Factual Verification Report: Analysis of Claims in "Election by Jury..." Article

I. Introduction

Purpose: This report provides a detailed, evidence-based fact-check of specific claims and citations presented within the article "Election by Jury...". The analysis addresses ten distinct points of verification outlined in the user request, covering topics ranging from political psychology and information warfare to AI forecasting, voter demographics, and specific governance mechanisms like sortition and the Georgia grand jury system.

Scope and Methodology: The assessment presented herein is based exclusively on the analysis of provided textual materials.1 Each specified claim from the "Election by Jury..." article has been systematically compared against the information contained within these materials. Findings are presented objectively, reflecting the available evidence. It is noted that certain cited sources 10 were inaccessible during the research phase; verification for claims potentially reliant on these sources has been conducted using alternative provided materials where possible.

Report Structure: The report proceeds with a claim-by-claim verification in Section II, detailing the findings for each of the ten points. Section III synthesizes these findings, provides an overall assessment of the article's accuracy concerning the verified points, and specifically addresses the validity of the claim linking news consumption to misperceptions. A summary table is included in Section III for clarity. Section IV offers concluding remarks.

II. Verification Findings: Claim-by-Claim Analysis

A. News Consumption and the Perception Gap (More in Common Study)

Claim Verification: The assertion within the article that the More in Common "Perception Gap" study identified an association between increased news consumption and a larger "perception gap," specifically stating that individuals reading news "most of the time" exhibited "nearly three times more distorted perceptions" of political opponents than those reading news "only now and then," is Verified.

Supporting Evidence: The research material directly corroborates this claim. The Perception Gap study's findings indicate a positive correlation between the frequency of news consumption and the degree of distortion in perceptions regarding opposing political groups. Specifically, the study determined that respondents reporting news consumption "most of the time" had perception distortions nearly three times greater than those reporting consumption "only now and then".1

Context and Significance: This finding challenges the conventional wisdom that simply consuming more information leads to a more accurate understanding of the political landscape, particularly concerning the views and characteristics of those with differing political affiliations. The data suggests a counterintuitive relationship where higher reported news consumption correlates with greater misperception of political adversaries. The study materials note that this suggests media coverage might play a role in fostering these misperceptions, rather than solely informing the public.1 This implies that the nature of the information environment frequented by heavy news consumers—potentially characterized by partisan sources, echo chambers, or filter bubbles—may be a more significant factor than consumption volume alone in shaping views of political opponents. The precise mechanisms driving this correlation, however, require further investigation beyond the scope of the provided information.

B. State-Sponsored Information Warfare

Claim Verification: Assertions regarding specific Russian state-sponsored information warfare activities, associated U.S. government responses, and intelligence community assessments are largely Verified based on the available materials. This includes references to operations like Storm-1516, U.S. Treasury sanctions against entities such as the Center for Geopolitical Expertise (CGE), and intelligence assessments regarding the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Note: Verification relies on sources 2, and 13, as 10 and 11 were inaccessible.

Supporting Evidence:

• Operations (Storm-1516): Microsoft Threat Intelligence documented the activities of the Russian influence operation designated Storm-1516, observing its shift to maligning Vice President Harris ahead of the 2024 U.S. election.3 This actor was anticipated to continue spreading divisive content, staged videos, and AI-enhanced propaganda.3 Specific tactics included staging a video falsely implicating VP Harris in an incident 12 and employing a process involving purported whistleblowers, dedicated video channels, and networks of affiliated websites to launder disinformation, particularly anti-Ukraine narratives, into U.S. audience spaces.13 While traditional techniques like staged videos achieved significant reach 12, the use of AI was also noted.3 Another operation, CopyCop, linked to a former American police officer residing in Russia and allegedly liaising with Russian military intelligence (GRU), also shifted focus to U.S. election content, using generative AI to rewrite articles from various media sources and promoting narratives about candidates.8

• Sanctions (Treasury Dept.): The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned the Moscow-based Center for Geopolitical Expertise (CGE) and its director, Valery Korovin.2 These sanctions were imposed due to CGE's involvement in foreign malign influence targeting the 2024 U.S. election, including directing and subsidizing the creation and dissemination of deepfakes and disinformation about candidates. CGE is accused of working directly with a GRU unit, receiving financial support from the GRU to build server infrastructure hosting generative AI tools, maintaining numerous websites mimicking legitimate news outlets, and manipulating video content to sow discord.2

• Intelligence Community Assessments: In May 2024 testimony, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines identified Russia as the "most active foreign threat" to U.S. elections, aiming to erode trust in democratic institutions and potentially employing AI and deepfakes.14 Officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) characterized AI's role in the 2024 election cycle as a "malign influence accelerant, not yet a revolutionary influence tool".15 This assessment was echoed by a former Director of the ODNI's Foreign Malign Influence Center, who described AI as an accelerant but not "fully transformative" in this cycle, noting Russia used AI across various formats.16 ODNI reporting confirmed Russia's use of both AI-generated content and traditional techniques in its influence operations.12

Context and Significance: The evidence points to persistent and adaptive state-sponsored information warfare efforts targeting U.S. elections, particularly from Russia. These operations employ a hybrid approach, layering new technologies like generative AI onto established methods such as disinformation laundering and staged events. While AI enhances the efficiency and scale of these operations, intelligence assessments suggest it has not yet fundamentally altered the nature of the threat, acting more as an amplifier for existing tactics. The observed synchronization across different Russian operations implies a degree of centralized coordination.3 U.S. responses include sanctions targeting specific entities and individuals involved in these activities.2

C. Demographic Misperceptions (YouGov Study)

Claim Verification: The claim that a YouGov study revealed significant public misperceptions about the size of U.S. demographic groups, specifically the overestimation of minority groups and underestimation of majority groups, is Verified.

Supporting Evidence: The YouGov study detailed in the provided materials found a consistent pattern of misestimation.4 Americans estimated the gay/lesbian population at 30% (actual: 3%), the Muslim population at 27% (actual: 1%), and the Native American population at 27% (actual: 1%). Conversely, they underestimated the Christian population (estimated 58%, actual 70%) and the proportion of adults with at least a high school degree (estimated 65%, actual 89%). This pattern extended to less socially charged groups, like left-handed individuals (estimated 34%, actual 10-12%). Notably, members of minority groups often exhibited similar or even greater inaccuracies when estimating the size of their own group.4

Context and Significance: These findings highlight a prevalent cognitive bias affecting perceptions of societal composition. Such misperceptions could potentially influence public discourse, policy debates, and attitudes related to group representation, resource allocation, and social issues. The study suggests this phenomenon might stem from a cognitive pattern termed "uncertainty-based rescaling," where individuals, when uncertain, tend to adjust their estimates towards a perceived mean (around 50%), leading to the observed overestimation of small groups and underestimation of large ones.4 Importantly, the research cited suggests that merely correcting these numerical misperceptions may not necessarily alter underlying attitudes on related policy issues, indicating that such attitudes might be driven by factors other than accurate demographic knowledge.4

D. AI-2027 Project Forecast

Claim Verification: Claims attributed to the AI-2027 project regarding its forecast for artificial intelligence development—including timelines for superintelligence, an intelligence explosion, government involvement, geopolitical dynamics, and potential societal outcomes—are Verified as accurately reflecting the scenario described in the project materials.7 Specific capabilities forecasted to emerge by 2027, such as superhuman forecasting, superpersuasion, and advanced AI negotiation, are also Verified.7

Supporting Evidence: The AI-2027 report 7 and its introduction by Scott Alexander 17 outline a scenario where superintelligence could plausibly arrive by the end of the decade. The narrative forecasts gradually improving AI agents through 2026, followed by a critical acceleration in 2027 driven by coding agents capable of substantially boosting AI research and development itself. This triggers an "intelligence explosion" reaching superhuman levels by mid-2027 and potentially superintelligence by early 2028.17 The scenario anticipates the U.S. government recognizing AI's strategic importance (e.g., in cyberwarfare) in early 2027, leading to closer relationships with AI companies, akin to defense contractors. It also posits China achieving near-parity, likely through espionage ("steals the weights"), sparking an arms race that incentivizes cutting corners on safety and pushing rapid automation (~2029) despite public concerns.17 Potential outcomes include misalignment leading to existential risk (~2030) or successful alignment resulting in a "technofeudalism" dominated by tech oligarchs and government figures.17 Specific capabilities detailed include Agent-4 achieving superhuman AI research forecasting by September 2027, and Agent-5 demonstrating superpersuasion through corporate politics and advanced negotiation tactics by late 2027.7

Context and Significance: The AI-2027 project presents a detailed, albeit speculative, narrative intended to provoke serious consideration of the potential speed and impact of AI advancements.7 While acknowledging forecasting uncertainty (authors' median predictions vary slightly 17), the scenario highlights recursive self-improvement via AI coding agents as a key potential driver of rapid progress.17 It also underscores how geopolitical competition could act as both an accelerator and a significant risk factor, potentially compromising safety efforts.17 The project aims to provide concrete details to facilitate preparedness for potentially transformative changes.7

E. Voter Demographics (Pew Research Center)

Claim Verification: The article's claims regarding Pew Research Center data showing disparities between the demographic composition of eligible voters and actual voters are Generally Supported in Principle, although the provided materials offer fragmented data points rather than a single, comprehensive comparative dataset for one specific election across all key demographics. The core concept that turnout rates vary significantly across demographic groups, leading to differences between the eligible electorate and the voting electorate, is Verified.

Supporting Evidence: Multiple sources reference Pew Research findings illustrating these disparities:

• Age: Older generations consistently constitute a larger share of actual voters compared to their proportion among eligible voters. For example, in 2016, Baby Boomers and older generations were 43% of eligible voters but cast 49% of ballots.18 Conversely, younger generations like Millennials, despite significant eligibility numbers, have historically turned out at lower rates, diminishing their share among actual voters compared to their eligibility share.18 Projections for 2020 indicated Gen Z would be 10% of eligible voters, but actual turnout would likely be lower.18

• Race/Ethnicity: Pew projected Hispanics would surpass Black Americans as the largest minority group among eligible voters in 2020 (over 13% vs. 12%).18 However, due to historically lower turnout rates among Hispanics compared to Black voters, it was anticipated that Black voters might still cast more ballots.18 Non-Pew data for 2020 confirms lower registration and turnout rates for Latinos compared to White and Black voters nationally.20

• Gender: Pew has noted that women have reported slightly higher turnout rates than men in U.S. presidential elections since 1984.21

• Voting Consistency: Pew research highlights that a large segment of the electorate consists of "intermittent voters" who do not participate in every election.22 These voters, distinct from consistent voters or nonvoters, often play a decisive role in election outcomes and exhibit different partisan leans depending on the specific elections they participate in.22

• Data Methodology: The importance of using validated voter data, as Pew does, is highlighted by discrepancies compared to methods like exit polls, which can misestimate the composition of the actual electorate (e.g., overestimating college graduates).23

Context and Significance: The demographic gap between potential and actual voters is a critical factor in understanding electoral outcomes, political representation, and the impact of mobilization efforts. Differential turnout rates mean that the composition of the group that actually decides elections often differs significantly from the composition of the population eligible to vote. This analysis underscores that eligibility does not automatically translate into equivalent electoral influence; turnout dynamics significantly shape the political landscape. The presence of a large bloc of intermittent voters adds another layer of complexity and volatility to electoral politics.22

F. Epistemic Trustworthiness (METI Study)

Claim Verification: The article's description of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) study and its findings regarding the evaluation of expert competence by non-experts is Verified.

Supporting Evidence: The PLOS ONE article details the development and validation of the METI, a tool designed to measure lay evaluations of expert trustworthiness, especially in online contexts.5 The study confirmed through factor analysis that laypeople assess trustworthiness based on three core dimensions:

1. Expertise: Perceived competence, knowledge, intelligence, training, and experience of the expert.

2. Integrity: Perceived honesty, reliability, objectivity, and adherence to scientific standards.

3. Benevolence: Perceived good intentions, morality, concern for others, and orientation towards the public interest. The METI demonstrated good reliability and validity, and its subscales were sensitive to experimental manipulations of source characteristics, showing that laypeople differentiate experts based on cues related to these three dimensions.5 When evaluating competence (Expertise), non-experts consider factors like perceived professionalism, knowledge, and experience.5

Context and Significance: This research provides a validated psychological instrument and theoretical framework for understanding how non-experts determine the credibility of expert sources. In an information environment saturated with diverse claims and sources, particularly online where direct verification is often difficult, understanding the heuristics people use to assess trustworthiness (Expertise, Integrity, Benevolence) is crucial. It shows that trust is not a single judgment but a composite evaluation across these distinct factors. The study's focus on online environments makes the METI particularly relevant for analyzing information consumption and trust in the digital age.5

G. Sortition Examples: Historical and Contemporary

Claim Verification: Descriptions of various historical and contemporary examples employing sortition (random selection) and deliberation in governance contexts are Largely Verified based on the provided materials.

Supporting Evidence:

• Historical:

• Athens: The Council of 500 (Boule), which set the agenda for the citizen Assembly, comprised representatives chosen by lot (sortition) proportionally from the demes.24

• Venice: The election of the Doge involved a highly complex, multi-stage process incorporating numerous rounds of random selection (drawing lots/ballots) interspersed with nomination and voting by elector committees. This system was explicitly designed to prevent factional dominance and ensure broader consensus.26 Deliberation occurred within the selecting committees and the legitimizing Major Council.26

• H.G. Wells: In "Mankind in the Making," Wells included a "criticism of polling and the jury system" 28 and contemplated the "substitution of the Jury method for a general poll," indicating consideration of sortition-based mechanisms.30

• Contemporary:

• British Columbia (BC) & Ontario: Both provinces convened Citizens' Assemblies on Electoral Reform (BC 2004, Ontario 2006-07) composed of citizens chosen through stratified random selection. These assemblies engaged in learning and deliberation phases before recommending electoral system changes (BC-STV and MMP, respectively), which were then put to referendums.31 A key motivation was to enhance legitimacy and overcome the conflict of interest politicians face in designing the systems that elect them.31

• Ireland: The Irish Constitutional Convention (2012-14, mixed membership) and Citizens' Assembly (2016-18, citizens only) used random selection to bring together individuals to deliberate on sensitive constitutional issues, including same-sex marriage and abortion. Their recommendations paved the way for successful referendums on these topics.35

• Oregon (CIR): The Citizens' Initiative Review uses a randomly selected, demographically representative panel of citizens (a "citizen jury") to deliberate on ballot initiatives. After hearing from experts and advocates, the panel produces a "Citizens' Statement" outlining key facts and arguments for/against the measure, which is included in the official state voters' pamphlet to provide voters with trustworthy information.37

• East Belgium: The German-speaking Community of Belgium has implemented a permanent model for citizen participation involving sortition. A randomly selected Citizens' Council sets the agenda for topic-specific Citizens' Assemblies (also randomly selected), which deliberate and produce recommendations formally considered by the Parliament.39

• Michigan (MICRC): The state constitution established the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, composed of 13 citizens selected randomly from a pool of applicants (stratified by political affiliation). This commission has exclusive authority to draw Michigan's state and congressional district maps following public hearings and deliberation, based on ranked criteria designed to ensure fairness and representation.41

• Mongolia: Mongolia enacted a law in 2017 requiring the use of Deliberative Polling® (a method involving stratified random sampling of citizens for informed deliberation) before certain constitutional amendments can be considered by Parliament. This process, developed at Stanford University, has been used for constitutional reforms.43

Context and Significance: These examples collectively demonstrate the versatility and endurance of sortition as a democratic tool. Modern applications frequently combine random selection to achieve demographic representation (creating a "mini-public") with structured deliberation to foster informed judgment. This approach is often employed to address issues where perceived conflicts of interest undermine traditional political processes (like electoral reform or redistricting) or where complex, divisive topics benefit from considered citizen input (like constitutional change). The degree of institutionalization varies widely, from temporary assemblies to legally mandated processes and permanent bodies integrated into the governmental structure.

H. Georgia Grand Jury System

Claim Verification: Specific details regarding the unique civic functions of Georgia's grand jury system, including its role in appointments, relevant statutes, specific county examples, and varying service terms, are Largely Verified, with the caveat that Thomas County was not explicitly mentioned in the provided materials. Information sourced from ElectionByJury.org regarding these practices is also confirmed by the content of the snippets from that site.

Supporting Evidence:

• Civic Functions & Statutes: Georgia grand juries possess duties extending beyond criminal matters, as mandated by state law. O.C.G.A. § 15-12-71 outlines their authority to inspect county offices and operations.45 Crucially, grand juries play a significant role in local appointments. Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-212, in counties without a combined board of elections and registration, the superior court judge appoints county voter registrars based on a list of names recommended by the grand jury.6 Furthermore, O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311 stipulates that members of county Boards of Equalization (which hear property tax appeals) are directly selected or appointed by the grand jury.6 Additional examples confirm grand jury involvement (either direct appointment or nomination) in selecting members for Boards of Elections, water authorities, ethics boards, and other local bodies, often based on specific county legislation.6

• County Examples: The provided materials confirm grand jury appointment/nomination roles in Lowndes County (Board of Elections), Cherokee County (Water & Sewerage Authority), Laurens County (Voter Registrars), Chatham County (Voter Registrars), Haralson County (Board of Elections), Towns County (Board of Elections), Athens-Clarke County (Overview Commission), Henry County (Board of Ethics), Emanuel County (Board of Education contingency), and Clayton County (Board of Ethics).6 Cobb County grand juries appoint members to the Board of Equalization.55 Thomas County was not specifically referenced in the available materials.

• Service Terms: Grand jury service terms vary by county. Clayton County 60 and Chatham County 61 terms are typically three months. DeKalb County 63 and Cobb County 66 terms are typically two months. Meetings usually occur on specific days (e.g., Wednesdays in Clayton and Chatham) or a certain number of days per week (e.g., ~2 days/week in DeKalb and Cobb) during the term.

• ElectionByJury.org Information: The details concerning Georgia's grand jury appointment practices presented on ElectionByJury.org are consistent with the information found in the snippets sourced from that website.6

Context and Significance: Georgia maintains a distinctive system where grand juries, composed of randomly selected citizens, perform significant civic governance functions beyond their traditional judicial role. This includes direct participation in the appointment and selection process for numerous local administrative and oversight positions. This practice represents a notable, institutionalized application of sortition principles within a modern U.S. state governance structure. The specific mechanisms vary, ranging from direct selection by the grand jury to providing nomination lists for judicial appointment, illustrating a layered approach to incorporating citizen input via sortition. The variation in service terms also indicates local adaptation of the statewide system.

III. Synthesis and Overall Accuracy Assessment

Summary of Findings: The claim-by-claim analysis indicates that the article "Election by Jury...", based on the specific points investigated and the provided supporting materials, generally demonstrates a high degree of factual accuracy. The verification process confirmed the substance of claims related to:

• The More in Common "Perception Gap" study's findings on news consumption and misperceptions.1

• Details of state-sponsored information warfare, including Russian operations (Storm-1516), U.S. sanctions (CGE/Korovin), and intelligence assessments on AI's role.2

• The YouGov study's findings on Americans' misperceptions of demographic group sizes.4

• The specific forecasts and capabilities outlined in the AI-2027 project scenario.7

• The core findings of the METI study regarding the dimensions of epistemic trustworthiness.5

• The existence and key characteristics of various historical and contemporary examples of sortition and deliberation.24

• The unique civic appointment roles, relevant statutes, specific county examples (except Thomas Co.), and service term variations within the Georgia grand jury system.6

Claims regarding Pew Research Center data on voter demographics were found to be generally supported in principle, confirming disparities between eligible and actual voters based on factors like age and race/ethnicity, although the provided materials offered fragmented data rather than a unified comparison for a single election.19

Overall Accuracy Evaluation: Based solely on the verification of the specified claims against the provided materials, the article appears to be factually sound and accurately represents the findings of its cited sources for the points examined.

News Consumption Claim Validity: The specific claim that the More in Common study found higher news consumption is associated with being more misled (possessing a larger perception gap regarding political opponents) is accurately reported according to the available information.1 The study indeed found this correlation, quantifying the effect as frequent news readers having nearly triple the perceptual distortion compared to occasional readers.1

Summary Table of Fact-Check Findings:

Claim Area

Specific Claim Checked

Verification Status

Justification & Key Source(s)

A. News Consumption & Perception Gap

More in Common study finding: Higher news consumption correlates with larger perception gap (~3x distortion for frequent vs. occasional readers).

Verified

Finding directly confirmed by source material detailing the study's results.1

B. State-Sponsored Information Warfare

Details on Russian operations (Storm-1516), Treasury sanctions (CGE/Korovin, GenAI use), and Intel assessments (AI as "accelerant").

Verified

Supported by multiple sources detailing Microsoft reports, Treasury press releases, and intelligence testimony/statements.2

C. Demographic Misperceptions

YouGov study finding: Americans overestimate minority group sizes, underestimate majority group sizes.

Verified

Directly confirmed by source material detailing YouGov study results and methodology.4

D. AI-2027 Project Forecast

Details of AI-2027 forecast (superintelligence timeline, intelligence explosion, government/geopolitical factors, outcomes, specific 2027 capabilities).

Verified

Scenario details and specific capabilities (superhuman forecasting, superpersuasion, negotiation) confirmed by project report and related materials.7

E. Voter Demographics

Pew Research data shows disparities between eligible and actual voter demographics (age, race/ethnicity).

Generally Supported in Principle

Principle of disparity confirmed by various Pew data points across sources, though a single comprehensive comparison wasn't available. Turnout varies by group, affecting representation.19

F. Epistemic Trustworthiness

METI study findings: Laypeople evaluate expert competence based on Expertise, Integrity, and Benevolence.

Verified

Confirmed by source material detailing the METI study's methodology, three-factor structure, and findings.5

G. Sortition Examples

Descriptions of historical (Athens, Venice, Wells) and contemporary (BC, Ontario, Ireland, Oregon, E. Belgium, Michigan, Mongolia) sortition/deliberation examples.

Largely Verified

Existence and key features (random selection, deliberation, purpose) confirmed across numerous sources detailing each case.24

H. Georgia Grand Jury System

Details on GA grand jury civic roles (appointments), statutes (15-12-71, 21-2-212, 48-5-311), county examples (Lowndes, Cherokee, etc.), service terms, ElectionByJury.org info.

Largely Verified

Extensive details confirmed by legal sources and dedicated website materials, covering statutes, various county practices, and term lengths. (Thomas Co. not mentioned).6

IV. Conclusion

This fact-checking analysis, conducted strictly based on the provided research materials, indicates that the specific claims examined within the "Election by Jury..." article are largely accurate and well-supported by the cited sources or related evidence. The verification process substantiated claims across diverse areas, including political psychology research, state-sponsored information warfare activities, AI forecasting scenarios, the nature of epistemic trust evaluations, historical and modern uses of sortition, and the unique civic functions of Georgia's grand jury system.

Crucially, the central claim regarding the More in Common "Perception Gap" study—that it found an association between higher news consumption frequency and greater misperceptions of political opponents—was verified as an accurate representation of the study's findings as presented in the source material.1

Overall, concerning the specific points subjected to verification using the supplied documentation, the article demonstrates a commitment to factual accuracy and appropriate sourcing. This assessment is necessarily limited to the scope of the verified claims and the information available within the provided materials.

Works cited

1. The Perception Gap, accessed April 15, 2025, https://perceptiongap.us/

2. Treasury Sanctions Entities in Iran and Russia That Attempted to ..., accessed April 15, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2766

3. Russia-linked operators engaged in expansive efforts to influence ..., accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/intelligence-reports/russia-linked-operators-engaged-in-expansive-efforts-to-influence-us-voters

4. ​​From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population ..., accessed April 15, 2025, https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population

5. Measuring Laypeople's Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The ... - PLOS, accessed April 15, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139309

6. EBJ In Practice - Election by Jury, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.electionbyjury.org/learn-more/ebj-in-practice

7. ai-2027.com, accessed April 15, 2025, https://ai-2027.com/ai-2027.pdf

8. America Resilient in the Face of Aggressive Foreign Malign Influence Targeting the 2024 U.S. Elections - FDD, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/12/18/america-resilient-in-the-face-of-aggressive-foreign-malign-influence-targeting-the-2024-u-s-elections/

9. How Sephora Enhances Customer Experience (CX) Through Personalization and Digital Innovation - Renascence, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.renascence.io/journal/how-sephora-enhances-customer-experience-cx-through-personalization-and-digital-innovation

10. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1251684195/election-interference-russia-china-senate-aritifical-intelligence

11. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.npr.org/2024/09/23/nx-s1-5123927/russia-artificial-intelligence-election

12. MTAC-Election-Report-5-on-Russian-Influence.pdf - Microsoft, accessed April 15, 2025, https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/msc/documents/presentations/CSR/MTAC-Election-Report-5-on-Russian-Influence.pdf

13. Nation-states engage in US-focused influence operations ahead of US presidential election - The Official Microsoft Blog, accessed April 15, 2025, https://blogs.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/sites/5/2024/04/MTAC-Report-Elections-Report-Nation-states-engage-in-US-focused-influence-operations-ahead-of-US-presidential-election-04172024.pdf

14. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testifying to the Senate on May 2, 2024. Mark Schiefelbein/AP - Mother Jones, accessed April 15, 2025, https://link.motherjones.com/public/35422739

15. adams discusses impact of ai on elections - Kentucky.gov, accessed April 15, 2025, https://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=SOS&prId=527

16. Foreign Influence and Democratic Governance, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-influence-and-democratic-governance

17. Introducing AI 2027 - by Scott Alexander - Astral Codex Ten, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027

18. An early look at the 2020 electorate | Pew Research Center, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/30/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate-2/

19. Millennials approach Baby Boomers as America's largest generation in electorate - Pew Research Center, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/04/03/millennials-approach-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate/

20. From Eligibility to the Ballot Box | Latino Policy & Politics Institute, accessed April 15, 2025, https://latino.ucla.edu/research/voter-turnout-gaps-2020/

21. How U.S. men and women differ in voter turnout, party identification | Pew Research Center, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/

22. Voter turnout in US elections, 2018-2022 | Pew Research Center, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/

23. Applying Swing Vote Analysis with Multi-level Regression and Poststratification (MRP) to Improve US Pre-Election Polling Estimates, accessed April 15, 2025, https://aapor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/6244-Quantitative-in-Election-Polling-Ketenci-Presentation.pdf

24. www.britannica.com, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Council-of-Five-Hundred-ancient-Greek-council#:~:text=Council%20of%20Five%20Hundred%2C%20boule,citizens%20of%20the%20city%2Dstate.

25. Council of Five Hundred | Athens, Ancient Greece, & Definition - Britannica, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Council-of-Five-Hundred-ancient-Greek-council

26. How effective was the selection process for the Doge of Venice? : r/AskHistorians - Reddit, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l7y5o3/how_effective_was_the_selection_process_for_the/

27. The election of the Doge of the Republic of Venice - Venetoinside, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.venetoinside.com/en/news-and-curiosities/the-election-of-the-doge-of-the-republic-of-venice

28. Mankind in the Making - Project Gutenberg Australia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1303551h.html

29. Mankind in the Making, by H. G. Wells - Project Gutenberg, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7058/7058-h/7058-h.htm

30. Mankind in the making - Wikimedia Commons, accessed April 15, 2025, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Mankind_in_the_making_%28IA_mankindinmaking00well%29.pdf

31. British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - Participedia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://participedia.net/case/1

32. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - IMPROVING DEMOCRACY IN B.C., accessed April 15, 2025, https://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/

33. We need a new Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - - Fair Vote Canada, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.fairvote.ca/onca/

34. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (Ontario) - Wikipedia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_on_Electoral_Reform_(Ontario)

35. Citizens' Assemblies: Not Made to Legislate? - Democracy Technologies, accessed April 15, 2025, https://democracy-technologies.org/participation/citizens-assemblies-not-made-to-legislate/

36. Citizens' Assemblies: How can the UK learn from Ireland? | The Constitution Unit Blog, accessed April 15, 2025, https://constitution-unit.com/2018/10/25/citizens-assemblies-how-can-the-uk-learn-from-ireland/

37. Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review - Participedia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://participedia.net/method/oregon-citizens-initiative-review

38. Citizens Initiative Reviews (CIR) - Healthy Democracy, accessed April 15, 2025, https://healthydemocracy.org/home/services/cir/

39. Permanent Sortition in Eupen, Belgium - Participedia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://participedia.net/case/permanent-sortition-in-belgiumongoing

40. Citizens' Dialogue in East Belgium with impact, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.buergerrat.de/en/news/citizens-dialogue-in-east-belgium-with-impact/

41. Redistricting 101 - State of Michigan, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/MiCRC/MISC3/Redistricting_101.pdf?rev=6a8025af10ed436ab647dad865d51b71

42. Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.michigan.gov/micrc

43. Deliberative Polling on Constitutional Amendments in Mongolia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://democracyrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PDF-Guia3-Case-Studies-1-Mongolia.pdf

44. Deliberative Polling "Fosters Peace and Instigates Positive Change Among People of Mongolia" | FSI, accessed April 15, 2025, https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/news/deliberative-polling-fosters-peace-and-instigates-positive-change-among-people-mongolia

45. Unofficial Opinion 96-15 - Georgia Attorney General's Office, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/96-15-0

46. Georgia Code § 15-12-71 (2024) - Duties of grand jury - Justia Law, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-15/chapter-12/article-4/part-1/section-15-12-71/

47. Laurens County Board of Elections & Registration, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.laurenscoga.org/259/Board-of-Elections-Registration

48. Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-212 - Codes - FindLaw, accessed April 15, 2025, https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-212/

49. Georgia Code § 21-2-212 (2021) - County Registrars; Appointment; Certification; Term of Service - Justia Law, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-21/chapter-2/article-6/section-21-2-212/

50. Georgia Code § 21-2-212 (2024) - County registrars; appointment; certification - Justia Law, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-21/chapter-2/article-6/section-21-2-212/

51. Board of Equalization | Emanuel County, GA - Official Website, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.emanuelco-ga.gov/356/Board-of-Equalization

52. Georgia Code § 48-5-311 (2022) - [Effective Until July 1, 2023. See note.] Creation of County Boards of Equalization; Duties; Review of Assessments; Appeals - Justia Law, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-48/chapter-5/article-5/part-2/section-48-5-311/

53. Georgia Code § 48-5-311 (2024) - Creation of county boards of equalization; duties; review of assessments; appeals - Justia Law, accessed April 15, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-48/chapter-5/article-5/part-2/section-48-5-311/

54. Georgia Code Title 48. Revenue and Taxation § 48-5-311 | FindLaw, accessed April 15, 2025, https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-48-revenue-and-taxation/ga-code-sect-48-5-311/

55. Board of Equalization - Cobb County Superior Court Clerk, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.cobbsuperiorcourtclerk.com/board-of-equalization/

56. County Board of Equalization: Creation, Duties, and Statutory Procedures, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.libertyco.com/files/Board_Of_Equalization_Statutes.pdf

57. Boards of Equalization - Fulton County Government, accessed April 15, 2025, https://fultoncountyga.gov/inside-fulton-county/fulton-county-departments/board-of-assessors/boards-of-equalization

58. Board of Equalization | Clerk of the Court | Effingham County, Ga, accessed April 15, 2025, https://effinghamclerk.org/board-of-equalization/

59. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, accessed April 15, 2025, https://dor.georgia.gov/sites/dor.georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/LGS/Training%20Program/BOE/20%20hr%20BOE%20Manual%20%2805-18%29.pdf

60. Grand Jury - Clayton County, Georgia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.claytoncountyga.gov/government/court-services/clerk-of-superior-court/jury-division/grand-jury/

61. Grand Jury Service - Chatham County, GA - Court System, accessed April 15, 2025, https://courts.chathamcountyga.gov/Superior/GrandJury

62. in the superior court of chatham county, georgiailed in office - NET, accessed April 15, 2025, https://cccdn.blob.core.windows.net/cdn/Files/Courts/forms/Superior%20Forms/Standing%20Orders/Jury%20Rules%202014.pdf

63. Grand Jury Service - Dekalb County District Attorney, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.dekalbda.org/divisions_special_units/special_units/grand_jury/index.php

64. Grand Jury Service - Superior Court of DeKalb County, accessed April 15, 2025, https://dekalbsuperiorcourt.com/jury-management/grand-jury-service/

65. grand jury proceedings resume in dekalb county, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.dekalbda.org/news_detail_T6_R123.php

66. Superior Court Grand Juror Information | Cobb County Georgia, accessed April 15, 2025, https://www.cobbcounty.org/courts/superior-court/administration/juror-information/grand-jury