How Artificial Intelligence Is Rewriting Election Reality

By Natalia Quezadas

As a political-science student at Cal Poly, I have been keenly interested in exploring how Artificial intelligence (AI) might affect the elections process, particularly given that this tool--with its ability to enhance decision-making and problem-solving--is becoming integrated into everyday life – for better or for worse.

To better understand AI’s role in elections, I conducted a question-and-answer interview with Frances Herbert, president of Voter.Vote, whose mission focuses on making elections more accessible, especially for underrepresented candidates.

Herbert recently participated in a panel on how to use AI in voter-registration strategies, which was sponsored by Camp CADEM, a training program organized by the California Democratic Party to advance Democratic policies across the state.

Here is what she had to say about the influence of AI on the elections process…

Quezadas: Will AI reduce the need for large canvassing operations, or make them more effective?

Herbert: AI will not eliminate canvassing, but it will significantly change how it’s done.

What we’re seeing is a shift from volume-based canvassing to precision-based canvassing. Traditionally, campaigns knock on as many doors as possible with broad messaging. AI allows campaigns to identify:

· Who is most persuadable;

· Who is most likely to turn out;

· What message will resonate with each voter.

Quezadas:So, what does this mean exactly?

Herbert: It means fewer wasted doors and more meaningful conversations. In practice, campaigns may deploy smaller, more targeted canvassing teams that are better trained and better equipped with data.

We are seeing AI-driven canvassing routing so people are more efficient. So the short answer is: AI will likely reduce the size of canvassing operations, but make them far more effective.

Quezadas: How might AI-powered canvassing increase political polarization?

Herbert: To give you the most accurate answer, I should mention a key dynamic. AI doesn’t create polarization on its own. It amplifies existing incentives in campaigns.

AI makes it easier to deliver highly tailored messages to very specific audiences. That can lead to:

· Different groups receiving entirely different narratives from the same campaign;

· Reinforcement of existing beliefs rather than    exposure to new perspectives;

· Optimization toward what persuades, not necessarily what informs.

Quezadas: Can you give us an example of the latter?

Herbert: Yes. A campaign might emphasize public safety to one group and economic opportunity to another, without ever presenting a unified message. Over time, this fragments the electorate and deepens divisions.

The underlying issue is not the technology. It is how campaigns choose to use AI. 

Quezadas: How might AI reshape the meaning of “human connection” in political organizing?

Herbert: This is where things get more nuanced. AI can actually enhance human connection when used well. For example:

· Volunteers can walk into conversations already understanding a voter’s likely concerns;

· Follow-ups can be timely and relevant;

· Outreach can feel more personalized instead of generic.

Quezadas: What are the risks of AI for political organizing?

Herbert: If campaigns over-automate, you start to lose authenticity. Voters can sense when they are interacting with a system rather than a person. That can erode trust.

So the future isn’t less human connection. It’s a different kind of human connection. The campaigns that succeed will be the ones that use AI to support real conversations, not replace them.

Quezadas: How would you summarize the big picture?

Herbert: AI is moving campaigns from broad outreach to targeted influence. That increases efficiency, but it also raises important questions about trust, transparency, and fairness in our democratic process.

Having conversations like these can help us understand that AI is reshaping how campaigns connect and mobilize without replacing human effort.

AI will continue to evolve, and so will its use in elections, meaning that conversations around transparency, ethics, and trust in the Democratic process must also continue.

Natalie Quezadas is a political-science major at Cal Poly and a former intern with the San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party.