Blog

2017 Lessons Can Improve the Vote-By-Mail Experience in 2018

May 14, 2018

“Vote-by-mail” is a growing trend in the United States. According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), more than 33 million voters in the 2016 Presidential Election voted by mail. Voters registered in Oregon, Washington and Colorado already automatically receive their ballot in the mail, and California will join their ranks once they implement legislation that passed in 2016. As vote-by-mail is becoming more widely used, it’s important for elections administrators to educate the public on the process and continue to find ways to improve the voter experience.

One great place to start is a report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Democracy Fund grantee, that highlights the ways voting by mail and absentee voting has changed and what voters, legislators, election officials, and the United States Postal Service (USPS) can do to ensure that type of voting remains a viable option for the American electorate.

Another useful resource is the 2014 report (PDF) from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA), which includes several recommendations to improve the voting experience for voters.

USPS has played a key role in the development of election administration best practices for the vote by mail process and has instituted some of their own. During the final days of ballot return postal employees sweep processing plants hourly looking for mail pieces bearing the official election material mail logo to ensure that ballots are being processed within their delivery standards. In 2016 they embraced a new tool to communicate with election officials. Electionmail.org was developed by Democracy Fund grantee Democracy Works and provides a channel for administrators to communicate issues directly with postal leadership.

Why does this matter?

We live in an increasingly digital era where most people go online to communicate, pay bills, and transact business. The volume of mail – while still in the billions of mail pieces each year – no longer required the supporting infrastructure that was in place. Because of this, the U.S. Postal Service consolidated its processing plants and streamlined the sorting of mail. All mail now goes through the centralized processing plants, is sorted, and redirected to its destination. This automation allows for election ballot tracking, a PCEA recommendation, but it has also contributed to the delivery standard changes that happened in 2015.

Has this had a significant impact on a voter’s ability to cast an effective ballot? The EAC reports that, in 2016, more than 47% of rejected ballots were due to missing or invalid signatures, and roughly 23% of the rejected ballots were because they were returned after the deadline. Historically there are always some people who miss the deadline to return ballots in time to be counted in a given election, but the EAC data shows that the number of late ballots has decreased since 2012 even though greater numbers of voters are choosing this method of voting and we have longer delivery standards.

If voters fail to get their ballot mailed with enough time for delivery to their election office, many have the option of dropping their ballot off at their polling site. In addition to offering this drop-off option, some states allow for information on the envelope to be used to ensure that the voter did, in fact, mail the ballot before the polls closed on Election Day. Iowa and Indiana have passed legislation allowing for the use of Intelligent Mail Barcode data. In Ohio, the Secretary of State issued a directive that the orange USPS processing marks could also be used—and because of this Cuyahoga County was able to count an additional 73 ballots in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Close elections bring scrutiny, and Virginia is the perfect example of how crucial process is to ensuring and retaining voter participation year after year. In 2017, the state experienced elections with razor-thin margins in vote counts—in one instance the winner was determined by a draw after a tied result. The day after Election Day, election officials in Stafford County picked up 55 ballots at their post office box, and questions were raised about whether the ballots arrived in time, and who exactly was responsible for ensuring they were counted—the voter, the Postal Service, or the jurisdiction.

What have we learned from last year’s election in Virginia?

First, ballot tracking is important and election officials should use it. The state of Virginia recently implemented a statewide election mail tracking system called BallotScouta project by Democracy Fund grantee TurboVote—as a way for both voters and election officials to determine where the ballots are in the process. Indeed, Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church posted on social media that a voter called to complain that they had not gotten their ballot. The tracking showed that the mail had been delivered to the voter; and with the Registrar on the line they began to dig through the piles on their desk and subsequently found the missing ballot. The question we should ask regarding the close election in Virginia is: was election mail tracking used to the full extent—and if not, why?

Social media post from Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church, VA
Social media post from Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church, VA

Second, ballot envelopes should have the official election material mail logo on them so that the voters know it is official information and USPS can recognize it as an important mail piece.

Election mail logo
Election mail logo

 

Third, voters need to have information to make informed decisions. Voters may be prone to procrastination and need to have options the week before Election Day if they fail to get the ballot mailed in time. Data can be used to identify whether ballots have been put into the USPS system. Some jurisdictions make available secure ballot drop off sites, and some allow vote by mail ballots to be turned in at the polls on Election Day.

Eligible voters will greatly improve their ability to “vote by mail” successfully by following these recommendations. At Democracy Fund, we are committed to supporting election officials in their work to run elections and improve the voter experience. For more info on vote by mail best practices, visit the resources page at electionmail.org and the election mail page at USPS.gov.

 

Blog

DF-LEO: Understanding Elections through Local Election Officials

/
April 24, 2018

Democracy Fund, in partnership with Reed College, is excited to announce a new survey of local election officials (LEOs) on issues relevant to election administration, integrity, and reform. Beginning the week of May 7, 2018, participants will be chosen randomly and will receive an email invitation to complete the survey. Below, we explain our goals for the DF-LEO survey, provide a sneak peek into its content, and explain why we think it will be a valuable resource to local and state election officials, policy experts, advocates, and others interested in American democracy.

We have two main motivations for the survey. First, we want to better understand LEO’s views about the roles, responsibilities, and challenges of their work. By tapping into their experience and deep knowledge of election administration, we hope to uncover new ideas to improve the capacity and quality of elections, and address LEOs’ most urgent needs.

Second, we want to amplify the voices of LEOs in national, regional, and state conversations about election administration, integrity, and reform. Far too often, these conversations don’t consider the “street view” realities of election administration. The insights of LEOs from across the country are vital and should be considered in the national dialogue about improving and securing our elections.

We’ve purposely kept the DF-LEO survey brief (only 10 minutes long) and easy to complete. The survey is conducted using Qualtrics, a state of the art, secure platform for survey administration. The survey covers several topics that include:

  • Changes in election administration over time, and whether these changes have made the elections process easier or more difficult for local election officials and voters;
  • The role of technology and whether the integration of tech improves elections overall;
  • The impact of voter registration modernization policies; and
  • The availability of financial, human, and other resources needed to make elections run smoothly.

DF-LEO was inspired by previous efforts to better understand the views and needs of the LEO community. Over ten years ago, the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office surveyed LEOs about their perspectives on the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), among other things. Most readers know HAVA’s requirements 1) to designate a state official responsible for the creation and maintenance of a statewide voter registration database; and 2) to replace old voting equipment—specifically punch card ballots—with newer forms of voting technology, had a long-lasting impact on the conduct of elections at the local level. The CRS and GAO surveys helped us understand how local election officials were adapting to the new law.

We also relied on the survey work that MIT Professor Charles Stewart shepherded for the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) in 2013. The PCEA was prompted by President Obama’s call to promote the efficient administration of U.S. elections. The PCEA’s mission was to make public new recommendations for improving our elections—which it did in a 2014 report. The PCEA sought to include LEO input in crafting their report and recommendations, and we continue in the same spirit of inclusion.

Democracy Fund is committed to supporting election officials through grant making, research, and educational activities—especially in the lead up to an election where the integrity of our election system remains under close scrutiny. The best way to meet that commitment is to listen to their opinions, perspectives, concerns, and needs. DF-LEO is an important part of this effort.

In constructing the survey, we’ve consulted experts including local election officials, state election directors, and scholars who are experienced in survey research. These reviewers have provided us with constructive feedback on the survey questionnaire and are committed to working with us on interpreting and reporting the results.

We hope that you are as excited as we are to see the results of the survey. All individual responses to the survey will remain confidential, but broad findings from the DF-LEO will be published this summer. We look forward to sharing the results with policy experts, researchers, and advocates so they will better understand the perspectives of election officials and can collaborate alongside them to ensure a modern, secure, and trustworthy election system for the American people.

For those with questions and comments about DF-LEO, please feel free to reach out to:

NATALIE ADONA, JD/MPA
Senior Research and Learning Associate, Elections Program at Democracy Fund
nadona@democracyfund.org
202.420.7931

PAUL GRONKE, PhD
Professor of Political Science, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
paul.gronke@reed.edu
503.517.7393

Press Release

Democracy Fund, Omidyar Network Support Independent, Diverse, and Transparent Analysis of Facebook

/
April 9, 2018

Research Aimed at Identifying Actions and Policies that Affect Elections and Democratic Norms

Washington, D.C. and Redwood City, CA (April 9, 2018) – Earlier today, Facebook announced the launch of a new research initiative that will enable independent researchers to perform an assessment of the role the social platform plays in elections. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have joined an effort led by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to support this potentially important step toward addressing how Facebook’s algorithms and vast storehouses of data are shaping elections, the social fabric, and democratic life.

The two organizations’ support is a continuation of the collective work Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have done to address the unintended consequences of technology and its impacts on democracy. Democracy is under attack from many directions, and the influence social media has on elections is a critical front. While the full extent and impact of the role of malicious domestic actors on the 2016 election remains unknown, it has been verified that social media platforms were misused and that networks including but not limited to Facebook – violated the public’s trust. It’s now incumbent on these platforms to regain trust by urgently implementing technology solutions and supporting policy solutions where appropriate.

Key to finding these solutions will be Facebook’s support of independent, peer-reviewed analyses performed by a diverse committee of academic researchers, including voices who have been disproportionately harmed by social media. In particular, the committee must have diversity across ideology, race and ethnicity, geography, gender, expertise, and life experience. Today’s announcement is a first step in that direction. Notably, the research committee will independently solicit and prioritize research. They will have access to secure, privacy-protected data, which will be critically important in understanding the dynamics and effects of social media on the public square and arriving at informed recommendations about potential solutions. Ultimately, the academics will publish their findings without prior review or approval from Facebook.

The committee is expected to address misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; polarizing content; promoting freedom of expression and association; protecting domestic elections from foreign interference; and civic engagement. It will answer two critical questions: Does Facebook have the right systems in place to fight misinformation and foreign interference? And how can Facebook help make social media a net positive for democracy?

“Each new story of nefarious actors abusing the platforms – often to foster divisiveness and intolerance – proves just how critical it is that social media companies take responsibility for securing our personal privacy and protecting public debate,” said Tom Glaisyer, managing director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund. “If the social media platforms are going to regain the public’s trust and live up to the outsized role they play in our democracy, the platforms must truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. To protect and uphold meaningful rights we need richer, better informed research into the digital public square.”

“At Omidyar Network, we believe that technology can be a massive force for good, but that technologists must take broader responsibility for the implications of their products on society,” noted Paula Goldman, vice president and head of Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab. “It is urgent that we find solutions that are based on sound analysis, which we cannot do without access to data. We’re hopeful this is first in a series of efforts by platforms to open up their data in a responsible way to help find robust solutions to the problems at hand.”

Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network, both part of The Omidyar Group, are deeply committed to determining how to leverage the potential of technology while addressing its unintended consequences. Late last year, the organizations joined forces to ask “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to democratic ideals. To help address these and other issues, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are pursuing multi-pronged strategies to help ensure the public square is vibrant, trusted, and informative in the digital age.

Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab is designed to test, build, and scale solutions that address the unintended consequences of technology – and, more importantly, help maximize the tech industry’s contributions to a healthy society. For example, the Lab has invested in Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, who co-founded the Center for Humane Technology in part to develop new models for how technology could contribute to individual and public health. The Lab is also partnering with tech, media, and civil society leaders to support a grassroots campaign to create a code of ethics for the data science community to adopt principles of responsible data use and sharing.

Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement while challenging models that used to work. Democracy Fund is deeply committed to solutions that combat hyper-partisanship and ensure that elections have integrity. Some examples of this work include Professor Zeynep Tufekci’s research on algorithmic accountability and the “Eye on Elections” project led by Professor Young Mie Kim. Democracy Fund has also supported a number of specific efforts to address misinformation in news including Politifact, Hoaxy Bot-O-Meter, the Social Science Research Council’s Media & Democracy program, the Documenters Project by City Bureau and more.

All of these projects have the shared goal of increasing the accountability and responsibility of the technology industry and social media platforms. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort, but believe it has the potential to be a new avenue through which the public, platforms themselves, and policymakers will be able to better understand the implications of social media for the future of democracy.

***
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND

Democracy Fund, part of The Omidyar Group, is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.

ABOUT OMIDYAR NETWORK

Omidyar Network, part of The Omidyar Group, is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $1.2 billion to for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including Education, Emerging Tech, Financial Inclusion, Governance & Citizen Engagement, and Property Rights. To learn more, visit www.omidyar.com, and follow on Twitter @omidyarnetwork #PositiveReturns

CONTACTS:

Jessica Harris
202-448-4503
media@democracyfund.org

Libby Smiley
415-990-314
lsmiley@omidyar.com

 

Press Release

While Most Americans Prefer Democracy, More Than One in Four Express Sympathy for Authoritarianism

Democracy Fund
/
March 13, 2018

​Voter Study Group report questions conventional wisdom that democracy is in decline, but finds concerning trends as authoritarian support consolidates among Trump supporters

Washington, DC — Americans’ support for an authoritarian leader declined for the first time in two decades, according to a new report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. “Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism,” nevertheless finds worrying developments among the 29% of Americans who say that an authoritarian alternative to democracy would be favorable.

The new report by Lee Drutman (New America), Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), and Joe Goldman (Democracy Fund) is part of a unique, multi-year study from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a research collaboration of leading analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum examining the evolving views of American voters.

“The good news is that the sky is not falling — Americans are not abandoning democracy,” said Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman. “But in the midst of historic levels of polarization and new pressures on our constitutional checks and balances, the reality that more than a quarter of the American public seems open to turning away from democracy should worry anyone who cares about a healthy, responsive political system.”

Key findings from the report include:

  • The overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy and most of those who express negative views about it are opposed to authoritarian alternatives. In fact, the report finds no relationship between dissatisfaction with democracy and support for an authoritarian system in which a strong leader doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections.
  • Nearly a quarter of Americans say that a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections would be “fairly” or “very good,” and 18 percent say that army rule would be “fairly” or “very good.”
  • Support for a strong leader declined to 1995 levels after a two-decade increase. During these two decades, Democrats expressed greater support for a strong leader, but this reversed in 2017 as Republicans became far more likely to say that having a “strong leader” is a good system.
  • Thirty-two percent of Trump primary voters support a “strong leader” who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. Support for this option is especially high (45 percent) among those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
  • The highest levels of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected, disengaged from politics, deeply distrustful of experts, culturally conservative, and have negative views towards racial minorities.

“While the overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy, there is a reason to be concerned, as support for democracy in the U.S. and rejection of authoritarian options is weaker than in many of our peer democracies around the world,” said Larry Diamond, senior fellow, Hoover Institution. “We need to renew our understanding of and commitment to democracy and the values that undergird it-pluralism, mutual respect and tolerance, flexibility, a willingness to compromise, and critical thinking. We cannot take democracy for granted.”

“This report highlights a problem with our current two-party system,” said Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America. “If some Americans feel a political party does not represent them, they are left with only one other option. If that party becomes a party of racial resentment and authoritarian leadership, many individuals will update their beliefs to fit with their partisan identity. Otherwise, they can drop out of the political system altogether, which will presumably lead to more doubts about democracy.”

The full “Follow the Leader” report can be found at www.voterstudygroup.org, along with other research from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.

###

About the Voter Study Group
In the coming months, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group will be releasing a number of in-depth reports and data sets exploring public opinion on trade, immigration, democracy, and millennials, among other topics. Most recently, the group of experts commissioned the July 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2016, 2011, and 2012. The Voter Study Group will put a third survey into the field in March 2018.

Please sign up for email alerts here. The 2016 and 2017 VOTER Surveys and reports were made possible by a grant from Democracy Fund to the Ethics and Public Policy Center to conduct new research about changing trends among the American electorate.

VOTER Survey Methodology Summary
In partnership with the survey firm YouGov, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group commissioned the 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2011, 2012 and 2016. A complete 2017 survey methodology is available here.

About Democracy Fund
Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square.

Blog

How do you know that learning has happened?

Srik Gopal
/
March 7, 2018

​Learning is having its moment in philanthropy. Recent publications from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, FSG, and GEO all highlighted the increasing importance of learning in foundations.

The interest in learning has manifested in different ways — from “learning officer” type positions, to innovative structures and processes, and different ways of thinking about reporting results. However, these are still largely “inputs” that support learning, rather than “outputs” that show that learning has happened.

So how does one know that learning has, in fact, happened?

Learning is Action

At a wedding I attended several years ago, the pastor delivered a speech titled “love is action.” She made the point to the newlyweds that no matter how much they might say they loved their partner, it would ring hollow without action that showed the same. The pastor asked, “What are you willing to change about yourself? What behaviors are you willing to engage in that go beyond your comfort zone, but would be responsive to your partner’s needs?”

Taking a cue from the pastor, I would contend that the only way to truly know if learning has happened is if something has changed. For example, learning could result in:

  1. a tweak in strategy or approach;
  2. bringing new grantees or partners into the mix; or a
  3. change in programmatic focus, including entry into new areas and exit from old areas.

This raises the question whether every new learning requires an action. The answer is no, as there is still need for strong judgment to determine whether and when action is warranted. In the context of board-approved, long-term strategies, we don’t want to be “lurching” from one path to another. However, informed inaction is very different from blindly sticking to the status quo. There is still a clear choice that is being made not to act.

How Learning Happens at Democracy Fund

At Democracy Fund, we recognize the value of learning to our organization. Given the nature of the complex, intractable problems we are trying to solve, ongoing learning and adaptation remain our surest bets for creating the impact we care about. To this end, we are putting together a “learning architecture,” that includes different structures, processes, and systems to make learning actionable at multiple levels:

  1. Internal: Through ongoing program evaluations, learning labs, and portfolio reviews, we will engage our staff not just in “What” we are learning, but the “So What” and “Now What” steps coming out of it for our strategy.
  2. Board: Through an annual learning and progress report to our board, as well as a deeper board learning conversation that happens for each initiative every 18–24 months, each team will provide a snapshot of lessons learned that either confirm or contradict initial hypotheses and the implications of these lessons going forward.
  3. External: This remains the least developed part of our learning architecture at the moment, but our goal is to have a robust set of products that share our lessons and implications with grantees, partners, and the broader field. We also hope to build a community of fellow learners along the way.

We fully expect this to be a work in progress over the next one to two years, but our goal is to make actionable learning an integral part of the way we do business, in service to what we ultimate care about — a strong and resilient American democracy.

Press Release

NEW REPORTS: Democrats Were Divided in 2016 and 13 Percent of Partisans Have Changed Parties

Democracy Fund
/
December 14, 2017

Working Class and Elite Democrats Were Divided on 2016 Priorities and 13 Percent of Partisans Have Changed Their Party in the Last Five Years

Democracy Fund Voter Study Group analyses suggest that Trump won swing voters who cared most about economic issues and that the majority of Obama-to-Trump voters now identify as Republicans

Washington, D.C. – December 14, 2017

The Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a research collaboration of leading analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum, has released two new papers about the 2016 election and its ongoing impact on the parties: Both papers are based on the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group’s unique longitudinal data set, which began measuring voters’ opinions and affinities in 2011 and continued through, most recently, July 2017. In Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation, Robert Griffin, Associate Director of Research at PRRI, explored partisan switching — individuals leaving their party to become independents or join the opposite party. Griffin found that, while the overall numbers of Democrats and Republicans appear stable, a significant number (13 percent) of partisans have changed their affiliation in the last five years. Other key findings include:

“While party identification is typically seen as pretty stable, a significant number of partisans have switched their affiliation in the last five years,” said Griffin, Associate Director of Research at PRRI, “These changes reflect shifts we observed in 2016 and suggest that the election will have a long-term impact on the electorate.”

  1. Democratic non-college whites and Republican people of color were likeliest to leave their party. People of color and those under 45 were among the likeliest to switch from the Republican Party, while Democrats have lost non-college white voters and those over 45.
  2. A majority of Obama-to-Trump voters now identify as Republicans. While most Obama-Trump voters once identified as Democrats, a majority now identify as Republicans. Since 2011, there has been a 28 percent decline in Democratic identification and a 43 percent increase in Republican identification among these voters.
  3. Obama-to-third-party voters are likely to identify as Independents. Among those who voted for Obama in 2012 and then a third-party candidate in 2016, Democratic identification has dropped 35 percent while independent identification has risen 37 percent.
  4. Immigration attitudes, ideological self-identification, and economic views were the most influential issues in party-switching. Switching from the Republican Party was most strongly associated with positive attitudes about immigration, self-identification as more ideologically liberal, and more liberal economic views. Leaving the Democratic Party was most strongly associated with negative attitudes about immigration, unfavorable attitudes towards Muslims, self-identification as more ideologically conservative, more conservative economic views, and lower levels of economic anxiety.

In Placing Priority: How Issues Mattered More than Demographics in the 2016 Election, David Winston used a cluster analysis of 23 different issues to group voters into meaningful segments with clear priorities and belief systems that translate into party preference, ideological choice, and voting decisions. Key findings include:
“This research shows that issues can be used to cluster voters into meaningful segments with clear belief systems that translate into voting decisions,” said David Winston, President of The Winston Group. “In the future, both political parties need to recognize that the electorate has a clear set of priorities. Issues matter – and going forward, they may matter more than demographics.”

  1. Democratic/Independent Liberal Elites and the Democrat-Leaning Working Class had different priorities. The “Democrat/Independent Liberal Elites” cluster prioritized issues popular in the media coverage of the election, including gender and racial injustice, but not issues that were “very important” to the other Democratic cluster and the country as a whole, such as the economy and jobs.
  2. Donald Trump won more of the top ten prioritized issues, including the economy, jobs, crime, and terrorism, while Clinton won the majority of the 23 issues included in the survey. However, the issues she won were lower prioritized, and they included five of the bottom six issues.
  3. Swing voters were not satisfied with the status quo when it came to the economy. The contrast of change versus status quo moved swing voters closer to Republicans, based on issue priorities centered around economic issues. This was particularly true in the Rust Belt, where the election was decided.

“Rob’s and David’s analyses help us better understand what ideas and information influenced and motivated voters’ choices when they went to the polls in 2016,” said Henry Olsen, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Project Director for the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. “Clear data about what moved voters in 2016 can help us better understand the dynamics shaping voter opinions in upcoming elections.”

In the coming months, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group will be releasing a number of in-depth reports and data sets exploring public opinion on trade, immigration, democracy, and millennials, among other topics. Most recently, the group of experts commissioned the July 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2016, 2011, and 2012. The Voter Study Group will put a third survey into the field in early 2018.

Please sign up for email alerts here. The 2016 and 2017 VOTER Surveys and reports were made possible by a grant from Democracy Fund to the Ethics and Public Policy Center to conduct new research about changing trends among the American electorate.

VOTER Survey Methodology Summary

In partnership with the survey firm YouGov, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group commissioned the 2016 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 8,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2011 and 2012. The Voter Study Group then interviewed 5,000 of the same respondents between July 13-24, 2017 to explore how voters’ opinions may have changed—or how they did not change at all. A complete 2017 survey methodology is available here.

About the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC)

Founded in 1976 by Dr. Ernest W. Lefever, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy. From the Cold War to the war on terrorism, from disputes over the role of religion in public life to battles over the nature of the family, EPPC and its scholars have consistently sought to defend and promote our nation’s founding principles—respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, individual freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government.

About the Democracy Fund

The Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square.

Blog

Five Tips for Learning-Focused Meetings

/
November 15, 2017

Across philanthropy, organizations are putting greater emphasis on learning, recognizing the importance of rigorous inquiry to improve our impact. Growing from a commitment to evaluation, the trend has now extended beyond it. We now recognize that it takes a facilitative organizational culture, tools and processes – and not just data – to learn. The Center for Effective Philanthropy’s recent Foundation Evaluation Benchmarking Survey shows that foundations are increasingly dedicating attention to – and hiring staff for –these aspects of organizational learning.

A community of foundation learning officers, like myself, is emerging as a result. We work internally to foster a culture of adaptation and learning. We provide our busy colleagues with venues for learning, tools and practices for reflection, and we encourage their curiosity.

As the community of learning staff finds its footing together, we should be conscious and intentional about how much we have to learn from the colleagues we support. My Democracy Fund peers frequently remind me about the importance of asking not only what our organization should be learning, but to also ask how we can support the learning objectives of our grantees, partners and the wider field. By now, it is common wisdom that foundations learn through and with our grantees – but it is our program staff who live out this wisdom every day.

Recently, I shared with my colleagues a tip sheet for how to build a reflective practice into our staff check-ins. Though I’d envisioned this as an internal resource, my enthusiastic colleagues asked to share these lessons with their grantees. With their help, I am coming to see that my objective as Manager of Learning and Strategy should not simply be for Democracy Fund to actively learn, but to ensure that our grantees and partners have the resources and support to do so as well. Democracy Fund will learn best when we are part of a cohort of robust learning organizations.

Over time, our team hopes to help strengthen learning skills among our grantees, as well as our colleagues. We plan to deliver trainings in monitoring, evaluation, and learning, to provide resources that support these capacities, and to encourage Democracy Fund to be even more participatory and transparent in our monitoring, evaluation and learning activities.

In that spirit, I’m listening to my colleagues. Here, for your use as well as ours, are the five tips for making meetings more learning-oriented, mentioned above. I hope you find value in them – do reach out with your stories!

1. Make Dedicated Space for Learning

Often, there’s no need to create new venues for learning. Consider looking for opportunities to build learning into existing meetings and structures. Team check-ins are an ideal setting, since they are regular, informal, and action-oriented. Consider carving out 20 minutes of an existing check-in for this purpose, or extending a meeting to make time. If you find yourself adding meetings to the schedule for learning, make sure your objectives are specific and explicit. Consider how other agenda items might condition mindsets and participants’ degree of comfort for learning (see Bonus Tip!).

2. Put Learning First

When looking to build your financial savings, experts advise putting aside the first chunk of your paycheck, rather than whatever’s left over at the end of the month. The same applies to learning. The last agenda item often gets cut – so to make sure learning activities occur, put them first on your meeting agenda. Starting off with a learning activity might also help shift the tone of the rest of your meeting, making it more reflection-oriented.

3. Keep it Structured – AND Keep it ENGAGING

Simply asking “what are we learning?” rarely leads to a productive conversation. A light structure helps enhance the conversation and ensure everyone has a chance to be heard. Check out FSG’s guide to Facilitating Intentional Group Learning for ideas – including many activities that can be done in about 20 minutes!

Routine can help build our learning muscles, and over time can lead to reflection becoming part of the culture. Find a tool that works for your team and stick with it for a while. Still, make sure the tool doesn’t become stale – switching things up can keep it engaging.

4. Make It Useful

Reflection for its own sake is worthwhile, but it becomes learning when we apply it to our work. In too many instances, valuable lessons are lost because they never become actionable. Every learning activity should keep an eye on how to the data collected or lessons learned will be useful in the future. Ask “when will we apply what we’ve learned?” and “How will we change our behavior in the future?” Make things concrete, and ensure someone is tasked with carrying the lesson forward into future work. Jot down notes, and circle back on do-outs at future meetings.

5. Model Curiosity

Learning is everyone’s job. All of us can model learning behavior that is hungry for evidence, encourages feedback, and welcomes a diversity of views, to foster a supportive learning environment. While it’s important to have someone structure and guide learning activities, participating in them is everyone’s responsibility – and a learning culture is most vibrant when everyone actively engages. Everyone can enter learning activities curious, and welcoming of the curiosity of others.

6. BONUS TIP — (ESPECIALLY FOR MANAGERS): Watch for Power Pitfalls

By being conscious of how power dynamics and other stressors can affect learning spaces, you can create opportunities for each team member to share their input. Consider implementing explicit norms on open communication, assigning agenda items to different team members, or creating activities in which each member of the team is explicitly invited to speak up.

Want to keep a reminder at your desk? Download our infographic of all of these tips here.

Many thanks to Anna Chukhno, Democracy Fund’s Strategy, Impact and Learning Intern, for her support on this project.

Blog

How Local-National Funding Partnerships Can Strengthen Local News

/
October 17, 2017

Democracy Fund believes that strong local news and a vibrant public square are critical to a healthy democracy. That is why our local news strategy is focused on creating a more connected, collaborative, and sustainable future for public-interest journalism. But we recognize that we can’t do it alone, and that partnerships with other foundations are critical to rebuilding a vibrant public square.

Today we are releasing a new paper that we commissioned to help us learn about how to build effective and equitable partnerships that put local stakeholders at the center of our work to support local news. The paper, “Effective Place-Based Philanthropy: The Role and Practices of a National Funder,” is relevant to funders and nonprofits working on a range of community development and engagement efforts.

We believe that the future of local news is local. That may sound like a bland truism, but it raises important questions for a national foundation who wants to genuinely and authentically support diverse local communities to strengthen their local news ecosystem. Solutions to the crisis in local news need to respond to local context and needs. We can and should learn from what is working elsewhere, but we should also recognize there is no silver bullet and that only through deep listening and partnership can we create meaningful and lasting change.

For this reason, we have designed our local news strategy around deep partnerships with local funders, journalists, and communities. We want Democracy Fund to be a catalyst for expanding locally driven and locally supported efforts to create robust news ecosystems. We recognize that in pursuing place-based philanthropy to strengthen local news, we are guests in other’s communities. We take that role seriously and humbly.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the roles and practices of national foundations undertaking place-based work and learn from past projects. Democracy Fund commissioned Prudence Brown, a respected leader in place-based philanthropy, to provide her insights as we developed our strategy.

Drawing significantly from recent literature and Brown’s own experience and observations, this paper is organized around key questions that national funders can consider as they develop new place-based partnerships. After each question, Brown provides a brief discussion and concrete suggestions for decision-making and action. While the audience for this paper is largely other foundations, we believe that the lessons here are also useful in empowering nonprofits and grantees.

 

 

Many of the themes and considerations in this paper are applicable to other sectors well beyond journalism and media. As such, we are sharing this work with the broader field. We think this is important both for transparency and accountability, and because we hope others can learn alongside us. This paper is just the start of our learning journey. We welcome any comments about lessons learned from other national-local partnerships to LocalNewsLab@democracyfund.org.

Blog

How Is Philanthropy Working to Rebuild Trust in the Public Square?

/
September 27, 2017

In August, my colleague Srik Gopal wrote about the work Democracy Fund has been doing to understand the contours of trust in democratic institutions from elections to journalism and the public square. We have much more to share from that research and the grant making strategy that it is informing. However, even as we were undertaking that research, Democracy Fund and other foundations were investing in people and projects related to these issues.

For example, the Knight Foundation recently unveiled a new commission on “Trust, Media and Democracy,” which will meet around the country over the next year looking for new ideas and solutions to issues of trust. What follows is a snapshot of some of the efforts underway to combat misinformation, strengthen truthful reporting and create more trusting relationships between people and the press. Later this month I’ll be participating in a series of briefings on trust and misinformation for funders organized by Media Impact Funders in partnership with the Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation.

A version of this piece originally appeared in the May edition of Responsive Philanthropy, the journal of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

✩✩✩
Today there is real concern about the spread of misinformation and issues of basic trust in our democratic institutions, including the press, our fourth estate. From viral hoaxes disguised to look like news to propaganda spread by automated bots online, we are witnessing a sustained attempt to spread misinformation, generate uncertainty and undermine objective truth. When paired with the kinds of political attacks journalists have faced in recent months these trends raise troubling questions for a free and open society. However, despite the new contours of our current political climate and technological developments, issues of trust in journalism extend far back into our nation’s history. According to polls, trust in the media has been eroding since Watergate, but the impact of misinformation has been experienced unevenly for a long time. Communities of color in particular have been grappling with inaccurate reporting and outright false stories that have had real and damaging consequences.

As such, we have to understand that the challenges we face today are not just technological, but also economic, cultural and political. The scholar Danah Boyd has called this an information war that is being shaped by “disconnects in values, relationships and social fabric.” They are fundamentally human struggles and have as much to do with our relationships with each other as our relationship with the media.

Given this complex web of forces, it can be difficult to determine the best role for philanthropy. This is the kind of wicked problem that systems thinking is designed to help untangle. At Democracy Fund, we have invested in systems approaches because they help us develop multi-pronged strategies that reinforce one another in a complicated and dynamic world. Systems thinking helps us see the often hidden and tangled roots of the issues we care about.

In response to these issues some foundations are organizing rapid response grants and programs designed to invest in new ideas and projects. Some donors are investing in investigative journalism and local news to expand the capacity of trustworthy newsrooms. Others are taking a measured approach, adjusting their current grantmaking or planning with their grantees for the ongoing engagement these challenges demand. The reality is that we need both long- and short-term strategies.

For all the concern about “fake news,” there is still a remarkable amount we don’t know about trust, truth and the spread of misinformation online or the impact it has had on politics and public debate. So much news consumption and distribution happens on private platforms whose proprietary data makes it hard for researchers to study.

Defining the Problem Without All the Data

And yet, organizations like the American Press Institute, Engaging News Project, The Trust Project and Trusting News Project as well as a number of academic researchers are testing real-world strategies for building trust and probing the reach and influence of mis- and disinformation.

Foundations should expand their support for research in this area but should do so strategically and in coordination with other foundations to ensure that lessons are being shared and translated into actionable intelligence for the field.
At the start of this year, New Media Ventures launched an open call for media and technology projects from “companies and organizations working to resist fear, lies and hate as well as those focused on rebuilding and using this unprecedented moment of citizen mobilization to shape a better future.” In about a month, they received more than 500 applications, an unprecedented number for them.

Open Calls as a Call to Action

A few days later, the Knight Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and Democracy Fund announced a prototype fund for “early-stage ideas to improve the flow of accurate information.” That fund received 800 applications in a month. Finally, the International Center for Journalists just launched a“TruthBuzz” contest, funded by the Craig Newmark Foundation.

These open calls are a way for foundations to catalyze energy and surface new ideas, bringing new people and sectors together to tackle the complex challenges related to misinformation.
Trust is forged through relationships, and for many, the long-term work of rebuilding trust in journalism is rooted in fundamentally changing the relationship between the public and the press. For the last few years, foundations like Democracy Fund, Knight Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and others have been deepening their investments in newsroom community engagement efforts.

Negotiating New Relationships Between Journalists and the Public

Organizations like Hearken, which reorients the reporting process around the curiosity of community members, and the Solutions Journalism Network, which encourages journalists to report on solutions, not just problems, help optimize newsrooms for building trust. The Center for Investigative Reporting, ProPublica and Chalkbeat have also pioneered exciting projects in this space.

Making journalism more responsive to and reflective of its community demands culture change in newsrooms and an emphasis on diversity and inclusion. If we want communities to trust journalism, they have to see themselves and their lived experiences reflected in the reporting. Too often that is still not the case, and foundations can play a vital role in sustaining the ongoing work to renegotiate these relationships.

In December, Facebook announced that it was enlisting fact-checking organizations around the globe to help assess the veracity and accuracy of stories flagged by Facebook users on the platform. Google is working with Duke University’s Reporter’s Lab on how to surface fact checks in their search results and is trying to give more weight to authoritative sources.

This typology of misinformation by Claire Wardle of First Draft News identifies the spectrum of fabricated stories and the motivations behind them.
This typology of misinformation by Claire Wardle of First Draft News identifies the spectrum of fabricated stories and the motivations behind them.

Weaving Fact-Checking Into a Platform World

The growth of the fact-checking field in recent years has been fueled by strategic investments from a number of foundations, including Democracy Fund. These investments have helped strengthen the practices and infrastructure for fact-checking making these platform partnerships possible. However, new challenges demand new kinds of fact checking.

Foundations should not wait until the next election to increase support for these efforts. Now is the time to invest in learning and experimentation to make fact-checking work even better, engage an often critical public, and adapt to the new realities we face.

While fact-checkers hone the science of debunking official statements from politicians and pundits, we need to develop new skills for combating the wide array of unofficial and hard-to-source falsehoods that spread online. A leading organization working on these issues is First Draft News, which combines rigorous research with practical hands-on training and technical assistance for newsrooms, universities and the public. (Disclosure: I was one of the founders of First Draft News.)

Cultivating New Skills for Combatting Misinformation

Other efforts include Storyful, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab and On The Media’s “Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook” series.

Most of these efforts work not only with newsrooms, but also human rights organizations, first responders and community groups who are on the front lines of confronting misinformation. Foundations should help connect their grantees to these resources and support First Draft and others to scale up their work in this critical moment.

In April, five foundations and four technology companies launched the News Integrity Initiative at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. Designed to advance a new vision for news literacy, this global effort is rooted in a user-first approach to expanding trust in journalism. Today, we the people are the primary distributors of news. As such, it is critical that the public be adept at spotting fakes and debunking falsehoods, and that we cultivate the skills to track a story to its source and the motivation to hold each other accountable.

A New Era for News Literacy

With support from MacArthur, Robert R. McCormick, Knight and other foundations, projects like The News Literacy Project, Center for News Literacy and The LAMP have been working with students for years to address these issues. Similarly, youth media groups like Generation Justice in New Mexico, Free Spirit Media in Chicago and the Transformative Culture Project in Boston, are working with diverse communities on becoming active creators, not just consumers of media. And libraries across the country are hosting workshops and trainings for people of all ages.

In the past, foundations funding health, climate change and racial justice have recognized the need to help people sort fact from fiction. Today, foundations can help expand the field by investing in engaging models of news literacy and supporting efforts to get news and civic literacy into state education standards.

James Madison wrote in an 1822 letter that “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” We are increasingly facing an information ecosystem flooded by misinformation and disinformation being strategically deployed to spread uncertainty and distrust. Those efforts are being amplified by the speed with which information is shared across social media, algorithms tuned for viral views and emotional impact and filter bubbles that increasingly divide us into silos.

Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to address the challenges of eroding trust and the spread of false and misleading information. The interventions discussed above are largely focused domestically but there is more that can and should be done to confront these issues on the global stage. Foundations and donors should invest in approaches that focus on making change across three interconnected areas: the press, in the public square and social platforms.

Given the diverse strategies foundations can pursue in their response to this moment, it is critical that we work together to share what we are learning, invest strategically in what is working, and put the people most impacted by these issues at the center of our funding.

Blog

Elevating Constructive Voices to Disrupt Polarization

Laura A. Maristany
/
September 12, 2017

Today when people think about entrepreneurship and innovation, they tend to associate those concepts with the private sector. Maybe they think about Steve Jobs or Elon Musk—leaders whose big ideas revolutionized an industry. Or maybe they think about the legions of small business owners fueling the American economy. If you search for the word entrepreneur online, most of the results are about people who have opened their own businesses or developed new products or technologies. The bottom line is that entrepreneurship has become synonymous with the private sector.

Yet, our great nation was built by political entrepreneurs—visionaries who innovated new tools of governance and pushed the boundaries of what is possible. America today is radically different than the America of 1789, and while our founding fathers developed a forward-looking model of governance, we need their modern counterparts to help us think through how democratic institutions evolve and survive in the modern world.

At Democracy Fund, we understand this and actively seek out people and organizations who are working to disrupt the existing polarized political climate by promoting civil dialogue, sharing unbiased research, collaborating on breakthrough ideas, and embracing common-sense steps to strengthen our democracy. As Associate Director for Constructive Politics at Democracy Fund, I had the opportunity to travel across the country this summer learning about a new generation of leaders who are doing just that. My journey took me from D.C. to Chicago to Dallas to Malibu, where I attended several events by organizations focused on fostering a more constructive politics in the United States.

  • The Millennial Action Project (MAP) is working directly with leading young policymakers on both a national and state level to spur bipartisan legislation and innovative policy solutions. Defined by diversity, technology, pragmatism, and collaborative attitude, the millennial generation refuses to see the world in traditional ideological terms. Through projects like the Future Caucus, the State Future Caucus Network, the James Madison Fellowship, and the Millennial Policy Forum, MAP is elevating fresh ideas and building a network of cooperative millennial thought leaders.
  • At a convening by the Harris School of Public Policy’s Project on Political Reform, I watched a bipartisan group of political consultants discuss the rise of political polarization and how increasing distrust in our institutions could impact the future of our political system. During campaign season, you could never imagine these folks sitting in one room, much less swapping stories and collaborating on pragmatic solutions. Yet, here they were, focused on developing pragmatic solutions to our nations’ most difficult challenges. They might not have agreed on every policy solution, but constructive dialogue is the first step toward positive action for the American people.
  • The National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) Annual Conference brought together Latino elected officials from across the political spectrum to engage in dialogues about their role in the future of our country. In many cases using their personal time and funding to attend the conference, Latino elected officials were able to take advantage of informative sessions about subjects like how communities prepare for an emergency, how education policy changes at the federal level are implemented locally, and evolution of media and its impact on American politics.
  • Pepperdine University’s American Project convened conservative thought leaders and academics to talk about the issues and challenges impacting the future of the conservative movement. The conversations served as a reminder that while we will always have differing views, even within the parties, we are all Americans and want our country to succeed. Policy disagreements will continue to challenge us, but healthy democracy requires partisans who are committed to promoting their views constructively.

Overall, this summer I was reassured and inspired by the events I attended. Healthy democracy requires spaces for civil conversations where individuals can learn about each other, hear different points of view, and discuss their differences respectfully and productively. In each city I visited, I met Americans of all ages, races, and political ideologies who share these values and are brimming with ideas to make our democracy stronger. It leaves me with no doubt that America’s future is bright.

To learn more about our grantees who are working to ensure that Americans come first in our democracy, visit www.democracyfund.org/portfolio.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036