MALE_1: >> That it
presents, but also how to

seize the opportunities
that it offers

for not only amplifying the
voice of campaigns and ideas,

but also of informing
voters and helping

them not only decide
for whom to vote,

but to learn where, when,

and how to cast their ballots.

I want to bring up first
Secretary of State, Steve Simon.

Secretary Simon, as I'm
sure will tell you,

is very happy that
Minnesota is, once again,

number 1 nationwide
in voter turnout.

There are a few rivalries more

pitched than between
Minnesota, Wisconsin,

and a couple other places
for number 1 in turnout,

but I think it's
fair to say that

social media played
a role in that.

We'll start with Steve to
give us a few remarks,

and then we'll get on with
the rest of our panel.

Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

Steve Simon: >> Thank
you very much, everyone.

Thank you so much
for coming today to

this second annual event on

the state of voting in
elections in Minnesota.

This is really an opportunity
from my standpoint,

to take a look at where
we've been, where we are,

and where we're
going in terms of

democracy and elections in
the State of Minnesota.

I want to thank the
Humphrey School,

thanks to Larry Jacobs, who

couldn't be here
today, to Doug Chapin,

our moderator, and
in particular,

thanks to Facebook for

their participation
in this event.

We really appreciate it.

This year's theme
obviously is the impact

of social media in
modern elections.

We witnessed that
first hand last year,

and we're going to
get into that a lot,

I promise you, it
was an amazing year.

But before I take up that
issue in my remarks,

I just want to provide
a little bit of

context for the role
of social media,

not just in 2016,
but going forward.

I'd like to talk a little
bit about 2016 itself,

talk about some core election
challenges that we have,

and then look to the future,

which very obviously
includes a future

with social media as part
of our elections landscape.

2016, I like to say as
Secretary of State,

that I'm in the
democracy business,

and what a time to

be in the democracy
business. Am I right?

We just went through
a period that is

really amazing in
American history.

We had a presidential
election like no other.

Part of that reason,
in my judgment,

was that we had two major

party presidential
candidates who,

let me put this diplomatically,

let's just say they
inspired strong feelings.

How's that? Does
that capture it?

They inspired strong feelings

and that's definitely the case.

There was a real, fierce,

sustained intensity
about the last election

that I think is unmatched
in recent history.

I think most of us
would agree about that.

Then in the midst of all that,

we in Minnesota set a goal,

and our office set a goal,

and the goal was to return

Minnesota to number
1 in voter turnout.

When I gave this address last
year, different location,

I outlined the plan by which
my office would try to

shape that outcome of
getting back to number 1,

and when the election was over,

wouldn't you know
it, when the dust

settled, we got there.

Minnesota back on top,

number 1 in the country in

voter turnout. [APPLAUSE]
That was great.

We started slipping just a
little bit in recent years,

and we got back to number 1,

and we're very happy about that.

How did we get there? I
ask that question a lot.

How do we get back to number 1?

Part of it, I think,
pretty obviously,

from my standpoint, is

some of the laws that
we have on the books.

We're very blessed. We're
very fortunate in Minnesota.

We have election
day registration.

We're still one of only about 15

or 16 states that has that.

We have online
voter registration.

We were one of the
very first states.

Now over 30 states have
online voter registration,

and we have no excuses

absentee voting. Which
was a huge change.

I was proud to author
that change during

my last term in the legislature,

and it means you don't
have to be absent

anymore to vote absentee.

You can vote absentee
for any reason you want.

It's nobody's business,
what the reason is,

and Minnesotans flock to it.

How much? This much.

Almost 23% of voters
in the last election

in Minnesota voted before
election day, almost 23%.

Just to give you some
context for that number,

in a normal election year
before we had this in the law,

the normal absentee ballot
percentage was 8, 9,

10, maybe 11% in a stretch year,

so more than double.

Virtually overnight because
of this reform that

Minnesotans obviously
embrace and really love.

Another thing that we
did in our office was

we really tried to focus
where we needed to focus.

That is on communities
or portions of

the state where there

was room for improvement
and voter turnout.

For example, we focused on

military families with
renewed outreach,

with the use for the first
time in Minnesota history of

a veteran ID card as a
tool for registration.

That had never happened
before. That affects

over 100,000 Minnesota families,

and we instituted
that in our office.

We also focused
on new Americans,

immigrants to this country.

We more than doubled
the number of

languages that we serve
both on the website and in

hard copy materials from
five foreign languages to

11 foreign languages as

a welcome mat to those who are

eligible to vote
who are citizens,

but for whom English is
not their native language.

We focused on youth. We
focused on young people with

two very special and brand
new successful initiatives.

The idea here was to get
good habits started early.

All the studies show
that if you can get

young people thinking
about themselves

as voters even before
they're voters,

they're far more likely than to

vote in that first election
in which they're eligible,

when they're 18 or 19 or
20 or 21, and we did that.

We thought, let's start
in the high schools,

even before most students
are eligible to vote.

We instituted something that

had never been done
in Minnesota history,

as far as we're aware, which is

the first ever statewide

mock election for
high school students.

We kept it real simple.

We kept it only to
high school students,

and we kept it only
to the one contest,

president of the United States,
not county commissioner,

not state senate,
just the presidency.

When we first started out,

since this has never been done,

we thought, well,
what's a suitable goal.

Let's shoot for 100 schools.

No one's done this
before. We're asking them

to take someone of a risk.
Let's shoot for 100.

It's a nice round number.
We didn't get 100.

We got 261 high schools for

a total enrollment
of 96,000 students.

It had a huge ripple effect.

We got great feedback, and a
lot of students who really,

for the first time,
were immersed in

this process in a
real tangible way.

But we didn't stop
at high schools,

we also went to colleges
and universities.

There we instituted
also a new program,

highly successful, which
we called ballot bowl.

What ballot bowl
pretty much was was

a competition among
college campuses

to register students to vote.

We had 68 schools
participating in

some form or fashion
in ballot bowl,

two-year, four-year,

public, private,
it didn't matter.

It really galvanized students on

campuses so much so
that on some campuses,

the local chapter of

the Democrats and the
Republicans cooperated together,

if you can believe that, in

order to boost their
schools numbers and

get good bona fide registrants

for purposes of
this competition.

That was a big success as well.

We're proud of that result,

we're proud at getting
back to number 1,

and we're proud of
how we got there.

But I think we all
need to acknowledge,

certainly in our office,
that we still have

challenges in our
election system.

This is a national thing,

but certainly in
Minnesota as well.

Before I talk about what
the challenges are,

I want to mention what I

regard as one of the
major distractions.

Some of you may remember
that after the election,

the president elect claimed

repeatedly that 3-5
million people,

3-5 million in this
country voted illegally.

They broke the law.
They were felons.

I have to say, let's say for
a minute that you believe

that he exaggerates from time to

time that it's not five million,

that it's really closer
to three million.

Minnesota's pro rata share of

three million is
over 50,000 voters.

What the president
elect then was saying

and has repeated is
that on average,

more than 50,000 people in

Minnesota are felons.
They belong in prison.

They violated the
law and they voted

unlawfully folks. That
has never happened.

It's not happening now.
It will never happen.

That number is pure fantasy,

and it's an irresponsible claim.

Nonetheless, a short time later,

the president instituted
what he called

the Presidential Advisory

Commission on
Election Integrity.

You may have seen that
earlier this week,

they had their second meeting.

It's a commission
that is co-chaired by

Vice President Pence and by the

Kansas Secretary of
State Chris Kobach.

A few weeks after that,

we in our office got a
request, an invitation,

you might say, to provide

data to this
commission. I got this.

Every other secretary
of state and

chief elections administrator
got this, as well.

It was an invitation to
hand over, in our case,

nearly four million
complete voter

files and records on every
registered voter in Minnesota.

This is not just name or

address or whether you
voted in a particular year.

They wanted everything
that the law

in Minnesota would permit

our office to hand over.

That includes Social
Security information,

that includes driver's
license information,

that includes residential
history, military history,

a whole host of very private,

sensitive personal information.

Now, this wasn't a court
order. It was not a subpoena.

It was an invitation.

I am proud to tell you that I

RSVPd no to that invitation.

[APPLAUSE] I did that
for several reasons.

The first of which is privacy.

I don't think any one of us in

this room that has
registered to vote,

nor anyone we know who has
registered to vote ever

thought in their wildest
dreams that their personal,

private information
would be handed

over to some ad hoc
federal commission

that's apparently creating
some patched together database

of all US voters.

I don't think people thought
that was part of the deal

and so I wasn't
going to hand over

nearly four million
people's records.

But more than just that, I
think that the leadership and

the membership of this
commission is slanted.

It's not truly bipartisan.

The two co-chairs,

Mike Pence and Secretary
Kobach of Kansas,

these are articulate

spokespeople for
their point of view.

They're smart people, but they

have a point of
view, a very clear,

often stated point of view,

echoing the president's claim
that 3-5 million people,

in fact, either did or

may have voted illegally
in this country.

These are not objective people

leading an objective inquiry,

and that gave me
great pause as well.

I also think relatedly,

that this commission
already seems to

be headed towards
predetermined outcomes,

the outcome that
really started it all,

which is a conclusion
about the scope

of any wrongdoing or fraud
in the last election.

Then there are other issues.

They seem poised to use
the data that they get.

They're not getting it from us,

but the data that they do get,

they seem poised to use it in

ways that both don't make sense,

and they could
really be dangerous.

Running it through
databases that we

know produce a lot
of false positives,

which is a fancy way
of saying fingering

the wrong people
for illegal conduct

when they did nothing wrong,

and I wasn't going to subject
the people of Minnesota,

any registered voter to
that shoddy process.

But I think the
final issue bears

on what we're going

to be talking about
today, at least somewhat.

I do think that the work
of this commission,

in concept and in practice
so far, is a distraction.

It's a distraction
from what I believe

is the main challenge that

we face as elections
administrators,

and then all of us
face just as citizens.

The main challenge, I think,

when it comes to
the integrity of

our election is
cybersecurity threats.

I think that is it.

I think that's what we're
going to be talking

about for the next several
years, and we should.

That's the real issue.

The cybersecurity
challenges are real.

The headlines that we all saw

and felt and
experienced last year,

and up to this
date, I should say,

are real, and those threats
potentially, are real.

Once in a while, you
should just know this.

I get asked, whether
it's by friends and

family at Thanksgiving dinner

or someone I see on the street,

who knows me. Just
acquaintances.

They'll ask me, hey,

you've been in the job now
two, two-and-a-half years.

What's your biggest
surprise about

being secretary of state?

My answer is always the same.

My biggest surprise
about this job so far,

is the extent to
which my time and

the time of senior staff in

my office is spent
on cybersecurity.

It didn't come up in
a candidate debate.

It wasn't on a single
interest group questionnaire.

It wasn't on anyone's

television or radio
ads for this office.

Yet, front and center,

that is a major responsibility

of this office, as
I've found out.

I think that's a
recent phenomenon.

I don't think it was even
that true four years,

or eight years, or 12
years ago, but it is now.

I tell you that just
to give you a sense of

the dimension of what I see
as the challenge before us.

Now, the good news is that

the fundamental architecture
of our system in Minnesota,

the design of our
election system

is fundamentally sound and

has built into it a number

of protections
against intrusions.

For example, let's
go back to basics.

Minnesota is still old school,

we still vote with
pen and paper.

You still just go to a place.

It's basically a glorified desk,

and you fill in an
oval with a pen.

It's hard to hack paper,

so we're in good shape there.

That's not the case everywhere.

There are a dozen or a
dozen-and-a-half states in

this country where either
completely or partially

they use touchscreen
machines with

no receipt or paper
trail of any kind.

In Minnesota, there
is a bipartisan,

long standing rock
solid consensus in

favor of a paper
trail now and always.

You can touch it, and
feel it, and see it,

and verify it, so
that's good news.

It is true that you do

feed that ballot into
an electronic device,

usually a ballot counter
in the polling place.

But under state
law in Minnesota,

that device cannot, shall not,

must not at any time,

be connected to the Internet.

Moreover, when we're
tallying the votes,

the method by which
local governments

typically send us their
results on election night,

that is through an
encrypted system and

even then there are
real human beings

that talk to other
real human beings to

verify the actual outcome
and the actual numbers.

I'm a little less concerned

about intrusions in

the polling place, though
they are possible.

I'm here to tell you they
are absolutely possible,

but I'm a little less concerned

about that than I am about

possible vulnerabilities when it

comes to something like, say,

the statewide voter
registration system, the SVRS,

which is something
that our office

built and that we run
and that we maintain.

There, last election,

the similar system
in two other states,

Arizona and Illinois,

was hacked, and in one case,

there was a successful
breach and intrusion where

people were going into

the voter records
and had full access.

Probably foreign sourced.

That's what intelligence
sources believed,

and that is a real wake
up call to all of us.

Now, we did not have
that experience,

fortunately in Minnesota,

and truth be told,

for the last
two-and-a-half years,

we've been really trying to do

something about this problem.
What are those things?

Well, we formed the first
ever cybersecurity team

in our office to tackle
exactly this problem,

not as some add on.

Number 1, we hired

an outside consultant to
be an extra set of ears,

and eyes, and hands to poke,

and prod, and assess
our vulnerabilities.

Fortunately, things came

out well and we did
not have an intrusion.

We also are working
increasingly sometimes

daily with

the Department of Homeland
Security in Washington, DC.

I'll tell you that
is made even more

possible by something that
happened last January,

which is that in the wake
of the last election,

the Department of
Homeland Security

decided to confer upon

the election systems
in this country what's

called the critical
infrastructure designation.

Sounds technical, I know,
but it's really meaningful.

Critical infrastructure
isn't just a tag line.

It's an official status that

is conferred upon key parts
of our national life,

the power grids, the banks,
military installations.

It's meant to do two things.

Number 1, it's a warning to

foreign actors that we're
putting certain parts of

our national life up high on

a pedestal and you

attack them or mess with
them at your own risk.

That hadn't been
the case in 2016.

It is the case now, and
that's been bipartisan.

The Obama administration on

its way out the door
implemented it.

The Trump administration
has decided at least

tentatively to keep it and
so that's a good thing,

but it also affords us in

our office potential access
to intelligence briefings,

threat assessments, even help

with best practices from

the Department of
Homeland Security.

We're doing a whole
lot more and we'll be

doing a whole lot more
on that front as well.

That's a good thing,

but we can't lose sight that

fighting cyber intrusion
does take time.

It takes effort,
it takes energy,

and another thing,
it takes money.

It takes resources.

It's not about doing
more with less.

It's about doing more, period.

And sometimes that
means more with more.

It's going to have to
mean that in the future.

We've been trying to do
something about that, as well.

On the elections
equipment front.

That's where potential
vulnerabilities at

the polling place could
show up, possibly.

>> Minnesota has old stuff.

We have old elections equipment

and most of the
other states do too.

That has to do with a
law that was passed by

Congress in 2002 that
funded this stuff,

but that money has gone away.

The stuff that we have
is getting older,

starting to show
its wear and tear.

If we don't properly get out

ahead of this and manage this,

we're asking for some trouble.

Starting in 2015, our office
convened a working group

of legislators in Minnesota

from both chambers
and both parties,

elections administrators from
all levels of government

to try to get some support,
try to get some help,

try to get a down payment from

the state government to

the local governments
who own the stuff.

In our office, we don't own

one piece of elections
equipment, not one,

because we don't operate
a polling place,

but they do at the local
government level and

they need help, they're
in a tough spot.

This last legislative session,

we got seven million
dollars from the state

for the purchase of elections

equipment for local government.

That's going to make
a good sized dent

in down payment into
the whole problem.

At the federal level,

Senator Klobuchar this week has

an amendment to a major bill
now working its way through

Congress that would provide
for the first time ever

cybersecurity grants
to Secretary of State

offices to shore up things

like the voter
registration database,

to help local governments
buy new equipment,

to implement best
cybersecurity practices.

We're keeping our fingers
crossed that if not now,

then sometime soon, we'll get
that federal help as well.

We know there are
challenges, of course.

We're proud about what we did in

2016 as a state, despite
those challenges.

Looking ahead to 2018,

we have to ask ourselves,

how can we engage
voters in new way,

manage those problems
and challenges,

but really engage voters again.

In a non presidential year,

of course, we have
extra work to do.

There isn't that sizzle of

a presidential contest to get

every voter all the
time really engaged.

We'll have an open seat
governor's race in this state.

That'll be key, of course,

but it'll be incumbent upon
a lot of people to really

get people energized and
interested in the next election.

Now partly, I think we have
to alter our message when

it comes to voting away
from pure idealism,

pure altruism to talk a little
bit about self interest.

Typically, the appeals have been

couched in something like this.

You should vote because
it's the right thing to do.

You should vote because
you're part of a community.

You should vote because
people fought and

bled and sometimes died
for the right to vote.

All those are true
and we should never,

ever ditch any of

those as a reason and
rationale to vote,

but I think we
should add to them.

Particularly for young people,

we should add to them

the idea that you should also

vote because it's in
your interest to vote.

It's in your own self
interest to vote.

It's not just about
idealism as well.

Then there's even
little turns of

a phrase that can
make a difference.

There was a study last
year, I found fascinating.

There was a study last year that

showed that particularly
as to young people,

if you talk about voting as

an appeal for someone to

be something rather
than do something,

don't just say go vote.

But if you say, be a voter,

that can, honest to God,

move the needle among
certain populations,

particularly young
people, be a voter,

be something, not do something.

I told that story to
a friend of mine,

and he said, this is
great. I love it.

I've got a teenage
daughter at home.

From now on, I'm
going to tell her,

be a laundry folder.

[LAUGHTER] No word yet
on whether that worked,

but you get the general idea.

Altering the message
will be key, as well.

Then, of course, is
the subject of today,

which is social media,

ever present in so
many areas of life.

It was probably always for

the last decade or so a
part of elections life,

but really came in to focus

this last election and will
going on into the future.

I mentioned online voter
registration, a great tool.

We've had it in
Minnesota since 2013.

Let me tell you, social media in

general and Facebook
in particular have

transformed a great and
useful tool into one that is

potentially
transformational and I

don't use those words lightly.

Let me give you the numbers.

Going into 2016, just think
about this for a second.

Going into 2016,
the one day record

in Minnesota for
registering to vote,

people who attempted to use

our online voter
registration website

in a single day was 6,400.

That's pretty good for one day.

You multiply that by 365
days. That's a lot of people.

But in one day, 6,400.

That was the record going
into calendar year 2016.

Then through some
collaborative efforts

of our office and a lot of
other groups around the state,

there was a day when
we got it up to about

24,000 in a single day as we
approach the fall election.

We were very proud of
ourselves, 24,000,

that's great. It's
a lot of eyeballs.

It's a lot of people getting

engaged and seeking to
register on our website,

until Facebook came along.

Facebook sent out
what we believe is

a single notification
to its users

across the country and it

was segmented by
state obviously,

telling them how and where
to register to vote.

In one day in October last year,

we had nearly 70,000

people go to our website
to register to vote.

I would love to say that's
because of our office.

It was because of Facebook.

Facebook pushed these messages

out and it had a tremendous,

I think, in the future,

potentially transformative
power, 70,000,

6,400 going into the calendar
year to almost 70,000 in

a single day because of posts on

Facebook telling people what

the information is
and where to go.

That is truly amazing.

Social media, of course,
has its challenges.

Facebook of course, you've
read the headlines,

has to grapple with people

using its platform, and really,

this applies to any
social media platform

to spread false information

and you've seen some
of those headlines.

I'm sure our next
speaker will undoubtedly

address those issues
at least generally,

and hopefully she'll
give us a glimpse

into the deep
thinking that I know

Facebook has done about its
role in civic engagement,

news delivery, and
voter empowerment.

I think our system is better
and more exciting because of

social media in general and
Facebook in particular.

It's my pleasure
right now then to

introduce our keynote speaker

today from Facebook Sharon Yang.

Sharon Yang is the government

and politics manager
at Facebook,

where she specializes in
helping government, nonprofit,

and other civic groups optimize

their presence on Facebook.

Before joining Facebook, Sharon

worked with the
World's Fair in Milan.

Maybe she knows maybe
she doesn't that

Minnesota is vying
for the 2023 expo.

She also worked with
the Aspen Institute,

two presidential campaigns
and other political,

civic and communication
focused entities,

doing her part to make
their work more impactful.

In her career, she has worked
with people as diverse and

as world famous as fashion
designers and crown princes.

She is a first generation
Chinese American,

an accomplished
photographer, a recovering

competitive figure skater and
she's with us here today.

Please welcome from
Facebook, Sharon Yang.

[APPLAUSE]

Sharon Yang: >> Hi. I'm really

happy to be here and
join all of you.

Thank you Secretary for that
very generous introduction.

My name is Sharon
Yang and I work for

a small company called

Facebook that you
might have heard of.

How many of you are on Facebook?

We have a place to start.
We have some contacts here.

Great. Let me just start
by sharing our mission.

Recently we updated
our mission statement

to focusing on giving people

the power to build

community and bring the
world closer together.

This is something that we
updated quite recently.

Mark, my CEO,

wrote a letter that he
published in February on

Facebook in which he

basically laid out the
vision for Facebook.

One of those pillars was to help

create more civically
engaged communities.

As the Secretary mentions,

my role of Facebook is
to educate politicians,

and our elected officials
on how they can use

our platform because
our platform

is where they can go and

connect with the
people that they

represent and the
Facebook community

can find and follow their
own elected representatives.

Just taking a step back as
you are all very well aware,

the climate of
communications has changed.

Not that long ago, TV and
print was all that was needed,

but now we know
that social media

plays a very big
role in this now,

and it's an increasingly
important place

to connect and effective
communications.

I just wanted to
show you briefly

an overview of the
numbers on our community.

We crossed a major
milestone with

two billion community members
on Facebook this year.

Again, a growing
number is Instagram,

700 million people on Instagram.

You can see that Facebook,

bottom line is Facebook
is a great place to reach

people and where a lot

of people are already
spending their time.

I think in 2016,

Pew did a poll and
found that 44 percent

of Americans actually go to
Facebook for their news.

Specifically in the US,

I wanted to share again,
some of our numbers.

You can see 215 million people

are using Facebook every month

and 164 million of those 215
come back every single day.

How many people use
Facebook every single day?

Login. About 77 percent

and the biggest number,
most interesting,

especially when I speak

to elected officials
or campaigns,

is how many people are using

Facebook on their mobile
device every single day.

We always say that that's very

important when they're
trying to communicate with

their constituents
and it will shape

how we also launch products,

which I'll talk about in
a couple more slides.

About one every five minutes on

desktop and mobile is
spent on Facebook.

People spend an average of

50 minutes on
Facebook, Instagram,

and messenger every day,

and people check Facebook
on average 14 times a day.

Since I work at Facebook,

I skew very much
higher than that,

but on average, it's
about 14 times.

During the 2016
presidential election,

we started tracking things
and this number started when

Ted Cruz announced his
candidacy in 2015.

This counted through
the election that

355 million unique people on

Facebook created 12
billion interactions

related to the election.

That is comments,
likes, posts, shares.

This was globally the
most talked about

subject in 2015 and 2016.

Facebook is where, and still,

and likely beyond,

and be where political
conversations are happening.

Let's talk a little bit
about civic engagement.

This is the community
letter that

Mark published in February.

It will stop, and
it'll show you.

But I wanted to
highlight one pillar,

is that he wanted to
focus on how to create

a more civically
engaged community.

If you haven't read
this, it was published

in February. I
highly recommend it.

It's on his Facebook page.

But again, it lays out
the vision for Facebook.

Our approach with
civic engagement

is that we want to help people

have a voice in government

every single day at
every single level.

While for years we have

reminded people on election day

that it's election day
and go out and vote,

we really want to start focusing

on making sure that submitting

a ballot and voting was
just the beginning of

that relationship and not the
end of that relationship.

We think that by

helping people connect
with their government,

especially at the local level,

we can help people build the
communities that they want.

Now I'm going to go into

a few civic engagement
tools and I'll probably

ask you if you've seen
these just so that I

can gauge the
penetration of them.

But we're really proud,

this year we've really made

an investment in
civic engagement.

We have a dedicated
civic engagement team

that we collaborate with in
developing all these tools.

This is part of Mark's
vision and this

is part of what I
do at Facebook,

is to really encourage

people to use the civic
engagement tools.

As I mentioned, since 2008,

Facebook has been
showing people 18 and up

by election day reminders

to vote actually
on Election Day.

But again, we wanted to take
this a step further in 2016.

In 2014, I believe is
when we started doing

these election day
reminders internationally.

But again, 2016 was
a very big year,

we wanted to step up
our game a little bit,

and so we launched
several new products

making it easier for people to

get information
about the elections.

As the Secretary mentioned,

we had a voter
registration prompt.

This was deployed to

people age 18 or over by
election day reminders to

register to vote and it directed

people to registration
information

in their particular area.

It was deployed in
a rolling basis in

2016 to state that did not have

same day registration
and it ran nationally

between September 23rd
and September 26th.

We estimate that more than
two million people registered

to vote as a result of seeing
the registration reminders.

How many of you saw the voter
registration reminders?

I'm assuming alot, okay, good.

Another really
interesting and I think,

very exciting product
that we rolled out

during the presidential election

was called the issues tab.

Since we knew so many
people were spending

their time on
Facebook researching,

finding their news, learning
more about their candidates,

we thought we would give
the candidates a place on

Facebook where they can
actually from their own voice,

convey and share what
their issues are.

This is a demonstration of
what we call the issues tab.

You could go into
the issues tab,

I don't know if
you can see that,

I guess the writing
is a little blurry,

but you would go to a section

called issues, and underneath,

the candidate in
their campaign would

choose the different issues
that they want to talk about.

It would be in 200
characters because, again,

everybody's reading this
on mobile these days,

so we wanted to keep
it to 200 characters.

Then you could also upload
three second videos.

This was another way.

Instead of people
leaving Facebook and

having to comb through
campaign websites,

we wanted to bring
that issue experience

to people on our platform.

I'm sorry, the audio
is a little bit low,

so this is an example
of an issue card

where Secretary
Clinton used video.

Again, you can just
scroll right through

and find out more
about each issue.

I actually think next to issues,

voting plan was another really,

really fascinating project and

product that we rolled out
because we realized that

a lot of people who
are voting don't

actually know what
is on their ballot.

This was an issue that
we wanted to address.

You know what's federal,

you likely will know what state,

but when you get down
to the local level,

people need to be

educated about what was
on their actual ballot.

Instead of me walking through,

I wanted to show you
about a minute and a half

a quick clip on how preview
your ballot actually worked.

We began rolling this out,

the voting plan feature,
to people, again,

18 and over on our platform
on October 28th in 2016

and more than nine
million people

preview their election day
ballots using the voting plan.

Essentially the voting
plan help people,

one research about their
candidates compare issues,

and you can even
put in your address

so that you could actually get
your local ballot as well.

All the candidates were
always in random order.

On voting plan, you
could choose to

share who you're voting
for or who you favorited,

you could take a look
at endorsements,

which is being
previewed right now,

you could ask for advice,

you could actually favorite

your preferred candidates or

your ballot measures and
print out the ballot.

But you could also keep
it private as well.

You didn't have to
share this information.

This was just if you wanted to.

Again, all the
candidates were random

and you could choose one
share it if you wanted to.

This went all the way down,

again, to the local level.

I'll let this play for
a little bit more.

I know that text is
a little bit hard,

but I really wanted
you to again,

if you had not seen this unit,

this voting plan, I
wanted you to get

a sense of what we
were trying to do,

is really trying to make a more

informed voter during
the last cycle.

Steve Simon: This really
needs some music, doesn't it?

I know. I'm sorry.

I'm not a great singer, so

I won't sing in the background.

But it goes down in the Senate

, and it goes through the same.

You can see that we're trying to

introduce people to what

is actually going to
be on the ballot,

so they were prepared.

A new feature after

the 2016 election that

we rolled out was also
called Meet Your Rep.

The day after the
election, again,

we didn't want you submitting

your ballot to be the
end of the conversation.

We wanted it to continue.

We sent push notifications the
day after the election for

you to follow you elected,

either if they're new or if
they had been re-elected,

and this was a
precursor to a feature,

which I'll talk about
more called Town Hall.

But it was a push notification
that looked like this,

and then you had a chance
to put in your address and

discover who were your electeds.

What have we done since
the 2016 elections?

As I mentioned, we've done

election reminders for
national elections.

However, we had never done

anything like local
election reminders.

This year, we
started rolling out

local election reminders for

municipalities that had about at

least 10,000 people
or more in them.

Again, people always know

when their national
elections are,

but we really wanted to

get engagement on
the local level.

The other next is Town Hall,
which you see on the right.

Have you guys all been
familiar or seen Town Hall?

I see some nodding.

Not as much. But you
can find Town Hall.

It's on facebook.com/townhall,

or it's in your bookmarks.

Basically, what we're
trying to do is make

a central place where people can

find and follow their electeds.

From here, you can even
contact your reps.

Basically what you would do is

that once you click
on Town Hall,

you would be prompted
to put in your address.

Again, this is all
hash information.

We don't see it.

We don't keep it or use it for

anything beyond just the
civic engagement product.

Then it would pull up,

and we're still working
on the civic graph

on the very local level,

but at least on the
federal and state level,

you would see who your
representatives are,

and you would be given the
chance to follow their pages.

Not like, because we

understand like is a
different endorsement,

but you would get the
chance to follow a page.

It depends on which
city you're in,

and I'm pretty sure this
area, St. Paul, Minneapolis,

we have it mapped
out pretty locally,

but you'll see your local
and federal electeds.

This was really exciting
for us because, again,

it lives on Facebook,

so it's there whenever you

need it, whenever
you want to use it.

Again, we're trying to make it

more civically
engaged community.

How do we do that? Let people

know who actually
represents them.

We want also this to
be a two-way street.

You can contact your
representative.

You can find out who they are,

but we also want electeds
know who you are.

We want this to be a
two-way conversation.

All those products
were geared for you.

But what are we doing
for elected to try to

identify and communicate and

have a two-way
conversation with you?

We recently, this year,

launched a few new
products as well.

One is constituent badges.

One of the biggest feedback
we've heard when we talk

to elected officials is that
I get a lot of comments,

but I really want to focus on

the comments left
by my constituents.

To do that, we created what
we call constituent badging.

All is related to the Town Hall.

You can find this in
the Town Hall hub.

But what you can do,

again, is you put
your address in.

If it's already in Town
Hall, you'll be fine.

You can scroll to the bottom,

turn on constituent badging.

When you are actually leaving

a comment to a representative,

to your elected official,

you will get a small gray icon.

I'm sorry, it's a
little bit hard to see,

but small gray icon
that basically

indicates you are a constituent

within this district,
within this state.

Again, it's a great way

for people representing
you to know,

this is a comment
that I may want to

participate in or I want
to pay attention to.

The next is
constituent insights,

and this is actually
available to everybody.

But I have Kamala
Harris's page up there.

Basically, you scroll over to

the Community tab and you

can see how many of your
friends are following,

but also what articles

are trending in your
specific district.

You can see them.
They can see this.

But what articles, what
pieces of information are

trending in your specific
state, district?

You understand what your

constituent base
is talking about.

Lastly, district target.

We made it so that if you
were an elected official,

if you want to
specifically talk to

just your district, you
have the chance to.

Writing a status update,

before you publish,
it says public.

Underneath, it
says, you district.

You can target a message,
a status update,

a piece of content, specifically
just to your district.

We've learned a
lot of lessons in

the US election, but obviously,

the team that I work on

is a lot more than
just US/Canada,

which is what I focus on.

We are a global team.

I wanted to spotlight some

of our efforts that we've
done globally as well.

They're very similar to
what we've done in the US,

but of course, various regions,

various countries have
different priorities.

I just wanted to quickly go
through what we've done and

spotlight specifically
the UK and France,

who recently both had
elections, and of course,

some things we're going
to roll out for Germany,

they're having their
election in a couple weeks.

Similar to what we've
done in the US election,

we've done voter
registration reminders.

Again, I apologize.

The text is a bit hazy,

but we basically had the
UK and we had France,

and we did voter registration
notifications for them.

However, I would say
political perspectives

was a development that
we just did this year,

and we rolled out for

the French elections
earlier this year.

We heard from a lot of people
that they told us that they

want to see more viewpoints,

more issues, and have
a way to compare them.

We took this directive,

and we thought, so what is
the best way to do this?

In France, then in the UK,

and we'll do this in Germany,

we launched a new tool called
Political Perspectives.

The way it works is that if you

see an article that is
about the election,

about a campaign, about an
issue, if you click on it,

you scroll through
it and you read it,

you go back to your news feed,

you'll see an info box that
basically prompts you,

is like, do you want to know
more about the election?

Do you want to know more about

your candidate or your party?

If you clicked on
it, for the UK,

we had party issues because

all the parties basically
filled out their issues tab.

There's too many MPs to keep
track of, so we use parties.

For France, this would

pivot you to candidates
and their specific issues.

But basically, you
would click on it,

and it would show you, again,

in random order and in

the own candidate
or party's word,

their stance on
particular issues.

These are pulled
from the issue cards

that I showed you earlier,

which we also launched in
several different countries.

But the reason why we also
kept it to 200 characters was

because we wanted you to be
able to see it in this way,

a very small snapshot.

One of the buttons
says learn more.

That would navigate you to
their actual Facebook page.

Again, this was our way

of inserting issue diversity
into our platform.

Again, this was an
example from the UK,

but I wanted to
show you the video

that we actually launched

this with in France.

I've actually played it. I don't

know how many of
you speak French,

but basically it reiterates
what I just said.

This is an article about
the French elections,

and if they interact the way

they engaged with that piece
of content in any way,

it would signal to us that, oh,

this person might be
interested in the election.

You would go down. You say,

"I want to learn more.

Do you want to learn more?"

Again, in random order and in

the voice of the own
candidate themselves,

and we would pull these from the

issue cards that they posted on

their Facebook page,
their perspectives.

If they didn't have

an issue card filled
out, this would appear,

basically just saying they
didn't submit an issue,

but click here to go to their
page and find out more.

We tried to be as balanced
as possible and give

everybody a chance
to participate

or be in this unit that we had.

Lastly, we did have something
like this in the US,

but also in the UK and France,

which we call the election hub.

In the US, we created
the election hub to

gather all things election
related in one place.

This is an example from the UK,

the same thing we did here.

It's really just one
place where people

can find out where
to register to vote,

discuss events,
watch live videos.

The election hub
would actually be

launched during particular
debates on election night,

so during pivotal moments of

an election or when we thought

people would adopt it the most

is when it would be rolled out.

These are all region-specific

on when we would roll
out the election hub.

But again, it was a
place where people could

track campaign activity,

and this is a screenshot
of when it was

actually launched on
election day in the UK.

With all this being said,

I know that Facebook
has been in the news

recently, and as a platform,

we are committed
to integrity and

authenticity on Facebook
and believe that

the platform is a place for
genuine civic engagement,

and I think you can tell
that we've invested in this.

We constantly review
suspect activity

and shut down accounts
that are inauthentic.

With reference to
last week's news,

we took down 470 accounts

that were apparently
operating out of Russia,

and these accounts
spent approximately

$100,000 on Facebook ads.

Given you're probably
all very familiar,

$100,000 is a tiny fraction
in campaign spending,

both on Facebook and overall.

But even with this small amount,

we take this very seriously.

We've shared our findings with

US authorities that are

investigating election
related issues,

and we will internally continue
to investigate as well.

Because of the nature of this,

I'm really limited to what I can

comment and what I can
say on about the issue.

However, if you
wanted to keep up

and continue to follow
what we can say,

and I wanted to leave
a few resources.

Newsroom.fb.com is really good.

This is where we
post all updates.

I even look at it
when we're launching

products that don't affect
politics and government,

but politics or media partners
and things like this.

Facebook.com, government
politics is a good place.

If you ever wanted
to see new products,

how people are
using the platform

effectively, that's
a good place to go.

Media.fb.com, it's how
media organizations,

again, public figures are using

Facebook in really great ways.

We have a site, politics.fb.com
that lays out a lot of

our best practices if you
yourself were looking to run

for office or at
some point Then,

of course, my email.

I'll leave that up for a minute.

But thank you so
much for having me.

MALE_2: Moving now into
what I'm hoping will

be an interesting and
informative panel discussion.

Let me call up our
panel members.

I will point out just in
terms of current logistics.

I'm going to start out by

having a moderated
Q&A with our guests.

But at some point,
we will get to

questions from the audience.

I know we have our
question royalty,

where are my folks with
the Q&A cards in the back?

We'll be handing out Q&A cards.

Those will be
coming out shortly.

If you do have a question,
feel free to write it

down and send it up.

They will all end up with me.

We do this in part so
that we can cluster

individual questions
and make sure that we

answer as many of your
inquiries as possible.

If you have a question now
or something occurs to

you while we are rolling
through the panel discussion,

please do write down on the card

and we'll get to as many of

them as we can before the
end of today's event.

First, let me sit down
in my comfortable chair

and call up our first panelist.

Our first panelist is
Mike Dean from LeadMN.

LeadMN is an organization
which focuses

on two-year colleges
here in Minnesota,

and Mike is well known in

the field as a voice for
students and young people,

and look forward to hearing
what he has to say.

We also have Allie Haglund
from Students United,

which is similarly the
voice of students across

the great State of

Minnesota and be looking

forward to her
perspective as well.

We also have Secretary of State

and recovering state
legislator Steve Simon,

who will be joining
us to talk about

the State's use of and

use by social media
in the 2016 election.

First, I guess,
what I want to do,

Steve got a little time to

talk. We'll start
with you, Mike.

Just talk to us a little bit

about what LeadMN does
and more particularly,

how you all used social media in

the 2016 election and
what you might have

learned for 2018 and beyond.

Mike Dean: Thank you very much

for having me today and for

the University of
Minnesota for hosting

us and the Secretary of State.

Again, I work with an
organization called LeadMN

where college students are
connecting for change.

We represent the
180,000 students that

attend Minnesota's

two-year commuting and
technical colleges.

We're a unique organization
that our role is to

advocate on their
behalf, and obviously,

you can't effectively
advocate on behalf of

students if you're not engaged
in the elections process.

In 2016, we launched a
robust elections effort,

and social media played a
massive component of that.

As everyone has said,

I think everyone in
the room here is

on social media in some way,

and so I think you can't run

an effective program
without doing that.

But really, what we've seen
as the most effective way to

engage folks is a
balanced approach,

and it's really engaging
both offline and

online technology as a way.

We have a unique vehicle

to engage students
in the classroom,

so we know where they are
almost every single day.

Hopefully, they're
attending class.

But as part of that,

we're able to go to
classrooms, talk to them,

have one-to-one conversations,

and then what we really
do is use social media

as a way to complement
that afterwards.

Once we bring them in,

then engage them and
keep them up to speed on

what's going on and ways
that they can get involved.

But we had a lot of success
registering people online,

using the new online
voter registration tool.

Obviously, Facebook helped out

significantly with
engaging students,

and we're thinking
about new ways to

engage them down
the road then too.

MALE_2: Basically the same
question to you, Allie,

and how did Students United
use social media in 2016?

What did you learn
and what might it

mean for how you proceed
in 2018 and beyond?

Allie Haglund: is this on?

MALE_2: You're on.

Allie Haglund: We are a
lot like Mike, the LeadMN.

We're Students United,
and we represent

the Minnesota State
Universities,

which is around 70,000 students.

We are across the state as well,

and we really do take
that dual approach

of face-to-face interactions.

We have students on
all those campuses,

and that's so important.

But social media, it's growing,

and that's where
the students are,

and that's where
students tend to

be majority of their time,

even when they are
in the classrooms.

We really try to interact with

them on social media as well.

Facebook was a huge
effort, but also Snapchat.

We're hearing more and more that

Snapchat is where students are,

Instagram is where students are.

How do we get onto
those platforms?

Geofilters is something that we

use on Snapchat to
get our message out.

On Facebook, we try
to use hash tag.

We did a Why I Vote
campaign this year.

We had a pretty successful year.

We pledged to vote over 5,000
students on our campuses,

and we registered
to vote around,

I think, a little
bit above 1,500,000.

We were recognized by

the National Voter
Registration Day.

We made the 2016 report

in their 10 biggest
local avocations,

so we really are

trying to push social
media as much as possible.

MALE_3: Great. Steve, let me ask

you a slightly different
version of that question.

You talked a little
bit about how sites

like Facebook drove
traffic to the secretary.

Talk a little bit about
how y'all proactively

used social media in 2016,

and again, what it taught
you about 2018 and beyond.

Steve Simon: There are some,
I'd say limitations. We do

have a few websites,

we have a Facebook account.
Well, that's basic.

Our non rigidly nonpartisan
elections efforts

are probably not going to have

the same breach as
some of the others.

Our role really is in
the backend work that we

do with people like

the Pew Voting Information
Project or others.

Let me give you an example.
If anyone here or anyone

anywhere were to search for
where their polling place is,

it might come up
with our website,

but it's maybe more likely to

come up with somebody else's.

It could be Google,

it could be Facebook, it
could be someone else.

That information, the
raw data comes from

us and we can arrange with

other third parties to
get into them as well.

It's really getting the
raw information into

the hands of others

where more people are going
to have access to it.

That's our main role.

That's where we can think
we can be more productive,

rather than trying to build

tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands

of followers on
our Facebook page.

MALE_3: Great. Let me
ask the group then.

There's been a lot of focus on

social media as a way
to reach young people.

But if you look
around this room,

and we all feel young at heart,

but our birth certificates
might say otherwise.

But it's clear that people of

all ages are using social media.

I'm curious to how each of

you have seen how
different individuals or

groups you interact with are
using social media to reach

not just young voters but

all voters and what
opportunities that creates.

Steve, you want to
go first? I'm sorry.

Steve Simon: Sure. I'll
just briefly say that,

we have a very narrow
and focused information

when it comes to the information
we're trying to convey.

Obviously, we're not putting
our thumb on the scale

on behalf of a
candidate campaign.

It's all about the information.

How do I register?
Where do I go?

How do I do things,
that sort of thing.

For us, we found that it's
age lined in that sense.

We were trying to get
that out to anyone who's

eligible to vote young or old.

We're more focused on the
information, frankly,

than we are on that
slicing dicing.

But it's a limited edition

that we have but in
terms of [inaudible]

Mike Dean: For us, it's all
about audience segmentation,

and so what you
tend to see is that

certain demographics
or user groups

tend to use certain different
types of platforms.

For example, Facebook.

Facebook now is
used by everyone.

It wasn't always the case.

It was actually
very specific built

for college students for
a large period of time.

But now my mom is on Facebook,

and she follows her
grandchildren that way.

We tend to see now
younger audience

is not using Facebook as much.

They're on Instagram right now,

and so what we've
started to do is really

segment out all the
different platforms and

figure out which
audience is there

and then have custom
messages as part of that.

This uniquely impacts us because

we're not fitting a traditional
college student and so

the demographics of a community

college student average range

is about 28-years-old,

so older than the
18-22-year-old.

With that, we have
to use all the

different mediums
as part of that.

What we're seeing really now is

the most effective way to

communicate is
really two things.

One is Facebook messenger.

If we want to actually
engage folks,

they don't respond
to phone calls.

They don't respond to email,

but they will respond
to Facebook messenger,

and then obviously
text messaging,

and so we've seen
a huge increase in

participation using
text messaging.

You saw this with, for example,

the Bernie Sanders campaign.

They use a tool
called Hustle Very

Well and essentially
it's a peer to

peer text messaging tool
where individuals can send

essentially multiple
text messages,

but it's individualized.

As part of that, we
started to use that as

a way to generate more
interest in voting,

and we've seen a huge
participation rate.

We're getting 90% open rates,

and we're getting about on

average 50%-60%
participation rates

in that, which is huge.

If you were talking
about the email world,

you're lucky if you
can get 10% open rates

and probably a 1-2%
participation rate.

We're seeing a lot of promise
in that area then too.

MALE_3: That's amazing. Allie?

Allie Haglund: Yeah. We
deal with the university,

so we see more of the
traditional the 18-24-year-old,

not that we don't have the
untraditional students.

On social media,
we do try to lean

into our
18-24-year-oldage group,

which is why I slid in

the Snapchat and the Instagram
that we're looking at.

But that doesn't mean that

older different
generations aren't

on social media and they're
not using it actively.

I read something recently
where baby boomers

are more likely than
millennials to click

into articles and things
from Facebook or Twitter.

I don't think that
social media negates

older generations from being

target audiences for social
media campaigns at all.

MALE_3: Yeah, and I guess
I'm curious at my house.

I have three grown children,

and the joke at my house is that

and apologies to Sharon
that Facebook is for

the olds that Snapchat and
Instagram or where it's at.

But I do think that the
smarter campaigns are

realizing that you
can interact with

folks through different media.

Let's talk about this
notion of different folks.

One of the things that
comes up when you're

talking about social media

is this notion of
the digital divide.

There are segments
of the population,

socioeconomic, racial,
what have you,

who have different
access to and use

of online technology and
sites like social media.

How, if at all, does

that factor into the
work that you do,

and do you find that
you have to adjust or

make special effort to reach
certain communities? Allie?

Allie Haglund: Being
mobile friendly.

That is such a huge thing.

Minority populations,
households with lower incomes,

they're using their
mobile devices to look on

social media more than
other demographics are.

So making sure that

if you are bringing
them to your site,

is your site mobile friendly?

Is the form you want
them to fill out,

is that mobile friendly?

It's not just that
they're on social media,

and that platform is
usually mobile friendly,

your Facebook app,
your Twitter app.

It's also where
you're bringing them.

Is that also mobile friendly?

Also, how much text are
you putting on that page?

There's a lot of text, or
if you have an infograph,

and that infograph
is filled with

things that they have to zoom
in on their phone, well,

that's not helping
those demographics,

so I think that's a really
easy way to make social media

more universal for our users.

Mike Dean: I agree with Allie,

and that's something
that we face uniquely.

About a third of our
students are students of

color and come from
underrepresented communities,

and so this is a
real issue for us.

The way that we
address it is really

through that mobile technology.

You see a high saturation for

mobile technology across
all groups and so you

don't see that digital
divide when it comes to

the mobile technology and so
that really is our focus.

With that, we are really

leveraging that in terms
of text messaging,

but also the mobile websites
is a key piece there.

But then I can't emphasize
enough about how you're

integrating that offline and
that online work then, too.

We're trying to
capture information,

but then send them to
in person activities,

I think is the best way to
really create true engagement,

then, too, because I think
you're limited, obviously,

and sometimes 140 characters,

it's hard to have real
engagement through that,

and so how do you
bring folks together,

particularly of diverse
viewpoints to really

have a conversation I

think is really the
most impactful way

to really strengthen
our democracy.

Steve Simon: I would
only add I agree

with everything
that's been said,

particularly about
mobile friendliness.

I would only add
that in our office,

as I mentioned in my remarks,

we have been attuned
to making sure

it's in a language that
people are comfortable with.

And all American
citizens, of course,

everyone who's
eligible to vote is

an American citizen and has
to demonstrate in most cases,

some English proficiency,
but everyone that I know

of is more comfortable with

technical instructions in
their native language,

even if they know English.

I know this. My mother
was from Austria,

and I know she spoke beautiful,

fluent, almost
accent free English.

She did not sound like
Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I can tell you that. [LAUGHTER] Yet, I know
from her experience growing up with her,

that whether it was instructions

to the refrigerator
or governed document,

she was much more
comfortable with this,

technical instructions
in her [inaudible].

We're very sensitive to that.

People have had demonstrated
capacity to speak English,

making sure it's literally

in language that
they can understand.

MALE_3: I will point
out taking off

my Humphrey hat and putting
on my election geek hat,

I have worked with Pews
Voting Information Project,

and one of the things
we've benefited

from is the work here in
Minnesota and elsewhere,

actually translating election

information into
different languages,

including some like Karen
that I'd never heard

of and making them
available to voters.

In some way, social media has

become the force multiplier.

Steve, this is mostly for you,

but Mike and Allie,

feel free to chip in.

Speaking of the work on the
Voting Information Project,

and I see at least one and

maybe some other local
election officials here,

one of the things that
we picked up in 2016,

especially from the
work that Facebook did,

is that this tsunami
of interest,

whether it be political
or what have you,

the 70,000 folks you saw on
your voter registration page,

the rush that we saw
to early voting as

a result of a similar
push in many states,

to what extent were those
numbers a surprise to you,

and have you had to
widen the pipes and

expand capacity in anticipation

of this online tsunami of
interest in elections?

Steve Simon: That's
a great question.

I'll tell you, unfortunately,

we have not had to widen
the pipes in this sense,

and we always have to
keep up with that stock.

But I would say at 70,000
that's a pretty good test of

our system and there were

other states I won't

name because I don't
want to embarrass them.

But when Facebook did [NOISE]
what it did, they crashed,

we did not, which is good

but we have to keep
on top of that.

That's why I say, it takes
resources, it takes time,

but no, it was

a good stress test for us
getting to 70,00 in one day,

that did surprise me.

I did not expect to get a
year to 70,000 in one day.

But we came through.

Our system came
through [inaudible]

Mike Dean: I think there's
a benefit to that.

That's actually taking
less pressure off

same day registration then, too.

A lot of pressure gets on

our local election
officials to have to

process all those applications

and so when it's able to
come in ahead of time,

it's a way for, I think,

local election officials
to save some money,

but then also to make
that same day process

go much smoother
for a lot of folks.

I think in the end, it's a real

huge positive on
multiple angles.

MALE_3: Well, let me
ask one more question,

and this one's a little juicier,

and I'm going to go through
these questions in my lab.

I'm going to
encourage you all to

speak in paragraphs and
not in sound bites.

Let me go ahead and address

what I jokingly call the
800 pound bear in the room.

Obviously, the good thing about

social media is that
it makes it easier for

much anyone to
have their say and

potentially have an impact on

the American electoral process.

How do we balance that
with the need to make

sure that voters and

candidates and others
are not subjected to

the apparently nefarious
activity that we saw in 2016,

which to be fair, didn't
just happen on Facebook.

There are people who wish us

ill and would like
nothing better than to

see our voting process

be even more chaotic than
it was designed to be.

How do we balance the need

to make sure that everyone gets

their say and essentially lock

the doors to make
sure that folks who

don't belong get in?

I'll hang up and take your
answer. [LAUGHTER] Go ahead.

Steve Simon: I'll be quick, but
I think it truly is a balance.

We were discussing before
this offline here,

the fact that in some
senses this is nothing new.

This goes back to
the Town Crier in

the 1700s, where
there are people,

pamphleteers or others in

the Bygone era who were
doing much the same thing,

impersonating people or
propagating ideas that

people believed in or trying
to sway people probably.

On the other hand,
what's the remedy?

My first initial reaction
is the remedy has

got to be within these
companies and platforms.

I don't know what role,
if any there is on

first amendment grounds for

the government to come in
and require something.

I don't know that
the government can

pass a bill mandating that

Facebook do or anyone a
detailed background check.

I don't know what
Facebook can do or anyone

to cleanse and screen.

Is it that if you want to
open up a Facebook account,

you've got to go do some
rigorous background check,

provide Social Security
information? I don't know.

I think that would have
a chilling effect.

It's a native way
of saying, I'm not

sure I think a lot of people

to do a lot of
thinking about that,

but it is a balance, of course.

Mike Dean: I think it's
important to remember that while

Facebook isn't responsible
for the attacks,

they do have a responsibility
to address this.

I think our big
concern right now

is around the
algorithms that exist.

Back in how Facebook

works is what's showing
up in your fee,

a computer is processing that,

and it rewards certain
type of activity

and what we've seen a
foreign entities have now

figured out how
to really benefit

from that by using just
$100,000 investment,

they were able to reach a
significant number of people.

I think it really requires
Facebook to investigate how

their algorithms are
set up and that's

also a real threat
to our democracy.

I run a non-profit.

We try to reach as
many of our students

on Facebook because we
know where they're at.

But really, in order
for us to reach them,

we can't just get them to
like our organization.

We actually have to pay Facebook

to promote our organization.

I can tell you Allie
probably knows this,

too is I get weekly
notifications

from Facebook saying, "Hey,

if you really want to
reach all your followers,

pay us X amount of money,

and we'll help you reach them."

I think one of the challenges
that we're facing is

Facebook is a for
profit corporation.

Their job is to make money,

and these algorithms
are built in a way

to help them maximize
those profits.

I think they really
have to look at

that and realize that
the impact that that's

having on our democracy
and figure out ways

to really change that to
benefit the entire group.

And we saw the mission
statement that Sharon said,

is that their mission

statement meeting what's
going on right now?

I guess I'm concerned
about that.

Allie Haglund: >>
The locked door,

as you said at the
end, we lock the door,

I think there's the proactive,

which would be locking the
door, doing background checks.

Or do you become reactive,

and do you search for

these pages that are out

there and try to shut them
down once they're made?

That's, I think,

the question people are
grappling with of, well,

do we do more on
the front end and

we stop them from
ever getting made,

or do we find a way to be more

reactive to find them faster
and get them down faster?

I am going to agree.

I'm not really sure what
the best answer is there.

I think there is a
chilling effect if you

do the first and
tell people that

they need to submit
all this information

before they can open
a Facebook page.

Then also with
algorithms and things,

it does create issues for

non profits or smaller
organizations to get our word out.

However, it is built
too for the viewer.

If you're looking at a page,

you want to see what
your friends are up to

and Facebook recognizes that,

but if something's getting
a lot of shares, well,

then that's bumping up,

and it's going to keep
going to more people.

If it's getting likes, more
people are going to see it,

and if it's getting comments,

more people are going to see it.

Then that's when you get
those clickbait articles on

your Facebook feed from

the two friends replaced
that liked some page,

and now it's on yours
situation happening.

Those are the ones that I
don't know the answer to that,

but I think that

is something Facebook
will have to look at.

Not just Facebook, I think
Twitter and Instagram.

I don't see this
becoming less of

a problem going forward.

I see it becoming
more of a problem.

To a point, you can say,

the issue tabs that

Sharon was talking
about, that's great.

Being able to inform

yourself and become
informed is great,

but not everyone is going to
be proactive and do that.

How do you help just the person
that's scrolling through

Facebook for five
minutes in the morning

and five minutes in the evening?

How do you stop them from
seeing that crazy article?

I don't have the answer
to that question,

but if you do, you should
find me and tell me.

MALE_1: >> Well, actually,

that's a nice segue from our,

at least judging from
the cards, very smart,

and judging from what I can see,

our very good looking audience.

We've talked a little bit about
threats from the outside.

Let's come inside.

Let's get out of the realm of
cyber war and get back into

the much more familiar world

of dirty tricks and
disinformation.

Bunch of questions about fake
news and voter suppression.

Everything from
literally fake news,

whether it was the ballot
box in a truck in Ohio,

which even the Ohio Secretary
of State denounced,

or the good old
dirty tricks stuff

like one party votes on Tuesday,

the other party
votes on Wednesday,

or citizenship documents
will be checked at the poll.

Obviously, we're not going
to solve these problems,

but talk to me from each of

your perspectives
about how do we deal

with the greater role
that social media

plays in sharing this kind

of dirty trick and
disinformation,

and how are you-all
working, if at all,

to counteract it in
your day to day,

week to week, month
to month work?

Mike Dean: >> I can answer

the second question,
probably the best.

I think that's a focus of ours,

and that really is about
critical thinking skills.

I think we've seen,
unfortunately,

an evolution over
the last few decades

of really these type of skills

not being really developed
in our high schools.

At the community college level,

it's something that we're
really pushing more of.

How do we help our
students really develop

those skills to understand what

potentially is fake
news and what's not?

How do you really get to the
source of this information?

I think really
that investment in

our higher ed institutions is

critical to provide that role.

Again, another part of
that is I think we've

seen civics really leave K12,

and there's been less and

less information to
really encourage

students to participate in

the process because
it's seen as dirty.

How do we bring that back
to not only the k12 level,

but to our community
and technical colleges

specifically as a way to

help students prepare and be

active citizens in this
state, in this world?

Allie Haglund: >> I
would agree with that.

I would also add in

that putting out the
right information,

social media is filled
with information.

It's overwhelming
a lot of times,

but the more we can put
out the right information

and trying to push that into
the world, it does help.

Also, from a
personal standpoint,

don't interact with the bad
information. That helps it.

You commenting, that's
helping it move forward,

so not interacting with that.

Also, trying to find places

that write down the lists of,

I know this happened sometimes
during the election of,

this is false information
that gets put out.

Some good journalists will do

that piece and sharing those
articles so that people

understand that
misinformation is

out there and talking about

that instead of promoting

or highlighting the
misinformation itself.

Steve Simon: >> Just 2001
is exactly what LJ said.

It's easier to push
out this information,

but it's also easier
than ever before to

counteract it or try to override

it or try to set
people straight.

In our world, when it comes
to election administration,

it can be as simple as it
might not even be nefarious.

It could just be
wrong information,

that someone just not
meaning to do any harm

spreads about voter
registration deadline.

That's something that comes up.

We have same day
voter registration,

and some people think that
maybe there's a cut off,

so we try to spread

that information
through multiple dates.

Obviously, social media
and electronically,

but we have a decentralized

voter administration
system in the state.

We have some voting
elections administrators

here in the audience today
from outside the Metro area.

we have a network of people

throughout the state,
the county, city,

even township level
that can help us get

information about what
the true facts are,

what the true dates,
deadlines in the markets are.

So far has worked.

MALE_1: >> This next question,

this is a really good question.

It reminds me a little
bit, I remember

hearing Senator Wellstone talk

about some days he felt like he

spent more time stopping the
bad than pushing the good,

but the question here
about to the extent that

people do want to engage

with their
representatives online,

do you see any role for
a positive interaction,

or is it a little bit like

the yelp factor that
usually people who take

the time to comment tend
to dislike it more?

Is there a role for
plaudits and dialogue,

as opposed to complaints
and attacks online?

Mike Dean: >> I would
say the answer is yes.

I think what we've seen

throughout the history
of this country is

really civic organizations
playing a role and

helping to structure
that and organize that.

I think that's the
critical step here

is how do organizations
like the one I work for,

the one Allie [phonetic]
works for really play a role

of engaging citizens
in that conversation.

I know both of our organizations

do that on a regular basis.

Trying to help folks understand

that by reaching out
to your represenative,

offering your viewpoint,
that can be beneficial,

they do listen to that.

Creating a culture where that's

understood and that's valued,

I think, is that critical step.

Too often we hear about
the negative examples,

the yelling that goes
on at various meetings,

and it's trying to move out

beyond that and really
create dialogue.

That's something
we're focusing on.

We're gathering about 80
students this weekend,

and we're going to have a
civic dialogue conversation

about job security issues.

How do we make sure we're
teaching these skills early

on in our high
schools and colleges?

I think that's the other way
we can really combat this.

Allie Haglund: >> Yeah,
definitely. There's definitely

room for positive energy,

but I think going off of that,

it's how to be
strategic about it,

how to make sure it's
getting out there louder

than the negative energy or

the negative comments and

things that are out
there, as well.

I don't know if I
have too much more to

add other than it can happen.

I guess, is it directly
towards politicians,

is that what you're
saying? Is it direct?

MALE_1: >> The context of
the question is things like

town hall and other one to many,

many to one conversations.

Does it become an
opportunity for discussion,

or does it look like some of

the town halls in person
that we've seen where

the loudest voices
tend to be the most

negative and either drown
out or discourage others?

If you could fix that for us.

Allie Haglund: >>
Yeah, I'm on it.

MALE_1: >> In the next 30
seconds. I'd appreciate that.

Allie Haglund: >> That'll be
what I'll be up to. No, I

definitely think
that's possible.

I think if you are

passionate about making
sure that happens,

stories work very well.

Images work very well.

That's great ways to bring

to light something in a way
that sticks with people.

That would be my way.

If you're looking for a way
to make sure that that's not

just getting pushed
to the side and

all that's happening
is the negative,

turn what you want to
say into a story or turn

it into an image or
turn it into a video.

That's more personal and
that's going to stick with

people on social media better.

Steve Simon: >> I'll be quick.

I'm an optimist
on this question.

Notwithstanding some
of the scenes we

see horrific off the
rails town hall meetings

[inaudible] several
years ago [inaudible].

I just think those
are what get covered.

I understand why they cover,

but I think most of
those interactions

are not like that and I

don't think they're
off necessarily,

but I think it will continue
to be mostly not like that.

MALE_1: >> I've got one
more, sort of cluster,

and these are really
all for you, Steve.

I'm going to mush
them together and

then add a little
spice of my own.

Question about
cybersecurity, question

about discretion in making

voter rolls available
and the state's role,

not just in running elections,

but in encouraging
participation.

How do you see all of that?

I guess, also in the context

of the [inaudible] amendment,

which I understand is

getting some resistance on
Capitol Hill because of

concerns about an
overbroad federal role.

If you can, and brevity
being the very soul of wit,

talk a little bit about

the state's role and
how you see states and

the federal government
cooperating

on election administration
and participation issues.

Steve Simon: >> Well, I think2016
was a real wake up call.

I think part of the reason that

the Department of
Homeland Security brought

elections within its critical

infrastructure designation
was just that,

there has to be
more cooperation.

Even on things like just
threat assessments,

making sure at least one
person in our office and

every similar office around

the country has information
about what they're hearing.

Is the intelligence community

hearing chatter, for example,

about plots or plans to

disrupt elections or
spread misinformation?

We're going to want
to know about that.

Similarly on a technical level,

we're going to want to know

whether the federal government

knows or suspects that there's

a plan in place to
physically disrupt

infrastructure or spread viruses

or interfere with or
get into databases.

We want to know that stuff.

I think everyone acknowledges,

no matter what side they
were on in the election,

that that's something we have
to do a better job of that.

I think secretaries of state
across the country agree.

That relationship with the

Department of Homeland Security

is one that's already
getting stronger,

and looking forward to it
getting even stronger.

I think it has to be a
more collaborative effort.

I have to say, as I
said in my remarks,

I view cybersecurity as

the real challenge when it comes

to the integrity
of our elections.

We have to stay one step
ahead of the bad guys.

It's hard to do.

The bad guys are smart.

The bad guys are
sometimes well-funded,

they are innovative,
they are clever.

Staying ahead of them is
going to take a lot of time,

not just my time, but a lot
of other people's time.

It's going to take effort and

energy and attention and money.

That's the one thing that I
just want to emphasize here.

It is a big threat.

We really did well in
2016 in Minnesota,

but we can't just count
on that going forward.

Yes, we dodged all
those bullets in 2016.

I think we did the
right things in

our office and elsewhere to

avoid the bad news

[inaudible] a lot of focus and

attention and time and money.

Now we got to do
it all over again,

consistently constantly going to

avoid that in the future.

MALE_1: >> Thank you,
Steve. Just in the spirit

of last word, Allie, Mike,

any closing thoughts,

things that occurred
to you for today,

something that you didn't get to

mention that you'd
like to mention?

I have an old boss who used
to conclude every meeting

with anything else for
the good the order?

Mike Dean: >> I think
just the last thing is,

if we really want to
engage young people,

we want to engage more
people in voting.

What I'm concerned about and I

applaud Steve for his work to

get three million Minnesotans

out to vote this last election,

but I'm concerned about the
million that didn't show up.

Why did they not show up?

I think what we need
is a paradigm shift,

really, within government,

and to think government
as more of a platform

than really just providing

services and being
transactional.

I think some of the ways
that we can do that

is really by opening
government up a little bit.

Obviously, Steve has

major concerns when it
comes to cybersecurity,

but there's a lot we can do with

technology to make
this process easier.

One of those for me
is just looking at

the way our application
process works.

if you look at a voter
registration application,

one, why do we have
voter registration?

There are many states
that are moving to

automatic voter registration
that would save

this state millions of dollars
in those applications,

and we can move to
that pretty quickly.

I think that would benefit
students immensely.

Why do we go through that loop

or that hoop as part of it?

Then the second thing is
just the form itself.

I think a lot could be
done to simplify the form,

and how do we bring things like

design thinking into government?

We all have an iPhone or
many of us have iPhones.

Facebook uses design thinking

as a way to structure its sites.

We don't always bring
that into government.

Is the form that
we're using really

the best way to really
help minimize problems?

After the 2008, 2010 election,

absentee ballots went through

a whole design thinking
process to really

improve them in the
state of Minnesota.

I think there are other parts of

our election process
that should go through

that similar process
that would then help us

really improve it overall
and increase participation.

MALE_1: >> You didn't know this,

but I'm going to
thank you for that.

I would just like to point
out that here at Humphrey,

the certificate for
election administration

includes the nation's
first and still

only course on election
design taught by

design superstars Dana Chisnell
and Whitney Quisenberry.

If you're interested in
learning more about or hint,

taking that class, we'd
love to hear from you,

but Allie, you get
the last word.

Allie Haglund: >>
Lucky me. I think

you covered elections very well.

I'm going to push it, loop it

back over into social
media a little bit.

I do think that social
media is going to play

a larger role in
elections moving forward.

I don't think that's
going to change.

Facebook is really
big this year,

but as we've seen,

especially with the
younger generations,

gen Z is the new and upcoming.

They're leaving Facebook, and

they're not even there anymore.

I think that the conversation
is going to only broaden.

I don't think that
stopping the conversation

at just Facebook or just
Twitter is smart either.

I think we need to look
towards Instagram and

we need to start looking
towards Snapchat,

and YouTube is huge,

which is a different
thing to even look into,

but that's a really
large platform

that younger
generations are using.

How do we use these as tools?

Because that's what they
are, they're tools.

Face to face interaction
does not become

less important because
Facebook is important,

neither does other things
that we've done in the past.

How do we use it as
a tool to create and

effect the right direction

for voter engagement
in the future?

MALE_1: >> Wonderful.
Well, thank you very much.

[APPLAUSE] I will point

out that my colleagues at
the Humphrey School have

a small reception available
out in the forum.

I know some of our
panelists have to bounce,

but others of them will be here.

I want to thank all of
you for your attention.

I want to thank you
for your questions,

and I want to thank you
for being in Minnesota,

which may not have invented

democracy in the United States,

but certainly is doing

its part to perfect
it. Thanks for coming.

[BACKGROUND]