Americans Are Sort Of OK With Foreign Election Meddling*

Michael Tomz and Jessica Weeks, a pair of political scientists, recently did a bit of research to find out what people thought about foreign election interference. They surveyed several thousand people, giving them different scenarios for foreign meddling (endorsements, contributions, hacking into voting systems) and asked what they thought about each of them. Here are the basic results:

This is odd. “Stay Out” means what it sounds like: in this scenario the foreign country did nothing. And yet, 5 percent of the respondents disapproved. On the other end, 10 percent of the respondents were OK even if a country hacked our election machines to change the vote count.

What the hell? Is this for real, or just some kind of mistake? Here’s another question:

A full 18 percent of the respondents supported economic sanctions against a country that did nothing. This is nuts. What could account for it? Maybe this:

*Disapproval levels were strongly partisan: large numbers of both Democrats and Republicans were OK with foreign interference as long as it hurt the other party. This effect was strongest for things like simply endorsing a candidate, but still noticeable even for more extreme actions like contributing money, spreading lies, or hacking voting machines.

In other words, the results of the top chart are probably real: a small number of people were upset if a country stayed neutral because they actively wanted foreign interference against the opposition party. Likewise, a small number of people approved of vote machine hacking, presumably on the assumption that it would be used to help their own party.

These numbers aren’t huge, and it’s just a survey. So I guess we shouldn’t get too bent out of shape about it. Still, this hardly instills a lot of faith in our fellow voters, does it?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate