like , um , disseminating Misinformation all the way to actually hacking elections or , you know , attempting to misrepresent the vote count in favor of a domestic ally. And many of the listeners would be familiar with this , because this is something that the US intelligence community has documented happening at US elections , um , since the most prominent case in 2016. Hmm.
S3: Hmm. Well , I want to dig into that a little bit more and talk about , um , your findings in terms of US elections.
S4: And in fact , for the 2020 , 2024 election , um , the US government has warned that there are actors that appear to be attempting to to influence the election. In many cases , these countries have a preferred candidate , but sometimes it's not clear. Sometimes it's with the design of simply sowing chaos in a in a democratic election process. On the other hand , the United States has had election observers at its elections for many years. The United States is a member of the OSCE , which is a international organization. And one of the things that it does is send international election observers around the world. And the members of that organization are also supposed to host election observers at their own elections. And so those observers have been at US elections for a long time , and they do issue reports and evaluations of how well the United States is conforming to domestic law and international law around elections. And I should say , the US does very well. Um , in terms of respecting laws around voting and , uh , election administration procedures , though , there have been documented issues with , you know , access to the polls , for example.
S3: Well , paint the picture for me on this. You fondled three countries in your book. Yeah.
S4: There's sort of uncertainty about election meddling on two dimensions. One is whether it's happening at all and to what extent. And on the other side , it's is it successful ? And what we know about US elections is that the intelligence community seems to think or , you know , is confident that outside actors are attempting to meddle in US elections. But they've been more circumspect about whether that has actually been successful. And in most cases , actually , it appears that the effects of this meddling has been rather limited. And so I think that is a reassuring sign that although actors are attempting to do this , they aren't being as successful as they might want to be. And I think that's actually because , again , in the United States , our elections are fairly secure and the US government is on top of identifying these threats and trying to neutralize them around the world. Um , elections are more vulnerable. And we've been in conversations with , I should say , my research partner and I have been in conversations with democracy , promoting partners and organizations who are trying to work with other countries to help make their institutions more secure from foreign meddling , and documenting ways in which these governments can actually secure their voting machines and secure their , uh , social media and prevent the spread of misinformation in these elections. But in some ways , the rest of the world is behind the United States on on many of those dimensions.
S3: Now , has the United States meddled in anyone's elections ? Yeah.
S4: So there's a there's a great book by a professor named Dov Levin who researches the history of foreign interference in elections. And his book finds that two of the most prominent election interference , um , have historically been the Soviet Union and then Russia and the United States. It's certainly the case that outside actors take a position on who they want to see when other countries elections. Um , but it crosses a line across as an international norm when you actually take steps to intervene in that election , when you give campaign funding , for example , to a preferred party or candidate. Um , in some countries that's Forbidden , but in other countries there are no laws against that. Um , so the United States has done stuff like that. So has Russia and so of other countries. Interesting.
S3: Interesting. Well , what do we know about interference in this 2024 election ? I mean , should we be expecting meddling ? Is it already underway ? Sounds like it.
S4: I think in many cases , social media companies are working to identify these bots , and the government is working to also neutralize these threats. So myself , I'm not too worried that there's significant interference to the point where it's going to sway the election , but this is a really close election , so it is definitely something that I am glad the government is on top of , and I hope is doing everything I can to to prevent it truly having an effect on the outcome in terms of election monitoring. There have been a number of initiatives that are really interesting to watch in US elections , so we do have international election observers that will be present at the 2024 election. We also have a number of local , um , domestic US organizations that are starting to observe elections for the first time. So , for example , um , the Carter Center is a nonpartisan organization that has historically observed elections all over the world. Mhm. Um , and they have some limited observer missions that they're sending to US cities around this election. Um , historically they've um , had a mandate that is international in scope , and now they are turning to have a more domestic mandate. But the more common form of observation that we see in the United States is party affiliated. And so you do see around the country , citizens and Democratic or Republican Party affiliates can sign up to be citizen observers.
S3: All right. Well , you also study American's level of trust in elections in general.
S4: And so part of our interest in studying the United States was a noted decline in voter confidence that's happened over the last 20 years. Um , some people note that this was a product or or the descent started around the election between , uh , George W Bush and Al Gore , and has continued as a slow decline since then. I think it has also been challenged by political leaders , who continue to talk about how elections in the United States are bad and not trustworthy. Um , and I think people that listen to these leaders may continue to have that view. Um , and so we're seeing citizens somewhat confused about what they believe , because as Americans , people grow up , uh , I think generally believing that elections are trustworthy , but then hearing in the media from trusted leaders that they're not. And so I think this has created , um , a problem of election skepticism. But there are some really innovative ways in making elections more transparent and reaching out to those skeptical voters. And I hope that those efforts will begin to have some reassuring power for Americans.
S3:
S4: So I think there are a number of ways in which Americans are rightfully skeptical that citizens are not being able to express themselves to the full extent of the law. And I think it's really important for the government to uphold the Voting Rights Act and and make it even stronger. The feeling like your vote doesn't count because you live in a district that is predominantly one party. Um , or feeling like you don't have the ability to access the polls because you have to work and you don't have other options for voting. I think that is , um , can make people rightfully skeptical that elections are really reflecting the will of the people. But on the whole , a lot of international experts that observe US elections think that many of these laws , although they could be improved , are not producing results that are that dissimilar from what we would see if there was less gerrymandering or less or more access to the polls. So so , for example , there's research that looks at vote by mail , for example , and whether or not vote by mail leads to one party or the other doing better in the states that have expanded that access. And they find it leads to more turnout , but it doesn't benefit one party over another. And that's sort of what we want right from we want more access , more , um , people to be able to participate. And it's definitely the case. One of the key findings about trust in elections is that the more people participate When you participate , you have more trust in the system. Hmm.
S3: You know , when we think about a lack of trust in elections , also , um , the dangers that come with that. And it's hard not to think about the January 6th insurrection.
S4: So on the one hand , I've been talking a lot about the skepticism that citizens may have in elections and whether the results accurately reflected the will of the people. At the same time , I think we are also seeing , uh , an election extremism problem where many election officials that I've spoken to are more worried about the threats that they are getting to their offices , the threats that they're getting to their personnel , and how we deal with that election extremism problem , which in its ultimate manifestation was January 6th. Um , how we deal with that is going to be different from how we address the skepticism problem. We're not going to be able to convince extremists simply by me being more transparent. Um , we may have to draw lessons from research on de-radicalisation , for example , to try to understand how to de-escalate the election extremism in the United States.
S3:
S4: And I think this is really important and shows that election administrators not only need to be good at their job administering elections , but the government needs to support them and being able to be good communicators about elections as well. And we also know from research that the more confidence people have in elections , the more likely they are to participate. And so I think , you know , we actually have seen an interesting phenomenon where although confidence has declined , we still see people turning out. And that actually makes me more reassured that this skepticism , it may just be a blip on the radar , so to speak , and that actually , if we can maintain turnout or even increase it through these communication and outreach efforts , that ultimately that's going to be the thing that protects us. Democracy the most is citizens demanding their rights and participating.
S1: That was Lauren Prather , associate professor of political science at UC San Diego , speaking with Jade Hindman about her research on foreign actors and election trust. Still ahead as political campaign ads hit your mailboxes.
S5:
S1: Org. KPBS Midday Edition returns after the break. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Andrew Bowen in for Jade Hindman. With the November election just a month away , we wanted to talk about factors that influence who and what you vote for. New research out of the University of San Diego examines how voters perceive truthfulness of political ads. Midday edition host Jade Heinemann sat down with Andrea Flynn , marketing professor at USD. Take a listen.
S3: You studied two ballot measures from previous elections prop 22 and prop six. Can you remind us of what they were and why you chose to study them ? Sure.
S5: So , uh , with along with my colleagues at Boston College , I've been looking at advertising related to ballot measure elections for the last several years. So we've looked at a number of different ballot measures here in California , going back to about 2016. But two two that we focused on were , um , proposition 22 , which was back in 2020 , and that focused on determining how app base drivers , rideshare and delivery drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft and Instacart should be defined. Should they be defined as independent contractors or employees ? Um , and so that was a really high profile ballot measure that year. At the time , it was the most expensive ballot measure , um , in California history , hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the campaign , particularly backed by the app based driver industry and got lots of media attention. Then the other example , you mentioned proposition six. That was going back to 2018. Um , this was an initiative aimed at repealing a gas tax. And that one was interesting because it was especially controversial , had a lot of , um , political elements to it. Um , so in general , the propositions that I've been focusing on , my research have been , first of all , propositions that have implications for a particular industry. Being a marketing researcher , I'm especially focused on looking at elections that will impact what industries do. And then also looking for where's the big money being spent and and issues that are getting a lot of coverage in the media.
S3:
S5: It often ends up where an industry group is battling some coalition of advocacy groups or public interest groups. So you have these two types of entities going head to head to win public support and win over voters on their approach to to designating policy on these issues. And what we found was that the marketing approaches that seem to work for one side don't always work equally well for the other side. So an example is what we found was that messages in the advertising from the side that's backed by the industry When those messages focus on financial outcomes or financial implications of the policy that's being debated. Those tend to be more effective and resonate more with voters. They're seen as more credible and more compelling by voters. On the other hand , the the opposition side , the advocacy group or public interest side seems to be able to sway voters or have voters see their messages as being more convincing or more persuasive when they focus on sort of broader , more societal implications. So going back to 2016 , one of the ballot measures focused on capping prescription drug prices , what you see is that some of the same arguments , but the flip side are used by each side. So the industry side is arguing that ultimately capping drug prices would end up costing consumers more. The health care advocates on the other side end up arguing that this would lower prices for consumers. And what we found was that voters in that case , because it's focusing on a financial implication , would see the industry arguments is more credible. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S5: So even though the issues that I've focused on in my research really are aimed at regulation that would impact an industry , they do get politicized. So we see in a lot of cases , not every case , but a lot of cases. The Democratic Party will endorse one side on the issue , and the Republican Party will endorse the other side on the issue. So now it kind of presents these competing cues to voters where they're looking at the advertising and judging the messages to see if they think the messages are believable. And then they also see these party endorsement cues. And that can kind of create a create a tug of war about what's going to have the biggest impact on which way a voter decides to go on a measure ? So interestingly , our research shows that , um , it can it can work in a sort of counterintuitive way. So as an example , if there's a ballot measure where the Republican Party ends up endorsing the industry's side on the measure , we found our data shows that it's actually Democratic voters who end up focusing more on the industry's messages and weighing the truthfulness , their beliefs about how true those messages are in their voting decision. So it seems a little counterintuitive , but what we think is happening is that the the party endorsement kind of serves as a seal of approval. That Republican endorsement would serve as a seal of approval for Republican voters about , you know , you can believe the messages and , um , make your decision , whereas the Democratic voters might take a more critical eye. And we found that it works both ways , that if it had been the Democratic Party that endorsed the industry's campaign. It would then be the Republican voters that would scrutinize and pay more attention and weigh the truthfulness of the advertising in their decision. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S5: So even in this age of misinformation and disinformation , we were curious to see. Do voters care ? I think especially in political advertising , voters expect a certain amount of exaggeration or mistruths or half truths in in the messages. But we found that the truth really does matter. And interestingly , we our findings dispel , I think , some stereotypes about different types of voters. So there is some research that shows , for example , Democratic voters maybe are , um , more careful about fact checking or invest more time and effort in fact checking and understanding policy. Whereas Republican voters maybe are more partisan in their decisions. And what we found is that really both types of voters , again , depending on the types of cues they're getting , do value the truth. And it is an important factor , even when we control for a lot of other things that might be influencing them , both Democrats and Republicans way the truth and use that in their decision. But conversely , both types of voters are also susceptible to these partisan cues and these party endorsements.
S3:
S5: I think there's an increasing onus on voters , given the amount of misinformation and disinformation in these political ads , um , to really have to go the extra mile to do their homework to figure out what's going on ? Um , fortunately , there is a lot of information that can help voters. So , um , their organizations and regulation that , um , provide a lot of information about who's backing each side on these ballot measures. So I think that can that can be important information for voters to take into consideration and think about what's the motivation that these backers have to take one side or the other. Um , then I think turning to fact checking organizations to , to really drill down and try to figure out which of these messages that they're hearing are actually true. Um , our research focused on looking at whether a voter believes a message is true and if that affects their decision. But , um , if a voter believes something that's completely false , that's still affecting how they vote , and that's ultimately not.
S3: Good , as you mentioned , it can often feel like a tug of war of opinions or information coming from different ads.
S5: Org. They compile lots and lots of information about these ballot measures. Um , throughout the US , not just here in California. So you can look up any ballot measure in any states and , and get detailed information about who's been contributing to the campaigns. Um , that all the official arguments behind the campaigns , media coverage of the campaigns. So that's an excellent resource. I think as far as understanding truthfulness of some of the messages in these campaigns , um , sites like FactCheck.org , um , are great resources , trustworthy , neutral resources to turn to , to , to understand if the messages that you're hearing in the ads are actually , um , objectively true or not. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. And I'll go ahead and give our own voter hub there a plug , as it is a great source for information on candidates and ballot measures. And you can find that at pbs.org. Um , you know , to close us out here , how can your research on ads for prop six and prop 22 be applied to this current election cycle , with a number of statewide ballot measures up for debate.
S5: For for voters thinking about how to how to judge the campaigns , they can look at the types of arguments that are being made. Um , so again , if we think about the financial implications , broader societal implications , um , who do you really trust to make those arguments ? Um , who's behind which side on the campaigns , and are they really giving you credible information about those implications and taking time , taking the time to to carefully go through the official voter's guide and , Um , as much money is spent on these ads. I think not just trusting what you're hearing in the ads.
S1: That was Andrea Flynn , marketing professor at the University of San Diego , speaking with Jade Hindman about political campaign ads. Thanks for joining us. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch Evening Edition Tonight at five on KPBS television for more in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. Also join us this Wednesday , October 9th at 6 p.m. for a live webinar discussion on the cross-border housing crisis in the San Diego Tijuana region. Details on our website at kpbs.org. I'm Andrew Bowen in for Jade Hindman. Bye for now and thanks for listening.
