Latest news with #2024Elections
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Does Africa's supposed digital disadvantage protect it from election interference?
Data analytics and strategic manipulation have become the new tools in today's politics, even in Africa. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy, M&G With about 13 African countries coming from the polls in 2024 and others preparing for municipal elections in 2026, some analysts suggest, perhaps a bit too confidently, that African countries have been spared the worst of election interference simply because they are not yet as digitally advanced as other states in the world. But is the continent really safeguarded, or do we just minimise the effect of interference by digital technologies? As Africa undergoes a stagnation in its democratisation, increased attention is being paid to countries that still uphold democratic principles. This has prompted observers to assess how these nations are adhering to democracy or taking a decisive shift towards other Still, many argue that things could be worse if digital interference ever decided to join the party. But digital interference has certainly been occurring in Africa, just not with the same intensity or visibility as in more technologically advanced states. These states have integrated high-level digital infrastructure, innovation-driven economies and widespread access to Online platforms such as Facebook, X, and YouTube become arenas for misinformation, disinformation and algorithmic manipulation. Social media bots, fake accounts and data-driven micro-targeting are used to spread false information and polarise public opinion. A study by Using the Contrary to this, the International Telecommunication Union puts Africa's internet In Nigeria and Kenya, investigations have uncovered that Cambridge Analytica, the infamous data-crunching firm, played a shadowy role in manipulating elections in 2015 and 2017. Channel 4 News Ahead of Angola's 2022 election, In other cases, African states embraced biometric registration and digital results transmission . The only catch? They often forgot to bring cybersecurity along for the ride. In Kenya's On the other hand, countries such as the DRC and Senegal are accused of violating basic rights to freedom of expression and assembly by resorting to internet shutdowns. These blackouts are used to suppress dissent and restrict information. But they cut citizens off from critical, sometimes even lifesaving information, conveniently timed before or during elections. Other evidence of this occurred in Zimbabwe's August 2023 general elections were marred by accusations against the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, including premature announcement of results and allegations of voter suppression and irregularities. During South Africa's national and provincial elections in May 2024, the electoral commission had to deal with technical glitches that sparked public worry. This included a brief outage of the election results dashboard at the Results Operating Centre in Midrand, as well as power outages during the vote counting process. Both countries encountered issues that undermined public trust in their electoral bodies. Notably, digital interference was not a major focus of concern in either case; apparently, it takes more than a few server crashes and power outages to steal an election. It is fair to say that technologically advanced states do face greater vulnerability because of their reliance on digital infrastructure and widespread internet access. But Africa is not immune to election meddling; rather, its exposure to digital interference is currently less pronounced. This should not breed complacency. Instead, African nations must strengthen their electoral systems to avoid the pitfalls that have already compromised democracies elsewhere. Thuto Khumalo and Mihle Kambula are international relations students at the University of Johannesburg.
The National
3 days ago
- Politics
- The National
US Democrats need to go back to being a party that believed in government
A few months after the Democrats' bitter defeat in the 2024 presidential elections, the party convened an executive committee meeting. Instead of taking a long hard look at the reasons for their poor performance, the meeting devolved into a round of self-congratulations. 'We had the best convention ever.' 'We raised more money than ever.' 'We had the best team and the best co-operation between the White House, the Harris campaign, and the party'. When one esteemed party leader raised her hand reminding everyone that 'we lost' and suggested that the party needed an autopsy to understand what went wrong, her idea was met with indignation. 'What do you mean an 'autopsy'? We're not dead!' True, the party isn't dead, but its 2024 performance was poor. It lost the White House and the Senate. And polls now show Democrats with their lowest favourability ratings in recent history. Despite denying the need for an autopsy, during the past few months press reports have included advice from 'Democratic party operatives' as to what the party should do moving forward and reports of studies commissioned by one or another party entity analysing the 2024 defeat. The consensus that has emerged is that Democrats need to move to the 'centre' and forego radical or 'leftist' political ideas. The lesson that Democrats need to learn is that 'the left' is not primarily defined by where you stand on social issues The problem with this assessment is twofold. First, most of the operatives speaking out or the groups commissioned to conduct the studies (reportedly costing $30 million) are the same consultants who dug the hole Democrats now find themselves in. They do not understand the voters they lost or what needs to be done to win them back. Second, their definitions of 'centrist' and 'leftist' are inventions to suit their own biases. It's not enough to say, 'We need to stop being so 'woke,' and instead focus on what voters care about,' especially when they don't really know what voters do care about. For years, these same consultants have argued that Democrats need to move to 'the centre' of American politics, which they define as an amalgam of conservative-leaning fiscal/economic policies and more liberal-leaning on some (but not all) social issues. There was no overall theme to this mish-mash of ideas, and candidates who listened to the consultants often tied themselves in knots trying to appeal to voters without a coherent message. While pre-Trump, Republicans would focus on the Reagan mantra of lower taxes and smaller government, when one asked Democrats what they stood for, they would read off a litany of issues (reproductive rights, social justice, environment, immigration, gun laws, etc) leaving it up to voters to find the forest from the trees. Because Republicans' 'smaller government, lower taxes' only increased income inequality and threatened the economic well-being of most voters, they avoided the details on these matters and instead sought to divert voters' attention by elevating and exaggerating one or another of the Democrats' stances on social issues. 'Democrats want open borders.' 'Democrats are soft on crime.' 'Democrats want to abolish police.' 'Democrats want transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.' Each time Republicans would lay these traps, Democrats would take the bait, focusing on these issues instead of developing an overarching message that would reach a majority of voters. Twenty-five years ago, I co-authored a book with my brother John Zogby titled What Ethnic Americans Really Think. It was based on polling John's firm had done measuring the political attitudes of voters from several US ethnic groups: Italians, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Africans. Despite the deep differences that existed amongst the communities included in the study, what came through was that their views converged on several issues. Strong majorities in all groups were proud of and had an emotional tie to their heritages and were attached to their hometowns and their family connections. This was true for those who immigrated to and those born in the US. Contrary to the consultants' 'wisdom,' all of these communities supported what can be seen as progressive economic/fiscal policies. For example, overwhelming majorities, from the mid-80 per cent range to mid-90 per cent, wanted the federal government to: help underwrite health insurance; raise the minimum wage; impose penalties on polluters; oppose a regressive taxation system; strengthen social security and medicare, and support public education. Large majorities also wanted: campaign finance reform; gun control; and a US unilateral ban on nuclear weapons testing. On social issues, the views of the voters from each of these ethnic groups reflected a more nuanced approach. Smaller majorities, but still majorities, supported the death penalty, limits on abortion, school vouchers and opposition to racial preferences in hiring. So in reality, the 'centre' is not being more moderate on economic issues and more liberal on social issues because the economic and fiscal issues have the support of almost nine in 10 voters and are the foundation for building a majoritarian party. At the same time, instead locking out, demeaning, and refusing to engage with voters with divergent views on social issues, Democrats need to respectfully discuss these issues within the party. The lesson that Democrats need to learn is that 'the left' is not primarily defined by where you stand on social issues. Instead, unlike Republicans, Democrats must define themselves as the party that understands the government's positive role in creating an economy and programmes that create jobs and opportunities for working and middle class families – Black, Asian, Latino and White ethnics. When they don't embrace these concerns, they cede this ground to Republicans, who despite their regressive policies now claim to represent the working class while charging that Democrats only represent elites. This doesn't mean that Democrats should ever abandon their commitment to the range of social and cultural issues party leaders have long embraced as critical for our diverse democratic society. But these issues can't define the party. For Democrats to win, they must reclaim their history as the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and, yes, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. That they are the party that believes that government has a role to play in lifting up those who need a helping hand, and providing for the working classes and middle classes of all ethnic and racial communities.
CNN
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
David Hogg won't run again after DNC votes to redo vice chair elections
David Hogg will not seek reelection to his Democratic National Committee vice chair position after the party announced Wednesday that members had voted to redo the contests he and another officer won in February. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg said in a statement. Hogg's decision not to run again ends a monthslong intraparty fight between the young gun control advocate and much of the national committee that has distracted from the party's efforts to rebuild after devastating 2024 election losses. The outgoing vice chair has accused party leaders of attempting to oust him from his position over frustration with his plan to primary 'ineffective' Democratic incumbents in safe seats through his PAC Leaders We Deserve. DNC members have argued that Hogg has mischaracterized the vote. The initial challenge to how the committee handled the February 1 vote for two vice chair positions was made in late February, months before Hogg announced his primary initiative. Still, members' feelings toward Hogg and his ongoing, public dispute with party leaders loomed large over the vote. The proposal to hold a new election passed 75% to 25% with 89% of DNC members participating. DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg for his work on the committee. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair,' Martin said in a statement. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map.' Had Hogg run again, he would have faced fellow Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta in an election for a position which, under the DNC's gender parity rules, must go to a man. 'I respect the vote of the DNC, and now we can almost bring this chapter to a close,' Kenyatta said in a statement. 'I look forward to making my case to DNC members and our party as a whole on how we make life better and refocusing on Trump's attacks on our Constitution and working families.' Voting for the other vice chair seat will run from Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon. Three female candidates who were in the running in February will be eligible: Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma Democratic activist who filed the challenge, as well as Kansas state party chair Jeanna Repass and Washington state party chair Shasti Conrad. Separately, the DNC is also weighing a new proposal put forth by Martin that would officially require elected party leaders to stay neutral in primaries. The DNC is expected to vote on that measure at an August meeting. CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
CNN
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
David Hogg won't run again after DNC votes to redo vice chair elections
David Hogg will not seek reelection to his Democratic National Committee vice chair position after the party announced Wednesday that members had voted to redo the contests he and another officer won in February. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg said in a statement. Hogg's decision not to run again ends a monthslong intraparty fight between the young gun control advocate and much of the national committee that has distracted from the party's efforts to rebuild after devastating 2024 election losses. The outgoing vice chair has accused party leaders of attempting to oust him from his position over frustration with his plan to primary 'ineffective' Democratic incumbents in safe seats through his PAC Leaders We Deserve. DNC members have argued that Hogg has mischaracterized the vote. The initial challenge to how the committee handled the February 1 vote for two vice chair positions was made in late February, months before Hogg announced his primary initiative. Still, members' feelings toward Hogg and his ongoing, public dispute with party leaders loomed large over the vote. The proposal to hold a new election passed 75% to 25% with 89% of DNC members participating. DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg for his work on the committee. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair,' Martin said in a statement. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map.' Had Hogg run again, he would have faced fellow Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta in an election for a position which, under the DNC's gender parity rules, must go to a man. 'I respect the vote of the DNC, and now we can almost bring this chapter to a close,' Kenyatta said in a statement. 'I look forward to making my case to DNC members and our party as a whole on how we make life better and refocusing on Trump's attacks on our Constitution and working families.' Voting for the other vice chair seat will run from Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon. Three female candidates who were in the running in February will be eligible: Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma Democratic activist who filed the challenge, as well as Kansas state party chair Jeanna Repass and Washington state party chair Shasti Conrad. Separately, the DNC is also weighing a new proposal put forth by Martin that would officially require elected party leaders to stay neutral in primaries. The DNC is expected to vote on that measure at an August meeting. CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Five takeaways from New Jersey's primaries for governor: How the candidates are handling Trump and more
The matchup in New Jersey's race for governor is officially set — and Tuesday's primaries also laid down big indicators about the state of both political parties after the first major intraparty contests since the 2024 election. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, a former state legislator, easily won his party's primary with President Donald Trump's endorsement, underscoring Trump's significant sway over the GOP electorate. U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the crowded Democratic primary, pitching herself as the candidate with the best shot at holding on to the governorship and steering past ideological and antiestablishment sentiment simmering in her party. She defeated candidates who were to her left and to her right. The race to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, one of two governor's races this year, is expected to be competitive. Trump lost the state by 6 percentage points in November, a 10-point swing in his direction compared with his 2020 margin. Here are five takeaways from Tuesday's primaries: Sherrill won as many Democratic voters were weighing which candidate would be most electable and as each Democratic candidate pitched a different path forward for the party. Sherrill's victory suggests some Democratic voters want to dust off the party's successful playbook from the 2018 midterm elections, when she flipped a longtime Republican-held House seat. In that campaign and in her primary run this year, Sherrill stressed her background as a Navy helicopter pilot and a former federal prosecutor and pitched 'ruthless competence' as a counter to Trump. 'It just seems so obvious to me what the path forward is. It's effectively govern,' Sherrill recently told NBC News. 'And this is what I've been doing since 2018 when I first ran, right? ... I say to people, 'What's keeping you up at night?'' 'I tell people it's not maybe the sexiest tagline, but ruthless competence is what people in New Jersey want to see in government,' Sherrill added later. 'And that's what I've always provided, and that's what I think stands in stark contrast to the most incompetent federal government we've probably ever seen in this nation.' Still, while Sherrill won with over a third of the vote, the results revealed a fractured party. Two candidates who pitched themselves as more progressive, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, won a combined 36% of the vote. Two of the more moderate candidates, U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer and former state Senate President Steve Sweeney, got 20% combined, while teachers union president Sean Spiller won 10%. After having come just 3 percentage points shy of defeating Murphy in 2021, Ciattarelli made one thing clear in his bid four years later: He's all in on Trump. Like many prominent Republicans, Ciattarelli wasn't always on board — he criticized Trump as a 'charlatan' in 2015. And while he embraced Trump during his previous bid for governor, he didn't campaign with him. That led Ciattarelli's opponents, including his top competitor, former radio host Bill Spadea, to try to frame him as insufficiently loyal to Trump. (Spadea had voiced criticism of Trump before he fell back in line.) But Trump's endorsement of Ciattarelli cemented his front-runner status, helping hasten the end of the campaign. And in a nod to Ciattarelli's past criticism, Trump tried to inoculate him from any attempt to undercut his Trump bona fides. 'Jack, who after getting to know and understand MAGA, has gone ALL IN, and is now 100% (PLUS!),' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post announcing his backing. Tuesday's result suggests that Trump's seal of approval was good enough for most GOP primary voters. By late Tuesday evening, Ciattarelli was carrying all of the state's 21 counties. Ciattarelli's vote share was at 67% by late Tuesday evening, compared with just 22% for Spadea. State Sen. Jon Bramnick, who had been critical of Trump, had won just 6%, followed by two other candidates who had each won less than 3% of the vote. Ciattarelli thanked Trump in his victory speech for his 'endorsement and strong support,' making a joke about his being a 'part-time New Jersey resident.' (Trump owns a home and a golf course in Bedminster.) But Ciattarelli spent most of his speech focused on a general election argument, not on shoring up his base — indicative of the line he'll have to walk in a state Trump lost three times, even after the improvement he showed last year. Both parties are grappling with antiestablishment sentiment, wondering how to handle it, channel it or just avoid getting run over by it. But Tuesday's results were also a reminder that political institutions still have some staying power. New Jersey's traditional political machines were dealt a blow last year following a lawsuit from Democrat Andy Kim during his Senate run, when a court ordered that county parties could no longer give advantageous ballot positions to their preferred candidates. That diminished the sway those parties had Tuesday, but they still demonstrated some power. Ciattarelli was the only Republican who competed for county party endorsements. Fulop didn't compete for Democratic county party endorsements, and Gottheimer sat some out, as well. Some county parties split between the candidates, with Sherrill earning the most endorsements from 10 of the 21 counties. While Sherrill was carrying 15 of the state's 21 counties late Tuesday, Gottheimer was winning his home county, Bergen, which endorsed him. Sweeney, the only candidate from South Jersey, fared far better in the six counties that backed him. He was winning 40% of the vote in Gloucester County while garnering 7% of the statewide vote. The county party endorsements were no guarantee of victory: The Essex County Democrats, for example, endorsed Sherrill. But as of late Tuesday evening, she was trailing Baraka in Essex County, where he is mayor of Newark, the state's largest city. Even in that instance, though, the party endorsement may have helped Sherrill cut Baraka's margins in his home base. Tuesday night's victory speeches were also important table-setters, indicative of how each party is looking to frame the general election. And New Jersey's general election this year may foreshadow much of what we see on the campaign trail around the country in the 2026 midterms. Outside of a quick thanks to Trump, Ciattarelli kept his focus tightly on Sherrill and New Jersey Democrats in his victory speech. He criticized her as 'Phil Murphy 2.0,' arguing that she has 'enabled every extremist and costly idea Phil Murphy has put forth,' and he even revived a key criticism of Murphy from his 2021 campaign. He also criticized Sherrill's focus on Trump as a deflection. 'Mark my words: While we focus on these key New Jersey issues, my Democratic opponent will do everything in her power. Trust me ... if you took a shot every time Mikie Sherrill says 'Trump,' you'd be drunk off your ass every day between now and Nov. 4,' he said. 'But every time you hear her say 'Trump,' I want you to know what it really means: What it really means is Mikie doesn't have a plan to fix New Jersey,' he continued. During her victory speech, Sherrill leaned heavily on her biography but also emphasized a dual mandate — a fight against New Jersey Republicans and also against Trump, a recipe that Democrats have successfully leaned on in past midterm elections. Calling Ciattarelli a 'Trump lackey' who shouldn't lead the state, Sherrill criticized 'Trump and MAGA Republicans in D.C. [who] want to raise your taxes and take away your health care and education dollars.' 'This country is too beautiful to be beholden to the cruelty and self-interest that Jack and Trump are trying to hoist on her,' she said. 'The future is built on hard work and hope, and here in New Jersey, we're known for our grit, our tenacity — maybe a little bit for how loud we are — but it's going to take a strong voice to cut through the noise from Washington and deliver for the people,' she said. 'So I stand here tonight doing just that. And as a mom of four teenagers, you guys know I'm not going to put up with the incompetent, whiny nonsense coming from aggrieved MAGA Republicans.' Tuesday's results showed how money matters in campaigns — and how it has its limits. On the Democratic side, Sherrill won despite having been outspent by some of her opponents whose outside groups dropped millions of dollars on the race. The largest outside spender was Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by the state's teachers union, which Spiller leads. The group had spent a whopping $35 million on the race as of May 27, according to the latest campaign finance reports, while Spiller's campaign had spent $342,000. As of late Tuesday, Spiller had about 10% of the primary vote. Gottheimer and Fulop were also boosted by outside groups that spent millions of dollars on the airwaves. (Gottheimer drained his congressional account to fund the outside group supporting him.) Sherrill got support on the airwaves from One Giant Leap PAC, which spent less than either Gottheimer's or Fulop's groups but spent most of its funds in the final weeks of the race. Ciattarelli and an aligned outside group, Kitchen Table Conservatives, outspent the other Republicans. And Ciattarelli touted his strong fundraising as proof that he would be a formidable general election candidate. This article was originally published on
