democracynow--2020-10-29--Is Republican Attack on Social Media Giants Part of an Effort to Invalidate Election Results?

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Just days ahead of Election Day , chief executives of Facebook , Google and Twitter were grilled on Capitol Hill about how they moderate hate speech , extremist content and election disinformation , including tweets from President Trump .
The Senate Commerce Committee hearing was officially about , quote , “ how best to preserve the internet as a forum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change a decades-old law known as Section 230 that protects internet companies from legal liability for content generated by its users .
But most Republican senators focused on allegations that the platforms systematically censor conservatives .
This is Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas questioning Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Republican Senator Ted Cruz questioning Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey , virtually .
This is Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah questioning Google CEO Sundar Pichai .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes as the progressive news organization Mother Jones recently reported Facebook tweaked its code to help right-wing publishers and throttle left-leaning sites .
The Wall Street Journal reported Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally approved the plans .
At Wednesday ’ s hearing , Democrats accused Republicans of politicizing the hearing , and questioned the three tech executives about their efforts to stop the spread of viral disinformation .
This is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg .
Well , for more , we ’ re joined by Ramesh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of California , Los Angeles , UCLA , where he directs the Digital Cultures Lab .
He ’ s the author of the book Beyond the Valley : How Innovators Around the World Are Overcoming Inequality and Creating the Technologies of Tomorrow .
Professor , welcome back to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Why don ’ t you first summarize this hearing and what you think is most critical , what was raised and what you think was most problematic ?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think what we see is astonishing timing being pushed forward by the Republicans and the administration .
Note , you know , Democracy Now !
itself covered this just a few days ago , the antitrust — or , the regulatory potential action pushed forward by the Department of Justice against Google just a few days ago .
But what we see occurring is a certain set of talking points which might be used by the Republicans and the administration as a basis for making claims to invalidate the election .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any basis or evidence , by President Trump that Google was responsible for millions of votes being cast against the Republicans , against him in 2016 .
So , basically , what we see coming from the Republicans is this argument that lacks any evidence , quite frankly , that there are systematic biases in terms of censorship , as well as algorithmic bias , that skew against conservative talking points and conservative perspectives , when in fact , in reality , the opposite is exactly what is true .
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to look at Section 230 , which , you know , sort of is a proposal on the Communications Decency Act that regulates the extremist content .
It normalizes it .
It allows certain types of content to be able to be present on online platforms that may not be on other media channels , such as Democracy Now !
itself .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Ramesh , Senator Jon Tester , who spoke at yesterday ’ s hearing , said the hearing had been called at the directive of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plausible ?
And also , the fact that Donald Trump has used so liberally , frequently , almost hourly , the social media platform Twitter , and Twitter just recently blocked a couple of his posts .
So , do you think that this hearing is driven in part by that , by that decision ?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN : I think there ’ s — thank you for that question , Nermeen .
Absolutely .
It seems highly likely that that ’ s possible , because Twitter has long been praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quote-unquote , “ directly reaching the people.
” And we know that Twitter ’ s algorithms , much like Facebook ’ s , work to prioritize content that is likely to be sensational , that grabs people ’ s attention .
This is what the tech companies call “ maximizing audience engagement.
” So we know that social media technologies , which are basically designed to try to grab our attention as much as possible so they can maximize their ability to gather and extract data from us , are designed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation and the spectacle , really , that is put forth by this administration .
So we have to ask very difficult questions about the timing of all of this and try to look at why .
Why is this administration deciding to make this an issue right before the election ?
And I think there are very difficult questions and answers that we have to uncover related to that , that are politically motivated rather than evidence-based .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Do you think , Ramesh , on the basis of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech , might alter the way that it deals with any kind of election dispute that might come following November 3rd ?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN : I ’ m certainly hopeful of that .
Our Big Tech companies are private corporations that have monetized publicly funded investments that all of us have paid for as American taxpayers .
And this is true across the board with other major corporate initiatives .
I think it ’ s extremely important , moving forward , that we have an expansive , progressive Digital Bill of Rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public audit of these tech platforms about how they make decisions about whose data they gather .
And we need real regulatory action to ensure that they serve the public interest , because they actually rest on the backs of public subsidies and public investments .
So , I think that this is an opportunity for us to push forward real progressive advances and legislation on this issue .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Professor Srinivasan , this issue of the timing of this hearing , right before the election , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning Google and other of the social media companies , the Department of Justice filing a major lawsuit against Google last week .
Can you talk more about what this is laying the groundwork for , in terms of invalidating the whole election ?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN : It ’ s potentially an explanation that can be used by the administration to make claims that the election was conducted under false pretenses because Big Tech is systematically biased against the president and his agenda .
But nothing can be further from the truth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump made the claim just some — you know , just over a year ago , that Google cost him upwards of 10 million votes that were lost , in his favor , toward Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and even in higher number in 2018 .
There is absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever .
We know , if anything , when we look at the litany of examples of conspiracy theories , that we ’ re all reliant on Big Tech as we sit out this pandemic and future pandemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms , we are seeing again and again — and we see examples , like Cambridge Analytica , foreign interference , disinformation — all of this has skewed toward conservative , fringe and right-leaning content .
So , actually , if anything , the most spectacular disinformation , which fuels Trump ’ s base and fuels the Trump agenda of disorientation and controversy , has skewed toward the right .
So Trump has made these claims that are in fact the opposite of reality .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Ramesh , what does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook and Twitter to be making decisions about what content is permissible , what content should be promoted and what content should be censored ?
Could you expand on what your Bill of Rights , Digital Bill of Rights , that you mentioned earlier , would change , and also the alternatives to the way in which these companies and the internet generally operate ?
You mentioned , for example , what ’ s happened in Oaxaca , in Mexico .
RAMESH SRINIVASAN : Yeah , absolutely .
Absolutely .
You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the private takeover of corporations that are valued at — you know , we ’ re talking about nearly a trillion dollars for each of these Big Tech companies , and in some cases more — all of this built upon the backs of American taxpayers , right ?
And so , we don ’ t see — we see a pattern , again and again , where all of the costs are borne by society , all of the costs of private greed and a lack of accountability , and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , incredible valuations — are privatized and are in the hands of shareholders .
And so , this is a great opportunity for us , with this Digital Bill of Rights , or just more expansive , progressive , peoples-based legislation , for us to really fight for a digital world that also returns value to all of us as citizens , but also all of us as workers , the working class , the middle class and so on .
And that is the opposite of what is occurring , Nermeen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are offered to us , generally speaking , by the tech companies .
We see a little bit more movement by Jack Dorsey in this last round , but not a lot .
We see tech companies pretending — private tech companies pretending like they are the internet , when in fact they are private corporations that rest on the backs of the internet .
We saw Sundar Pichai from Google do that , you know , kind of make that kind of claim again and again .
What they usually offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI and , “ Oh , we ’ ll fix the problem in-house , and we will be collaborative.
” But there ’ s almost never any specifics .
There is almost never any real transparency , as we just saw in these clips .
There is almost never any audit .
So what we need , in a real progressive movement toward transforming tech in the public interest , are things like digital public infrastructure .
We need a universal jobs guarantee .
We need AI systems , if they are to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built and designed by we , the people , especially groups like — for example , movements like Black Lives Matter should take power over whether we use facial recognition and AI technologies .
So what we really need is a transference of power and governance in the hands of people .
And so , this gives us an opportunity , as we see Big Tech spectacularly fail again and again and again and now be used as some sort of punching bag for this right-wing administration that relies on an absence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely invert the system and transform it to support not just corporate welfare , but actually all of our interests as Americans .
And we ’ re talking about the wealthiest companies in the history of the world .
We are reliant on Big Tech platforms and Big Tech companies more than ever , you know , as we sit out this pandemic .
And we see handouts , not just by Republicans , but by Democratic administrations , as you all have covered on Democracy Now !
, to Big Tech companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them a blank check , without any governance or oversight or real accountability , to just basically technologize our future in whatever ways they choose to do so .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Ramesh Srinivasan , this is a conversation that we will continue at a future point .
Professor Srinivasan teaches information studies at the University of California , Los Angeles , UCLA , where he also directs the Digital Cultures Lab .
He ’ s author of the book Beyond the Valley : How Innovators Around the World Are Overcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When we come back , as millions of Americans plunge into pandemic poverty , the Senate has adjourned before passing another stimulus bill .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
Just days ahead of Election Day, chief executives of Facebook, Google and Twitter were grilled on Capitol Hill about how they moderate hate speech, extremist content and election disinformation, including tweets from President Trump. The Senate Commerce Committee hearing was officially about, quote, “how best to preserve the internet as a forum for open discourse” and whether to change a decades-old law known as Section 230 that protects internet companies from legal liability for content generated by its users. But most Republican senators focused on allegations that the platforms systematically censor conservatives. This is Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas questioning Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
SEN. TED CRUZ: Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear? And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?
JACK DORSEY: We’re not doing that. And this is why I opened this hearing with calls for more transparency. We realize we need to earn trust more. We realize that more accountability is needed to show our intentions and to show the outcomes.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Republican Senator Ted Cruz questioning Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, virtually. This is Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah questioning Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
SEN. MIKE LEE: Can you name for me one high-profile person or entity from a liberal ideology who you have censored and what particular action you took?
SUNDAR PICHAI: We have, you know, turned down ads from Priorities USA, from Vice President Biden’s campaign. We have had compliance issues with World Socialist Review, which is a left-leaning publication. I can give you several examples.
SEN. MIKE LEE: There is a disparity between the censorship — and again, I’m using that as a term of art, as I’ve defined it a moment ago — between the censorship of conservative and liberal points of view. And it’s an enormous disparity.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee questioning Google CEO Sundar Pichai. This comes as the progressive news organization Mother Jones recently reported Facebook tweaked its code to help right-wing publishers and throttle left-leaning sites. The Wall Street Journal reported Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally approved the plans.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats accused Republicans of politicizing the hearing, and questioned the three tech executives about their efforts to stop the spread of viral disinformation. This is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: I want to note first that this hearing comes six days before Election Day, and it makes — I believe we’re politicizing and the Republican majority is politicizing what should actually not be a partisan topic. … When John McCain and I and Senator Warner introduced the Honest Ads Act, we got pushback from your company, others, and you were initially against it. Then we discussed this at a hearing. You’re for it. I appreciate that. And have you spent any of the money — I know you spent the most money — Facebook spent the most money ever lobbying last year. Have you spent any of the money trying to change or block the bill?
MARK ZUCKERBERG: Senator, no.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: In the past two years?
MARK ZUCKERBERG: In fact, I have endorsed it publicly, and we’ve implemented it into our systems, even though it hasn’t become law. I’m a big supporter of the Honest Ads Act.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Have you done anything in the past to try to change it? No. Have you done anything to get it passed? Because we’re at a roadblock on it. And I do appreciate that you voluntarily implemented some of it, but have you voluntarily implemented the part of the Honest Ads Act where you fully disclose which groups of people are being targeted by political ads?
MARK ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we have, I think, industry-leading transparency around political ads, and part of that is showing which audiences, in broad terms, ended up seeing the ads. And, of course, getting the right resolution on that is challenging without it becoming a privacy issue, but we’ve tried to do that and provide as much transparency as we can. And I think we’re currently leading in that area.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook.
Well, for more, we’re joined by Ramesh Srinivasan, professor of information studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA, where he directs the Digital Cultures Lab. He’s the author of the book Beyond the Valley: How Innovators Around the World Are Overcoming Inequality and Creating the Technologies of Tomorrow.
Professor, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. Why don’t you first summarize this hearing and what you think is most critical, what was raised and what you think was most problematic?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: [inaudible] here. I think what we see is astonishing timing being pushed forward by the Republicans and the administration. Note, you know, Democracy Now! itself covered this just a few days ago, the antitrust — or, the regulatory potential action pushed forward by the Department of Justice against Google just a few days ago.
But what we see occurring is a certain set of talking points which might be used by the Republicans and the administration as a basis for making claims to invalidate the election. There are claims being made, for years, without any basis or evidence, by President Trump that Google was responsible for millions of votes being cast against the Republicans, against him in 2016. So, basically, what we see coming from the Republicans is this argument that lacks any evidence, quite frankly, that there are systematic biases in terms of censorship, as well as algorithmic bias, that skew against conservative talking points and conservative perspectives, when in fact, in reality, the opposite is exactly what is true.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to look at Section 230, which, you know, sort of is a proposal on the Communications Decency Act that regulates the extremist content. It normalizes it. It allows certain types of content to be able to be present on online platforms that may not be on other media channels, such as Democracy Now! itself.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ramesh, Senator Jon Tester, who spoke at yesterday’s hearing, said the hearing had been called at the directive of the White House. Do you think that’s plausible? And also, the fact that Donald Trump has used so liberally, frequently, almost hourly, the social media platform Twitter, and Twitter just recently blocked a couple of his posts. So, do you think that this hearing is driven in part by that, by that decision?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: I think there’s — thank you for that question, Nermeen. Absolutely. It seems highly likely that that’s possible, because Twitter has long been praised by the president as his mouthpiece to, quote-unquote, “directly reaching the people.” And we know that Twitter’s algorithms, much like Facebook’s, work to prioritize content that is likely to be sensational, that grabs people’s attention. This is what the tech companies call “maximizing audience engagement.”
So we know that social media technologies, which are basically designed to try to grab our attention as much as possible so they can maximize their ability to gather and extract data from us, are designed in a way to support the agendas of disinformation and the spectacle, really, that is put forth by this administration. So we have to ask very difficult questions about the timing of all of this and try to look at why. Why is this administration deciding to make this an issue right before the election? And I think there are very difficult questions and answers that we have to uncover related to that, that are politically motivated rather than evidence-based.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Do you think, Ramesh, on the basis of this hearing, that social media, Big Tech, might alter the way that it deals with any kind of election dispute that might come following November 3rd?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: I’m certainly hopeful of that. Our Big Tech companies are private corporations that have monetized publicly funded investments that all of us have paid for as American taxpayers. And this is true across the board with other major corporate initiatives. I think it’s extremely important, moving forward, that we have an expansive, progressive Digital Bill of Rights, where there’s actual public governance and public audit of these tech platforms about how they make decisions about whose data they gather. And we need real regulatory action to ensure that they serve the public interest, because they actually rest on the backs of public subsidies and public investments. So, I think that this is an opportunity for us to push forward real progressive advances and legislation on this issue.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Professor Srinivasan, this issue of the timing of this hearing, right before the election, a kind of opening salvo of President Trump warning Google and other of the social media companies, the Department of Justice filing a major lawsuit against Google last week. Can you talk more about what this is laying the groundwork for, in terms of invalidating the whole election?
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: It’s potentially an explanation that can be used by the administration to make claims that the election was conducted under false pretenses because Big Tech is systematically biased against the president and his agenda. But nothing can be further from the truth, as we were just discussing. President Trump made the claim just some — you know, just over a year ago, that Google cost him upwards of 10 million votes that were lost, in his favor, toward Hillary Clinton in 2016, and even in higher number in 2018. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever.
We know, if anything, when we look at the litany of examples of conspiracy theories, that we’re all reliant on Big Tech as we sit out this pandemic and future pandemics and climate crises, that these technology platforms, we are seeing again and again — and we see examples, like Cambridge Analytica, foreign interference, disinformation — all of this has skewed toward conservative, fringe and right-leaning content. So, actually, if anything, the most spectacular disinformation, which fuels Trump’s base and fuels the Trump agenda of disorientation and controversy, has skewed toward the right. So Trump has made these claims that are in fact the opposite of reality.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ramesh, what does it mean also for social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to be making decisions about what content is permissible, what content should be promoted and what content should be censored? Could you expand on what your Bill of Rights, Digital Bill of Rights, that you mentioned earlier, would change, and also the alternatives to the way in which these companies and the internet generally operate? You mentioned, for example, what’s happened in Oaxaca, in Mexico.
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, what we’ve really seen occur is the private takeover of corporations that are valued at — you know, we’re talking about nearly a trillion dollars for each of these Big Tech companies, and in some cases more — all of this built upon the backs of American taxpayers, right? And so, we don’t see — we see a pattern, again and again, where all of the costs are borne by society, all of the costs of private greed and a lack of accountability, and all of the profits — and in this case, incredible valuations — are privatized and are in the hands of shareholders. And so, this is a great opportunity for us, with this Digital Bill of Rights, or just more expansive, progressive, peoples-based legislation, for us to really fight for a digital world that also returns value to all of us as citizens, but also all of us as workers, the working class, the middle class and so on.
And that is the opposite of what is occurring, Nermeen. What we see occurring are platitudes that are offered to us, generally speaking, by the tech companies. We see a little bit more movement by Jack Dorsey in this last round, but not a lot. We see tech companies pretending — private tech companies pretending like they are the internet, when in fact they are private corporations that rest on the backs of the internet. We saw Sundar Pichai from Google do that, you know, kind of make that kind of claim again and again. What they usually offer us are — is “better” AI and, “Oh, we’ll fix the problem in-house, and we will be collaborative.” But there’s almost never any specifics. There is almost never any real transparency, as we just saw in these clips. There is almost never any audit.
So what we need, in a real progressive movement toward transforming tech in the public interest, are things like digital public infrastructure. We need a universal jobs guarantee. We need AI systems, if they are to be used at all, to be built and designed by we, the people, especially groups like — for example, movements like Black Lives Matter should take power over whether we use facial recognition and AI technologies. So what we really need is a transference of power and governance in the hands of people.
And so, this gives us an opportunity, as we see Big Tech spectacularly fail again and again and again and now be used as some sort of punching bag for this right-wing administration that relies on an absence of evidence. We have an opportunity to completely invert the system and transform it to support not just corporate welfare, but actually all of our interests as Americans. And we’re talking about the wealthiest companies in the history of the world. We are reliant on Big Tech platforms and Big Tech companies more than ever, you know, as we sit out this pandemic. And we see handouts, not just by Republicans, but by Democratic administrations, as you all have covered on Democracy Now!, to Big Tech companies as if somehow we are just giving them a blank check, without any governance or oversight or real accountability, to just basically technologize our future in whatever ways they choose to do so.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ramesh Srinivasan, this is a conversation that we will continue at a future point. Professor Srinivasan teaches information studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA, where he also directs the Digital Cultures Lab. He’s author of the book Beyond the Valley: How Innovators Around the World Are Overcoming Inequality and Creating the Technologies of Tomorrow.
When we come back, as millions of Americans plunge into pandemic poverty, the Senate has adjourned before passing another stimulus bill. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-10-29--Facebook Choked Traffic to Mother Jones & Other Sites While Amplifying Right-Wing Misinformation

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : But , Ari Berman , we have one last question for you that doesn ’ t exactly relate to , though kind of , the elections .
We ’ re about to turn to a segment on Big Tech .
The CEOs were grilled Wednesday on Capitol Hill about how they moderate election disinformation and extremist content .
They were accused by Republicans of censoring conservatives .
But before we go , I wanted to ask you about how Facebook designed changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the visibility of progressive news sites like Mother Jones , your news organization .
According to The Wall Street Journal , some policy executives at Facebook voiced concerns in 2017 about pending changes to the news feed algorithm that they thought might have a larger impact on right-leaning news sites like The Daily Wire , so engineers made changes to the algorithm that would have a bigger impact on the traffic to left-leaning sites .
Meanwhile , Mother Jones editors wrote in 2019 the site had seen a sharp decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loss of around $ 600,000 over 18 months .
And apparently , according to The Wall Street Journal , Zuckerberg himself signed off on these changes .
Your comments ?
ARI BERMAN : It ’ s incredibly disturbing .
It ’ s an attack on democracy .
It ’ s an attack on freedom of the press .
It ’ s an attack on the progressive movement .
Facebook is not censoring conservatives ; it ’ s boosting conservatives .
It ’ s censoring progressives .
It ’ s censoring independent media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to do everything we can to get the truth out and Facebook is deliberately sabotaging our readership is so disturbing , at the same time that Facebook is spreading all of this disinformation by conservatives , by President Trump .
So you have a situation where things that are manifestly untrue , by President Trump , by right-wing media , are getting huge boosts on Facebook , but efforts by Mother Jones and other publications to counter that disinformation , to tell people what ’ s really going on , to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So this is a huge scandal for democracy .
This is a huge scandal for the media .
Facebook needs to be held accountable for this .
And I believe if there ’ s a new administration and a new Congress , they are going to take a very hard look at Facebook ’ s policies and how it ’ s deliberately censored publications like Mother Jones , because this is an attack on democracy , an attack on freedom of the press .
AMY GOODMAN : Ari Berman , thanks so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer at Mother Jones , author of Give Us the Ballot : The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America .
And we ’ ll link to your piece at Mother Jones ’ website , “ Brett Kavanaugh Lays Out a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election .
When we come back , yes , we will look more at how — Big Tech ’ s role in the election , as Senate Republicans accuse social media companies of favoring Democrats .
And Democrats also took on the CEOs .
But is @ @ @ @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Ari Berman, we have one last question for you that doesn’t exactly relate to, though kind of, the elections. We’re about to turn to a segment on Big Tech. The CEOs were grilled Wednesday on Capitol Hill about how they moderate election disinformation and extremist content. They were accused by Republicans of censoring conservatives.
But before we go, I wanted to ask you about how Facebook designed changes to its news feed algorithm in 2017 to reduce the visibility of progressive news sites like Mother Jones, your news organization. According to The Wall Street Journal, some policy executives at Facebook voiced concerns in 2017 about pending changes to the news feed algorithm that they thought might have a larger impact on right-leaning news sites like The Daily Wire, so engineers made changes to the algorithm that would have a bigger impact on the traffic to left-leaning sites. Meanwhile, Mother Jones editors wrote in 2019 the site had seen a sharp decline in its Facebook audience, which translated to a loss of around $600,000 over 18 months. And apparently, according to The Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg himself signed off on these changes. Your comments?
ARI BERMAN: It’s incredibly disturbing. It’s an attack on democracy. It’s an attack on freedom of the press. It’s an attack on the progressive movement. Facebook is not censoring conservatives; it’s boosting conservatives. It’s censoring progressives. It’s censoring independent media. And the fact that we are trying to do everything we can to get the truth out and Facebook is deliberately sabotaging our readership is so disturbing, at the same time that Facebook is spreading all of this disinformation by conservatives, by President Trump. So you have a situation where things that are manifestly untrue, by President Trump, by right-wing media, are getting huge boosts on Facebook, but efforts by Mother Jones and other publications to counter that disinformation, to tell people what’s really going on, to report the facts, that is being censored.
So this is a huge scandal for democracy. This is a huge scandal for the media. Facebook needs to be held accountable for this. And I believe if there’s a new administration and a new Congress, they are going to take a very hard look at Facebook’s policies and how it’s deliberately censored publications like Mother Jones, because this is an attack on democracy, an attack on freedom of the press.
AMY GOODMAN: Ari Berman, thanks so much for being with us, senior writer at Mother Jones, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. And we’ll link to your piece at Mother Jones’ website, “Brett Kavanaugh Lays Out a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election.
When we come back, yes, we will look more at how — Big Tech’s role in the election, as Senate Republicans accuse social media companies of favoring Democrats. And Democrats also took on the CEOs. But is that true? Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-10-29--"Drop Your Ballot Off": Supreme Court Rulings on Mailed Ballots Sow Doubt on Which Votes Will Count

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : A record-shattering 76 million people have already voted in person or by mail in the 2020 election , but the battle over the counting of mail-in ballots continues .
On Wednesday , the Supreme Court decided two major related cases , ruling swing states Pennsylvania and North Carolina can accept absentee ballots in the days following Election Day — well , at least for now .
In the Pennsylvania case , the justices refused to take up a plea from Republicans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court to count ballots received up until three days after the election if they ’ re postmarked by November 3rd .
But the justices could still consider the Republican challenge again after the election .
All ballots received after November 3rd will be segregated from other ballots .
In the North Carolina case , the justices let stand a lower court ruling allowing the state ’ s Board of Elections to extend the deadline for counting ballots to nine days after Election Day .
Justice Amy Coney Barrett , who was just sworn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in either case .
The rulings follow the Supreme Court ’ s Monday 5-to-3 decision that mail-in ballots in Wisconsin can be counted only if they ’ re received by Election Day .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the conservative majority , writing a concurring opinion that alarmed voting rights advocates after he claimed counting ballots received after Election Day could create , quote , “ suspicions of impropriety ” because they could “ potentially flip the results of an election , ” he wrote .
In a rare move , Kavanaugh changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing criticism for falsely saying that the state of Vermont had not changed its voting rules due to the pandemic .
Kavanaugh issued a revised opinion , changing the phrase “ ordinary election rules ” to “ ordinary election deadline rules.
” He made the change without comment or explanation , but it came after Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos tweeted he had formerly requested a correction to what he called the , quote , “ erroneous claim by Justice Kavanaugh that Vermont has not changed voting procedures for the 2020 Elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to issuing decisions on the voting rights of American citizens , facts matter , ” the Vermont secretary of state wrote .
This is Condos [ sic ] in an interview earlier on CNN .
AMY GOODMAN : For more on the significance of the Supreme Court rulings and how early voting is playing out across the country , we ’ re joined by Ari Berman , senior writer at Mother Jones , author of Give Us the Ballot : The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America , his latest Mother Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election.
” Ari , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Explain these Supreme Court decisions that just took place yesterday and in the last few days .
ARI BERMAN : Hi , Amy .
Good to be back .
So , there were a flurry of decisions from the Supreme Court .
And it ’ s very unusual for the Supreme Court to be hearing cases about voting rules in which tens of millions of people are already voting , and the Election Day is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were three major rulings .
In Wisconsin , the Supreme Court said that ballots must be received by Election Day .
But in Pennsylvania and North Carolina , they essentially said the opposite , which is that in Pennsylvania , ballots postmarked by Election Day could be received three days after ; in North Carolina , ballots postmarked by Election Day could be received up to nine days after .
But these victories are only preliminary victories .
In the Pennsylvania case , Samuel Alito basically said Pennsylvania Republicans should try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might throw those ballots out — which is stunning that you have a justice on the Supreme Court basically saying , “ Come back to us , and we ’ ll throw those votes out , ” that are going to be disproportionately cast by Democrats , that are going to be legal under Pennsylvania law .
And so , my message to voters in these states and other states is drop your ballot off .
It ’ s too late to mail your ballots back in states like Wisconsin that have Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deadline of Election Day for when your ballot has to be received .
But even if you live in a state like Pennsylvania and North Carolina , don ’ t leave it to chance that your vote can be thrown out .
If you drop your ballot off or if you vote early in person or on Election Day , there is certainty that your votes will be counted .
You do not have that same certainty , given the composition of the Supreme Court , with ballots arriving after Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , you wrote that Republican efforts at voter suppression may actually be backfiring .
Could you explain ?
ARI BERMAN : Yeah , Nermeen .
That could be a really fascinating subplot to this election .
Voter suppression has been the dominant storyline of the election , the efforts to make it harder to vote .
But I do believe it ’ s having a backlash in terms of motivating Democrats and voters of color to show up in record numbers .
Trump has been so brazen about the suppression , talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be able to vote by mail , saying he won ’ t commit to a peaceful transfer of power , saying he doesn ’ t want votes to be counted ; and then at the local level , things like in Texas , where the governor of Texas , Greg Abbott , said that there can only be one location to drop your mail ballots off per county , so that in Harris County , Texas , instead of 12 places to drop your ballot off , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 2.4 million registered voters , is larger than the state of Rhode Island and has more people than 26 states .
Texas Democrats and Democrats across the country heard these messages , and they said , “ If Republicans are trying so hard to attack my right to vote , my right to vote must matter .
And the most important thing for me to do is to vote in record numbers and to vote early , so my votes can ’ t be thrown out.
” So I believe the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , but particularly in states that have been hit hard by voter suppression — in Georgia , in Texas — is sparking a backlash from voters that are angry that their right to vote is under assault , and are determined to make sure their votes are counted .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And could you talk , Ari , about some of your concerns regarding Amy Coney Barrett , her record on voting rights , and what role she might play in the event that this election is disputed , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ARI BERMAN : I ’ m extremely concerned about Amy Coney Barrett ’ s record on voting rights .
At her confirmation hearing , she refused to answer very basic questions about the protection of the right to vote .
She refused to say whether voter intimidation is illegal , which it is .
She refused to say whether the president of the United States had the power to delay the election , which he does not .
She refused to acknowledge the continued existence of voter suppression , which everyone knows still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these very , very basic questions about voting rights .
She has written opinions in the past that are very concerning , saying , for example , that people with past felony convictions should be able to own guns but not be able to vote .
And she comes at a moment when President Trump is saying that he wants her confirmed to the court so she can be the deciding vote to challenge the counting of ballots , which is just so incredibly disturbing in a democracy , that you would appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose of her not counting votes that are cast by your opponent , and so the prospect of her , first off , not recusing herself , even though she was confirmed just eight days before the election , which , at the time , 60 million people had voted , but then the fact that she could be the deciding vote on one of these cases .
And the last thing I ’ ll say about Amy Coney Barrett is , Amy Coney Barrett , Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts all worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush .
So they all have a track record of doing whatever it takes to count Republican votes , but stopping Democratic votes from counting .
And that ’ s exactly the situation President Trump wants to happen again .
AMY GOODMAN : And in addition to that , Ari , Clarence Thomas is the only remaining judge who gave the election to Bush in 2000 .
And you add to that these three Supreme Court justices , as you said — Roberts , Kavanaugh and Barrett — who are veterans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush v. Gore , so to get to five they only need one more vote .
And you ’ ve got the ultraconservatives Gorsuch and Alito .
ARI BERMAN : Exactly .
So , Amy , it ’ s not hard to imagine another Bush v. Gore scenario .
And the really shocking thing about Brett Kavanaugh ’ s opinion in the Wisconsin case , which was so sloppy and so inaccurate , was that he actually cited Bush v. Gore in his opinion .
And the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a precedent .
So , Kavanaugh not only cited the case as a precedent when the Supreme Court said not to , it had only been cited once in 20 years , by Clarence Thomas .
And then Brett Kavanaugh , who worked on the Florida 2000 recount for George W. Bush , cites Bush v. Gore as a precedent for potentially throwing out Democratic votes in the future .
So they ’ ve been very open about their plans here .
The Republican Party wants to rerun Bush v. Gore .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ every way possible , and they want to throw out votes cast by Democrats , and they want the Supreme Court to once again declare a Republican president the winner of the election .
I think that would lead to the biggest legitimacy crisis in American politics in our history , at least in our modern history .
And so , everyone needs to be aware of what the Supreme Court is trying to do , and they need to vote in record numbers — they need to vote in record numbers early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these late-arriving ballots or other things like they want to do .
AMY GOODMAN : Ari , I wanted to correct something in our lede .
We misidentified Vermont Secretary of State James Condos , who , of course , wrote to Kavanaugh to correct his concurring opinion early in the week .
The person who actually spoke on CNN was NYU professor Richard Pildes .
But it was Condos who demanded a correction and got one from Kavanaugh .
Talk about the significance of that and how rare that is .
ARI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly sloppy .
I mean , Supreme Court justices have clerks for a reason .
And they ’ re supposed to be factual in their analysis .
And not only was Brett Kavanaugh wrong on the merits of this Wisconsin case , he was factually inaccurate .
He said , for example , that states like Vermont had not changed their election procedures in response to COVID , when in fact Vermont has sent ballots to all registered voters to make it very , very easy to vote by mail , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign is opposing .
And so , I believe that Brett Kavanaugh ’ s opinion in this Wisconsin case was a form of election interference .
He was trying to delegitimize the counting of votes , because the most disturbing part of Brett Kavanaugh ’ s opinion , in addition to all the factual errors , was when he said that votes counted after Election Day could lead to “ suspicions of impropriety.
” That ’ s simply not true .
Every single state counts votes after Election Day .
Votes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election in nearly every state of the country .
Military ballots frequently come in after Election Day .
And , in fact , during the Florida 2000 recount , Brett Kavanaugh took the position that military ballots , which lean Republican , should be counted in Florida even after they arrived after Election Day .
So , Kavanaugh is making a completely different argument now than he made during the 2000 Florida recount for George W. Bush .
There ’ s no consistency .
And he is laying the groundwork to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
That is absolutely chilling that a Supreme Court justice would do that .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Ari , what will you be watching most closely on November 3rd ?
And what do you think we ’ ll know by the end of the night ?
ARI BERMAN : So many things , Nermeen .
Where to start ?
I mean , obviously , I ’ m going to see what the turnout is like .
So many people have voted early already that we don ’ t know how many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day .
I ’ m going to see how many people were , for example , planning to vote by mail but didn ’ t get their mail ballots , and so had to vote on Election Day .
I ’ m going to see what the lines look like .
I ’ m going to see whether there ’ s voter intimidation , whether the Trump administration or vigilante groups are trying to challenge people ’ s right to vote at the polls .
And then I ’ m going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the votes .
In some states , like in Arizona and Florida , they start — and North Carolina — they start counting votes early .
But in the three most important battleground states — in Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — they can not start counting votes early .
Michigan , they can start a day earlier , but Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , they can ’ t actually start counting votes until Election Day , meaning it ’ s going to take some time .
It might take a day , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pennsylvania , they say they probably will have results by the Friday after the election .
So we ’ re not going to have a , quote-unquote , “ election night ” in the traditional sense of the word .
It ’ s going to take a little bit longer .
And the message from the media has to be : We need to count all the votes , and it ’ s more important to get it right than to do it quickly , and that Donald Trump or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prematurely declare themselves the winner of the election .
This is done at the state and local level .
It ’ s going to take a little bit of time .
And we ’ re just going to have to adjust to that new reality .
AMY GOODMAN : And I want to let people know that we ’ re going to be doing a special on Tuesday night , November 3rd , from 9:00 Eastern time until midnight .
Not clear that any final results will be in , though maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in .
That ’ s 9:00 to midnight .
You can catch it at democracynow.org , or possibly your local station , wherever you ’ re watching Democracy Now !
, will be airing it , as well .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: A record-shattering 76 million people have already voted in person or by mail in the 2020 election, but the battle over the counting of mail-in ballots continues. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided two major related cases, ruling swing states Pennsylvania and North Carolina can accept absentee ballots in the days following Election Day — well, at least for now. In the Pennsylvania case, the justices refused to take up a plea from Republicans to overturn a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to count ballots received up until three days after the election if they’re postmarked by November 3rd. But the justices could still consider the Republican challenge again after the election. All ballots received after November 3rd will be segregated from other ballots. In the North Carolina case, the justices let stand a lower court ruling allowing the state’s Board of Elections to extend the deadline for counting ballots to nine days after Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was just sworn in this week, did not take part in either case.
The rulings follow the Supreme Court’s Monday 5-to-3 decision that mail-in ballots in Wisconsin can be counted only if they’re received by Election Day. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the conservative majority, writing a concurring opinion that alarmed voting rights advocates after he claimed counting ballots received after Election Day could create, quote, “suspicions of impropriety” because they could “potentially flip the results of an election,” he wrote. In a rare move, Kavanaugh changed a line in his opinion Wednesday after facing criticism for falsely saying that the state of Vermont had not changed its voting rules due to the pandemic. Kavanaugh issued a revised opinion, changing the phrase “ordinary election rules” to “ordinary election deadline rules.” He made the change without comment or explanation, but it came after Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos tweeted he had formerly requested a correction to what he called the, quote, “erroneous claim by Justice Kavanaugh that Vermont has not changed voting procedures for the 2020 Elections due to COVID-19. When it comes to issuing decisions on the voting rights of American citizens, facts matter,” the Vermont secretary of state wrote. This is Condos [sic] in an interview earlier on CNN.
RICHARD PILDES: Policymakers should consider extending these deadlines, given the massive volume of absentee ballots we’re going to get. Some states have done that. Most states have not. Most states do still require absentee ballots to be received by election night to be treated as valid votes.
AMY GOODMAN: For more on the significance of the Supreme Court rulings and how early voting is playing out across the country, we’re joined by Ari Berman, senior writer at Mother Jones, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, his latest Mother Jones piece, “Brett Kavanaugh Lays Out a Plan to Help Trump Steal the Election.”
Ari, welcome back to Democracy Now! Explain these Supreme Court decisions that just took place yesterday and in the last few days.
ARI BERMAN: Hi, Amy. Good to be back.
So, there were a flurry of decisions from the Supreme Court. And it’s very unusual for the Supreme Court to be hearing cases about voting rules in which tens of millions of people are already voting, and the Election Day is only a week away. And so, there were three major rulings. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court said that ballots must be received by Election Day. But in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, they essentially said the opposite, which is that in Pennsylvania, ballots postmarked by Election Day could be received three days after; in North Carolina, ballots postmarked by Election Day could be received up to nine days after.
But these victories are only preliminary victories. In the Pennsylvania case, Samuel Alito basically said Pennsylvania Republicans should try to challenge this after the election; we might throw those ballots out — which is stunning that you have a justice on the Supreme Court basically saying, “Come back to us, and we’ll throw those votes out,” that are going to be disproportionately cast by Democrats, that are going to be legal under Pennsylvania law.
And so, my message to voters in these states and other states is drop your ballot off. It’s too late to mail your ballots back in states like Wisconsin that have Election Day deadlines, and 30 states have a deadline of Election Day for when your ballot has to be received. But even if you live in a state like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, don’t leave it to chance that your vote can be thrown out. If you drop your ballot off or if you vote early in person or on Election Day, there is certainty that your votes will be counted. You do not have that same certainty, given the composition of the Supreme Court, with ballots arriving after Election Day.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: In a recent article, you wrote that Republican efforts at voter suppression may actually be backfiring. Could you explain?
ARI BERMAN: Yeah, Nermeen. That could be a really fascinating subplot to this election. Voter suppression has been the dominant storyline of the election, the efforts to make it harder to vote. But I do believe it’s having a backlash in terms of motivating Democrats and voters of color to show up in record numbers.
Trump has been so brazen about the suppression, talking about sabotaging the post office so people won’t be able to vote by mail, saying he won’t commit to a peaceful transfer of power, saying he doesn’t want votes to be counted; and then at the local level, things like in Texas, where the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, said that there can only be one location to drop your mail ballots off per county, so that in Harris County, Texas, instead of 12 places to drop your ballot off, there’s only one, in a county that has 2.4 million registered voters, is larger than the state of Rhode Island and has more people than 26 states.
Texas Democrats and Democrats across the country heard these messages, and they said, “If Republicans are trying so hard to attack my right to vote, my right to vote must matter. And the most important thing for me to do is to vote in record numbers and to vote early, so my votes can’t be thrown out.” So I believe the record turnout we’re seeing all across the country, but particularly in states that have been hit hard by voter suppression — in Georgia, in Texas — is sparking a backlash from voters that are angry that their right to vote is under assault, and are determined to make sure their votes are counted.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And could you talk, Ari, about some of your concerns regarding Amy Coney Barrett, her record on voting rights, and what role she might play in the event that this election is disputed, as many are anticipating it will be?
ARI BERMAN: I’m extremely concerned about Amy Coney Barrett’s record on voting rights. At her confirmation hearing, she refused to answer very basic questions about the protection of the right to vote. She refused to say whether voter intimidation is illegal, which it is. She refused to say whether the president of the United States had the power to delay the election, which he does not. She refused to acknowledge the continued existence of voter suppression, which everyone knows still exists. So she refused to answer these very, very basic questions about voting rights. She has written opinions in the past that are very concerning, saying, for example, that people with past felony convictions should be able to own guns but not be able to vote.
And she comes at a moment when President Trump is saying that he wants her confirmed to the court so she can be the deciding vote to challenge the counting of ballots, which is just so incredibly disturbing in a democracy, that you would appoint someone on the court with the express purpose of her not counting votes that are cast by your opponent, and so the prospect of her, first off, not recusing herself, even though she was confirmed just eight days before the election, which, at the time, 60 million people had voted, but then the fact that she could be the deciding vote on one of these cases.
And the last thing I’ll say about Amy Coney Barrett is, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts all worked on the Florida 2000 recount for George W. Bush. So they all have a track record of doing whatever it takes to count Republican votes, but stopping Democratic votes from counting. And that’s exactly the situation President Trump wants to happen again.
AMY GOODMAN: And in addition to that, Ari, Clarence Thomas is the only remaining judge who gave the election to Bush in 2000. And you add to that these three Supreme Court justices, as you said — Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett — who are veterans of the Bush legal team in 2000, Bush v. Gore, so to get to five they only need one more vote. And you’ve got the ultraconservatives Gorsuch and Alito.
ARI BERMAN: Exactly. So, Amy, it’s not hard to imagine another Bush v. Gore scenario. And the really shocking thing about Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in the Wisconsin case, which was so sloppy and so inaccurate, was that he actually cited Bush v. Gore in his opinion. And the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore explicitly said don’t cite this as a precedent. So, Kavanaugh not only cited the case as a precedent when the Supreme Court said not to, it had only been cited once in 20 years, by Clarence Thomas. And then Brett Kavanaugh, who worked on the Florida 2000 recount for George W. Bush, cites Bush v. Gore as a precedent for potentially throwing out Democratic votes in the future.
So they’ve been very open about their plans here. The Republican Party wants to rerun Bush v. Gore. They want to litigate this election in every way possible, and they want to throw out votes cast by Democrats, and they want the Supreme Court to once again declare a Republican president the winner of the election. I think that would lead to the biggest legitimacy crisis in American politics in our history, at least in our modern history. And so, everyone needs to be aware of what the Supreme Court is trying to do, and they need to vote in record numbers — they need to vote in record numbers early — so they can’t challenge these late-arriving ballots or other things like they want to do.
AMY GOODMAN: Ari, I wanted to correct something in our lede. We misidentified Vermont Secretary of State James Condos, who, of course, wrote to Kavanaugh to correct his concurring opinion early in the week. The person who actually spoke on CNN was NYU professor Richard Pildes. But it was Condos who demanded a correction and got one from Kavanaugh. Talk about the significance of that and how rare that is.
ARI BERMAN: It’s just so incredibly sloppy. I mean, Supreme Court justices have clerks for a reason. And they’re supposed to be factual in their analysis. And not only was Brett Kavanaugh wrong on the merits of this Wisconsin case, he was factually inaccurate. He said, for example, that states like Vermont had not changed their election procedures in response to COVID, when in fact Vermont has sent ballots to all registered voters to make it very, very easy to vote by mail, which is the very kind of thing that the Trump campaign is opposing.
And so, I believe that Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in this Wisconsin case was a form of election interference. He was trying to delegitimize the counting of votes, because the most disturbing part of Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion, in addition to all the factual errors, was when he said that votes counted after Election Day could lead to “suspicions of impropriety.” That’s simply not true. Every single state counts votes after Election Day. Votes are not certified until at least a week after the election in nearly every state of the country. Military ballots frequently come in after Election Day. And, in fact, during the Florida 2000 recount, Brett Kavanaugh took the position that military ballots, which lean Republican, should be counted in Florida even after they arrived after Election Day. So, Kavanaugh is making a completely different argument now than he made during the 2000 Florida recount for George W. Bush. There’s no consistency. And he is laying the groundwork to help President Trump try to steal the election. That is absolutely chilling that a Supreme Court justice would do that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ari, what will you be watching most closely on November 3rd? And what do you think we’ll know by the end of the night?
ARI BERMAN: So many things, Nermeen. Where to start? I mean, obviously, I’m going to see what the turnout is like. So many people have voted early already that we don’t know how many people are actually going to show up on Election Day. I’m going to see how many people were, for example, planning to vote by mail but didn’t get their mail ballots, and so had to vote on Election Day. I’m going to see what the lines look like. I’m going to see whether there’s voter intimidation, whether the Trump administration or vigilante groups are trying to challenge people’s right to vote at the polls.
And then I’m going to see how long it takes to count the votes. In some states, like in Arizona and Florida, they start — and North Carolina — they start counting votes early. But in the three most important battleground states — in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — they cannot start counting votes early. Michigan, they can start a day earlier, but Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, they can’t actually start counting votes until Election Day, meaning it’s going to take some time. It might take a day, two days, three days. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, they say they probably will have results by the Friday after the election.
So we’re not going to have a, quote-unquote, “election night” in the traditional sense of the word. It’s going to take a little bit longer. And the message from the media has to be: We need to count all the votes, and it’s more important to get it right than to do it quickly, and that Donald Trump or any other candidate doesn’t have the power to prematurely declare themselves the winner of the election. This is done at the state and local level. It’s going to take a little bit of time. And we’re just going to have to adjust to that new reality.
AMY GOODMAN: And I want to let people know that we’re going to be doing a special on Tuesday night, November 3rd, from 9:00 Eastern time until midnight. Not clear that any final results will be in, though maybe a number of other down-ballot races will be in. That’s 9:00 to midnight. You can catch it at democracynow.org, or possibly your local station, wherever you’re watching Democracy Now!, will be airing it, as well.


democracynow--2020-10-29--Headlines for October 29, 2020

Headlines for October 29, 2020

The United States recorded more than 80,000 new coronavirus infections Wednesday and over 1,000 new deaths , as the White House Coronavirus Task Force warned in an internal report of “ unrelenting , broad community spread in the Midwest , Upper Midwest and West.
” Every state in the union is either holding steady or seeing an increase in new cases , with the U.S. headed for a third surge that ’ s set to rival two previous peaks .
On the campaign trail , President Trump continues to rally his supporters at packed events where few people wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona , where he mocked a statewide mask mandate ordered by California Governor Gavin Newsom .
Trump ’ s remarks came as a new study by Vanderbilt University researchers found coronavirus hospitalizations rose dramatically in places without a local mask mandate compared to places where a large majority of people wore face coverings in public .
On Wednesday , top infectious disease scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci made his strongest comments yet in favor of a nationwide mask mandate .
Dr. Anthony Fauci : “ Let ’ s put aside these extraordinary excuses for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re dealing with a situation that ’ s not trivial .
You know , we have 225,000 deaths .
The modeling tells us we ’ re going to get a hundred or more thousand as we get into the winter .
That is just something that ’ s unacceptable.
” Meanwhile , new audio has emerged of President Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner bragging about Trump ’ s decision to ignore the advice of his top public health officials early in the pandemic .
Kushner was speaking with journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kushner : “ You know , it was almost like Trump getting the country back from the doctors , right ?
In the sense that what he now did was , you know , he ’ s going to own the open-up.
” Last week , a study in the journal Nature Medicine found universal mask wearing across the U.S. could save nearly 130,000 lives by the end of next February .

The United States recorded more than 80,000 new coronavirus infections Wednesday and over 1,000 new deaths, as the White House Coronavirus Task Force warned in an internal report of “unrelenting, broad community spread in the Midwest, Upper Midwest and West.” Every state in the union is either holding steady or seeing an increase in new cases, with the U.S. headed for a third surge that’s set to rival two previous peaks.
On the campaign trail, President Trump continues to rally his supporters at packed events where few people wear masks. On Wednesday, Trump traveled to Arizona, where he mocked a statewide mask mandate ordered by California Governor Gavin Newsom.
President Donald Trump: “In California, you have a special mask. You cannot, under any circumstances, take it off. You have to eat through the mask.”
Trump’s remarks came as a new study by Vanderbilt University researchers found coronavirus hospitalizations rose dramatically in places without a local mask mandate compared to places where a large majority of people wore face coverings in public. On Wednesday, top infectious disease scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci made his strongest comments yet in favor of a nationwide mask mandate.
Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Let’s put aside these extraordinary excuses for not doing it, when we’re dealing with a situation that’s not trivial. You know, we have 225,000 deaths. The modeling tells us we’re going to get a hundred or more thousand as we get into the winter. That is just something that’s unacceptable.”
Meanwhile, new audio has emerged of President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner bragging about Trump’s decision to ignore the advice of his top public health officials early in the pandemic. Kushner was speaking with journalist Bob Woodward on April 18.
Jared Kushner: “You know, it was almost like Trump getting the country back from the doctors, right? In the sense that what he now did was, you know, he’s going to own the open-up.”
Last week, a study in the journal Nature Medicine found universal mask wearing across the U.S. could save nearly 130,000 lives by the end of next February.


democracynow--2020-10-30--"Let the People Pick the President": The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
As the presidential candidates make their final campaign push ahead of Election Day by visiting key battleground states like Florida and North Carolina , we turn now to look at the case for abolishing the Electoral College .
Two of the last three presidencies , Donald Trump ’ s included , have gone to the candidate who lost the popular vote .
In 2000 , the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election to George W. Bush .
It was later determined Vice President Al Gore actually won the election by half a million votes .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than Trump , but Trump still won .
The Electoral College , enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by the wealthy white Founders , many of whom were slaveholders , has allowed these victories , where the loser wins .
But a mass movement is building to elect the president through a national popular vote .
For more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined by journalist Jesse Wegman , member of The New York Times editorial board , author of Let the People Pick the President : The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College .
So , Jesse Wegman , welcome to back to Democracy Now !
Please explain .
Explain the roots of the Electoral College and what this movement is all about .
JESSE WEGMAN : Sure .
Well , you know , the Framers who met at the Constitutional Convention really had no idea what they were doing when they established how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was the hardest issue they had to decide .
They fought about it the entire summer of 1787 .
And at the very end , they basically threw together this jerry-rigged system that we now call the Electoral College in a side room of the convention hall , really just to get the thing done and get it sent out to the states for ratification .
They didn ’ t really care too much about how it operated , because they knew George Washington was going to be the first president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem that high to them .
But nevertheless , the system that they thought they were designing basically fell apart within the first 10 years .
You know , the model we think we know is that there ’ s this body of deliberate , thoughtful , educated , wise men who will make the choice for the people about who should lead the country .
But within 10 years , it had completely stopped being like that , with the rise of national political parties .
It became a team sport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains today .
AMY GOODMAN : Talk about the role of slavery in the establishment of the Electoral College .
JESSE WEGMAN : Sure .
I mean , slavery is obviously at the heart of every compromise that is struck at that Constitutional Convention .
The one we know , the most familiar — that ’ s most familiar to us is the three-fifths compromise , and that was the deal by which the Southern slaveholding states got to count three-fifths of their slaves toward their representation in Congress , so that equals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress over the first decades of the country ’ s life .
And because of the way the Electoral College is designed , that translates into 12 to 14 extra electoral votes .
The South actually won the White House , held onto the speaker of the House , won many Supreme Court seats , because of that extra power .
It was called the “ slave power ” at the time , and it ran all the way up through the Civil War .
And so , that ’ s — really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the compromise , and it ’ s certainly that the Electoral College benefited the slave states well into the 19th century .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you have long been a proponent of abolishing the Electoral College .
Talk about how it is that , you know , losers win — for example , George W. Bush in 2000 .
And it is important to note that four of the people involved in that legal battle — now Amy Coney Barrett , John Roberts — AMY GOODMAN : — Brett Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice at the time , Clarence Thomas , were all involved with this — of course , Thomas ruling on behalf of Bush .
AMY GOODMAN : But how it is now that the Electoral College gathers — talk about where that actually happens — AMY GOODMAN : — and who the electors are , and what is the movement that is challenging this ?
JESSE WEGMAN : So , electors are just average people like you and me .
They are not deliberative , wise men .
They just happen to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each candidate has their own slate of electors .
Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress , so its members of the House plus its two senators .
That ’ s it .
That ’ s really most of what the Constitution says about the Electoral College .
The thing that gives us popular vote losers as presidents , that ’ s something that actually has nothing to do with the Constitution .
It is state laws that are called winner-take-all laws .
And these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like , which is they take those electors and they award all of them to the winner of the state ’ s popular vote .
Whoever wins the state ’ s popular vote wins all of that state ’ s electors .
So , in California , four-and-a-half million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016 .
That ’ s a lot of people .
That ’ s more than most states in the country .
And yet they all were essentially invisible when it came time to cast the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all but two states in the country , uses winner take all .
That winner-take-all rule is why George W. Bush won in 2000 .
It ’ s because even though Florida was essentially a tie , by any measure , George W. Bush gets 25 .
That tie in the popular vote translates into 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and zero for Al Gore .
Same thing happened in 2016 in different states .
In Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , it was essentially tied , and yet Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hillary Clinton won none .
This affects everyone , and it harms everyone .
Yes , it ’ s hurt Democrats and helped Republicans twice in the last 20 years , so it seems like a partisan issue , but in fact it ’ s not .
It harms everybody , no matter their political affiliation , all over the country .
So , that ’ s why we get to this popular vote compact , which is the latest way that has been come up with to get us to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , there ’ s been 800 or so attempts throughout American history to amend or just abolish the college outright .
They ’ ve all failed , with the exception of one , the 12th Amendment , which made some important adjustments to it .
But , obviously , an amendment is not the path we ’ re going to take today .
So , about 15 years ago , a computer scientist in Northern California developed an idea where he realized that it was the winner-take-all laws , those state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that were the heart of the problem .
So , he said , “ Well , states have total authority to decide how to award their electors .
They don ’ t have to do it by state winner take all .
What if states , representing a majority of electoral votes , all gave their electors instead to the candidate who won the most votes everywhere in the country ?
” And bingo , you have a national popular vote for president .
So , this is an interstate compact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
There are many of them in existence right now all over the country for different — on different issues .
This is an agreement among states to award all of their electors not to their statewide winner but to the winner of the most votes in the whole country .
And when states representing a majority , 270 electoral votes , which is what you need to win , join this agreement , it takes effect , and we elect a president by a popular vote without actually technically abolishing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the Electoral College as the Framers designed it .
So , 15 states right now have joined this agreement , plus D.C. , and together those states represent 196 electoral votes .
You know , you ’ ve got to get to 270 .
So , subtract it , do the math , and you get 74 more electoral votes to go , and the agreement takes effect .
AMY GOODMAN : And talk about the states that are now considering this , like Colorado .
JESSE WEGMAN : Right .
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become a member state .
And Colorado is an interesting state , for many reasons .
One is , all of the other states to date have been states with solid Democratic leadership when they adopted the compact .
They were what we would call blue states , right ?
But Colorado was the first state that was even close to being a purple state , a swing state , when it adopted the compact .
So , it was sort of evidence that actually this idea could appeal across partisan lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot this coming Tuesday is a proposition , Proposition 113 , which is a citizen-led ballot initiative that is challenging Colorado ’ s joining this compact , and asking voters to reject it .
It was started by conservative activists to oppose any change to the way Colorado awards its electoral votes .
And , you know , it ’ s going to be a close fight .
I know that the polling has it pretty close right now .
AMY GOODMAN : And other states , as we wrap up ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last question ?
Sorry .
AMY GOODMAN : Other key states , as we wrap up ?
JESSE WEGMAN : Right now Virginia is close to passing the compact .
They ’ ve already passed it , and they just need to do it again and get it signed by the governor .
And I think then we look at some other big states , maybe even Texas .
If Republicans realize they ’ re going to lose Texas in the Electoral College , they have no route to the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting point from BuzzFeed News : “ The Electoral College is stacked against nonwhite voters to such a degree that this year , the average white , non-Hispanic voter appears to have almost twice the power to decide the election as the average Asian American voter , ” for example .
Jesse , 10 seconds .
JESSE WEGMAN : That ’ s right .
This is the essence of the way the winner-take-all rule works , and it has always worked to the benefit of white voters in America .
So we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count the same .
AMY GOODMAN : Jesse Wegman , thanks so much for joining us , author of Let the People Pick the President : The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College .
Democracy Now !
will be doing an election special on Tuesday night , November 3rd , from 9:00 Eastern time to midnight .
All stations can take this special , and we ’ re broadcasting at democracynow.org , covering the results from the presidential election to congressional and state races , as well as ballot initiatives .
And to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Julian Casablancas , go to democracynow.org .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us .
Remember : Wear a mask , stay safe , and vote .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
As the presidential candidates make their final campaign push ahead of Election Day by visiting key battleground states like Florida and North Carolina, we turn now to look at the case for abolishing the Electoral College.
Two of the last three presidencies, Donald Trump’s included, have gone to the candidate who lost the popular vote. In 2000, the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount, handing the election to George W. Bush. It was later determined Vice President Al Gore actually won the election by half a million votes. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than Trump, but Trump still won.
The Electoral College, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by the wealthy white Founders, many of whom were slaveholders, has allowed these victories, where the loser wins. But a mass movement is building to elect the president through a national popular vote.
For more on this effort, we’re joined by journalist Jesse Wegman, member of The New York Times editorial board, author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College.
So, Jesse Wegman, welcome to back to Democracy Now! Please explain. Explain the roots of the Electoral College and what this movement is all about.
JESSE WEGMAN: Sure. Well, you know, the framers who met at the Constitutional Convention really had no idea what they were doing when they established how to pick a president. They said themselves that it was the hardest issue they had to decide. They fought about it the entire summer of 1787. And at the very end, they basically threw together this jerry-rigged system that we now call the Electoral College in a side room of the convention hall, really just to get the thing done and get it sent out to the states for ratification. They didn’t really care too much about how it operated, because they knew George Washington was going to be the first president, so the stakes just didn’t seem that high to them.
But nevertheless, the system that they thought they were designing basically fell apart within the first 10 years. You know, the model we think we know is that there’s this body of deliberate, thoughtful, educated, wise men who will make the choice for the people about who should lead the country. But within 10 years, it had completely stopped being like that, with the rise of national political parties. It became a team sport, and that’s what it remains today.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the role of slavery in the establishment of the Electoral College.
JESSE WEGMAN: Sure. I mean, slavery is obviously at the heart of every compromise that is struck at that Constitutional Convention. The one we know, the most familiar — that’s most familiar to us is the three-fifths compromise, and that was the deal by which the Southern slaveholding states got to count three-fifths of their slaves toward their representation in Congress, so that equals roughly 12 to 14 extra representatives in Congress over the first decades of the country’s life. And because of the way the Electoral College is designed, that translates into 12 to 14 extra electoral votes. The South actually won the White House, held onto the speaker of the House, won many Supreme Court seats, because of that extra power. It was called the “slave power” at the time, and it ran all the way up through the Civil War. And so, that’s — really, slavery was clearly at the heart of the compromise, and it’s certainly that the Electoral College benefited the slave states well into the 19th century.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have long been a proponent of abolishing the Electoral College. Talk about how it is that, you know, losers win — for example, George W. Bush in 2000. And it is important to note that four of the people involved in that legal battle — now Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts —
JESSE WEGMAN: Brett Kavanaugh.
AMY GOODMAN: — Brett Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court justice who was justice at the time, Clarence Thomas, were all involved with this — of course, Thomas ruling on behalf of Bush.
JESSE WEGMAN: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: But how it is now that the Electoral College gathers — talk about where that actually happens —
JESSE WEGMAN: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: — and who the electors are, and what is the movement that is challenging this?
JESSE WEGMAN: So, electors are just average people like you and me. They are not deliberative, wise men. They just happen to be people who know somebody who picks electors. Each candidate has their own slate of electors. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, so its members of the House plus its two senators. That’s it. That’s really most of what the Constitution says about the Electoral College.
The thing that gives us popular vote losers as presidents, that’s something that actually has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is state laws that are called winner-take-all laws. And these are laws that do exactly what they sound like, which is they take those electors and they award all of them to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Whoever wins the state’s popular vote wins all of that state’s electors. So, in California, four-and-a-half million people voted for Donald Trump in 2016. That’s a lot of people. That’s more than most states in the country. And yet they all were essentially invisible when it came time to cast the state’s electoral votes, because California, like all but two states in the country, uses winner take all.
That winner-take-all rule is why George W. Bush won in 2000. It’s because even though Florida was essentially a tie, by any measure, George W. Bush gets 25. That tie in the popular vote translates into 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and zero for Al Gore. Same thing happened in 2016 in different states. In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, it was essentially tied, and yet Donald Trump won all the states’ electoral votes, Hillary Clinton won none.
This affects everyone, and it harms everyone. Yes, it’s hurt Democrats and helped Republicans twice in the last 20 years, so it seems like a partisan issue, but in fact it’s not. It harms everybody, no matter their political affiliation, all over the country. So, that’s why we get to this popular vote compact, which is the latest way that has been come up with to get us to a popular vote.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
JESSE WEGMAN: Right. So, there’s been 800 or so attempts throughout American history to amend or just abolish the college outright. They’ve all failed, with the exception of one, the 12th Amendment, which made some important adjustments to it. But, obviously, an amendment is not the path we’re going to take today.
So, about 15 years ago, a computer scientist in Northern California developed an idea where he realized that it was the winner-take-all laws, those state laws that I just was talking about, that were the heart of the problem. So, he said, “Well, states have total authority to decide how to award their electors. They don’t have to do it by state winner take all. What if states, representing a majority of electoral votes, all gave their electors instead to the candidate who won the most votes everywhere in the country?” And bingo, you have a national popular vote for president.
So, this is an interstate compact, which is basically just an agreement among states. There are many of them in existence right now all over the country for different — on different issues. This is an agreement among states to award all of their electors not to their statewide winner but to the winner of the most votes in the whole country. And when states representing a majority, 270 electoral votes, which is what you need to win, join this agreement, it takes effect, and we elect a president by a popular vote without actually technically abolishing the Electoral College. It’s actually using the Electoral College as the framers designed it. So, 15 states right now have joined this agreement, plus D.C., and together those states represent 196 electoral votes. You know, you’ve got to get to 270. So, subtract it, do the math, and you get 74 more electoral votes to go, and the agreement takes effect.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the states that are now considering this, like Colorado.
JESSE WEGMAN: Right. Well, Colorado is one of the latest to become a member state. And Colorado is an interesting state, for many reasons. One is, all of the other states to date have been states with solid Democratic leadership when they adopted the compact. They were what we would call blue states, right? But Colorado was the first state that was even close to being a purple state, a swing state, when it adopted the compact. So, it was sort of evidence that actually this idea could appeal across partisan lines.
Unfortunately, in Colorado, on the ballot this coming Tuesday is a proposition, Proposition 113, which is a citizen-led ballot initiative that is challenging Colorado’s joining this compact, and asking voters to reject it. It was started by conservative activists to oppose any change to the way Colorado awards its electoral votes. And, you know, it’s going to be a close fight. I know that the polling has it pretty close right now.
AMY GOODMAN: And other states, as we wrap up?
JESSE WEGMAN: I’m sorry. Last question? Sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: Other key states, as we wrap up?
JESSE WEGMAN: Right now Virginia is close to passing the compact. They’ve already passed it, and they just need to do it again and get it signed by the governor. And I think then we look at some other big states, maybe even Texas. If Republicans realize they’re going to lose Texas in the Electoral College, they have no route to the White House.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, this interesting point from BuzzFeed News: “The Electoral College is stacked against nonwhite voters to such a degree that this year, the average white, non-Hispanic voter appears to have almost twice the power to decide the election as the average Asian American voter,” for example. Jesse, 10 seconds.
JESSE WEGMAN: That’s right. This is the essence of the way the winner-take-all rule works, and it has always worked to the benefit of white voters in America. So we need to balance it out and make everybody count the same.
AMY GOODMAN: Jesse Wegman, thanks so much for joining us, author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College.
Democracy Now! will be doing an election special on Tuesday night, November 3rd, from 9:00 Eastern time to midnight. All stations can take this special, and we’re broadcasting at democracynow.org, covering the results from the presidential election to congressional and state races, as well as ballot initiatives.
And to see the Rolling Stone interview I did with Julian Casablancas, go to democracynow.org.
I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us. Remember: Wear a mask, stay safe, and vote.