Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference

The problem of disinformation and foreign interference in elections has increased significantly in recent years. It creates an uneven playing field that hinders fair competition and informed voting. Electoral disinformation manifests itself in two ways: partisan and procedural. Partisan...

وصف كامل

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
الحاوية / القاعدة:Filozofija i Društvo
المؤلف الرئيسي: Parenteau Ian
التنسيق: مقال
اللغة:الألمانية
منشور في: Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade 2025-01-01
الموضوعات:
الوصول للمادة أونلاين:https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2025/0353-57382502387P.pdf
_version_ 1849535034377109504
author Parenteau Ian
author_facet Parenteau Ian
author_sort Parenteau Ian
collection DOAJ
container_title Filozofija i Društvo
description The problem of disinformation and foreign interference in elections has increased significantly in recent years. It creates an uneven playing field that hinders fair competition and informed voting. Electoral disinformation manifests itself in two ways: partisan and procedural. Partisan disinformation targets candidates and voters with false information to influence their voting preferences. In contrast, procedural disinformation seeks to disenfranchise voters or undermine the electoral process. Foreign interference in elections can be defined as any attempt to influence the outcome of an election in another country. Have Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) implemented effective countermeasures to mitigate these risks? The answer is complex, but no. They face institutional, legal and technical constraints that limit their actions. First, EMBs cannot change electoral laws to make them more resilient against the threat of disinformation and foreign electoral interference. Second, disinformation is usually not criminal and falls outside most legislation, making prosecution difficult. Foreign interference falls beyond national jurisdiction. Third, the actions that EMBs can take are limited by their obligations to be fair and impartial. Fourth, while enhancing content curation on social media platforms would be beneficial, EMBs lack the authority to enforce such measures, and these platforms exercise limited control over the content that is published.
format Article
id doaj-art-7bdcc8dbd3de484b9c1ed830f5cedeb1
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 0353-5738
2334-8577
language deu
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-7bdcc8dbd3de484b9c1ed830f5cedeb12025-08-20T02:46:19ZdeuInstitute for Philosophy and Social Theory, BelgradeFilozofija i Društvo0353-57382334-85772025-01-0136238741210.2298/FID2502387P0353-57382502387PNavigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interferenceParenteau Ian0Departement of Humanities and Social Sciences, Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, Québec, CanadaThe problem of disinformation and foreign interference in elections has increased significantly in recent years. It creates an uneven playing field that hinders fair competition and informed voting. Electoral disinformation manifests itself in two ways: partisan and procedural. Partisan disinformation targets candidates and voters with false information to influence their voting preferences. In contrast, procedural disinformation seeks to disenfranchise voters or undermine the electoral process. Foreign interference in elections can be defined as any attempt to influence the outcome of an election in another country. Have Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) implemented effective countermeasures to mitigate these risks? The answer is complex, but no. They face institutional, legal and technical constraints that limit their actions. First, EMBs cannot change electoral laws to make them more resilient against the threat of disinformation and foreign electoral interference. Second, disinformation is usually not criminal and falls outside most legislation, making prosecution difficult. Foreign interference falls beyond national jurisdiction. Third, the actions that EMBs can take are limited by their obligations to be fair and impartial. Fourth, while enhancing content curation on social media platforms would be beneficial, EMBs lack the authority to enforce such measures, and these platforms exercise limited control over the content that is published.https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2025/0353-57382502387P.pdfelectoral management bodies (emb)disinformationforeign electoral interferenceand elections.
spellingShingle Parenteau Ian
Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
electoral management bodies (emb)
disinformation
foreign electoral interference
and elections.
title Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
title_full Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
title_fullStr Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
title_full_unstemmed Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
title_short Navigating the limits: electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
title_sort navigating the limits electoral management bodies and the struggle against disinformation and foreign interference
topic electoral management bodies (emb)
disinformation
foreign electoral interference
and elections.
url https://doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0353-5738/2025/0353-57382502387P.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT parenteauian navigatingthelimitselectoralmanagementbodiesandthestruggleagainstdisinformationandforeigninterference