Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:20:58.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generative AI and the Nationalization of US Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2025

Lauren Bell Open the ORCID record for Lauren Bell [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter Finn Open the ORCID record for Peter Finn [Opens in a new window] ,
Amy Tatum  and
Caroline Leicht Open the ORCID record for Caroline Leicht [Opens in a new window]
Lauren Bell*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA, USA
Peter Finn
Affiliation:
Department of Criminology and Social Sciences, Politics, and Sociology, Kingston University, UK
Amy Tatum
Affiliation:
Department of Communication and Journalism, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK
Caroline Leicht
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, UK
*
Corresponding author: Lauren Bell; Email: lbell@rmc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) was seemingly everywhere by the end of 2024, and the 2024 US presidential election was the first American national election to be conducted wholly in an AI era. Nevertheless, relatively little is known about how effectively generative AI contributes to learning about politics. This study explores that question in the context of research on subnational US politics. Based on a novel methodology that combines the analysis of AI-generated profiles on several US states with interviews with state-level experts, this article identifies and analyses a prevalent national bias in the state-level content produced by generative AI. This bias is both a consequence of and a contributor to the problem of the nationalization of American politics, which itself undermines the principles of federalism that undergird Madisonian democracy in the United States.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 22
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with British Association for American Studies.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 ChatGPT was released to the public on 30 Nov. 2022. See Cade Metz, “Chat Bots Can Amaze, but Also Lie,” New York Times, 12 Dec. 2022, at www.nytimes.com/2022/12/10/technology/ai-chat-bot-chatgpt.html (accessed 23 July 2024).

2 Margarida Romero, Jonathan Reyes, and Panos Kostakos, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education,” in A. Urmeneta and M. Romero, eds., Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2024), 129–43.

3 Ultimately, one of the goals of the project is to compile an interview with an expert in each state or territory, but the process of identifying experts and conducting interviews remains ongoing.

4 These findings are reported in P. Finn, L. C. Bell, A. Tatum, and C. V. Leicht, “Assessing ChatGPT as a Tool for Research on U.S. State and Territory Politics,” Political Studies Review, at https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241268652 (accessed 10 March 2025).

5 Jamie L. Carson, Joel Sievert, and Ryan D. Williamson, Nationalized Politics: Evaluating Electoral Politics across Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), 3.

6 Ibid.

7 Daniel J. Hopkins, The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018), 4.

8 Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler, Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2024).

9 On partisan and ideological bias see, for example, F. Motoki, V. Pinho, and V. Rodrigues, “More Human than Human: Measuring ChatGPT Political Bias,’ Public Choice, 198 (2023), 3–23; and R. W. McGee, “Is Chat GPT Biased against Conservatives? An Empirical Study” (2023), working paper, at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4359405 (accessed 1 Sept. 2024). On race and gender biases see, for example, Mi Zhou, Vibhanshu Abhishek, Timothy P. Derdenger, Jaymo Kim, and Kannan Srinivasan, “Bias in Generative AI” (2024), at https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02726 (accessed 1 Sept. 2024).

10 Zhou et al., 2.

11 See, for example, H. S. Sætra, “A Typology of AI Applications in Politics,” in A. Visvizi and M. Bodziany, eds., Artificial Intelligence and Its Contexts (Cham: Springer, 2021), 27–43. See also N. Schick, Deep Fakes: The Coming Infopocalypse (New York: Twelve/Hatchette Books, 2020).

12 Dan Merica, Garance Burke, and Ali Swensen, “AI Is Helping Shape the 2024 Presidential Race. But Not in the Way Experts Feared,” Associated Press, 21 Sept. 2024, at https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intellgence-memes-trump-harris-deepfakes-256282c31fa9316c4059f09036c70fa9 (accessed 22 Sept. 2024).

13 Taylor Swift, Instagram post, 10 Sept. 2024, at www.instagram.com/taylorswift/p/C_wtAOKOW1z (accessed 22 Sept. 2024).

14 See U.S. Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency, “Risk in Focus: Generative AI and the 2024 Election Cycle” (2024), at www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/risk-focus-generative-ai-and-2024-election-cycle (accessed 23 July 2024).

15 World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report, 19th edn (2024), at www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf (accessed 23 July 2024), 19.

16 Chris McIsaac, “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Elections,” R Street Policy Study No. 304, June 2024, at www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/FINAL-r-street-policy-study-no-304.pdf (accessed 30 Dec. 2024).

17 Jeffrey Young, “U.S. Presidential Election Actually 50+ Separate Votes” (2012), Voice of America, at www.voanews.com/a/us-presidential-election-actually-50-separate-votes/1537532.html (accessed 24 Dec. 2024).

18 McIsaac.

19 Edgardo Cortés, Lawrence Norden, Heather Frase, and Mia Hoffman, “Safeguards for Using Artificial Intelligence in Election Administration” (2023), at www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/safeguards-using-artificial-intelligence-election-administration (accessed 30 Dec. 2024).

20 Adam Kuckuk, “Odd Ones Out: Just 4 States Hold Off-Year Elections” (2023), at www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/odd-ones-out-just-4-states-hold-off-year-elections (accessed 24 Dec. 2024).

21 US Government Services Administration, undated, “State and Local Elections,” at www.usa.gov/state-local-elections (accessed 27 Dec. 2024).

22 Finn, Tatum, and Leicht, “Assessing ChatGPT as a Tool for Research.”

23 James Madison, Federalist Paper #39 (1788).

24 Squire Peverill, “American State Legislatures in Historical Perspective,” PS: Political Science & Politics, 52, 3 (2019), 417–21.

25 United States Census Bureau, “2022 Census of Governments – Organization” (2023), at www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/gus/2022-governments.html (accessed 22 Dec. 2024).

26 See Jennifer L. Lawless, Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), Table 3.1.

27 Zoltan L. Hajnal, America’s Uneven Democracy: Race, Turnout, and Representation in City Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 2.

28 James M. Lindsay, “The 2024 Elections by the Numbers” (2024), Council on Foreign Relations (online), at www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers (accessed 22 Dec. 2024).

29 Hopkins, The Increasingly United States, esp. chapter 8.

30 See Carson, Sievert, and Williamson, Nationalized Politics, 15 regarding school board elections, 39 for the quotation regarding the influence of partisanship more generally.

31 Julie Mackinen, “Notes from the Newsroom: Academic Study Shows Desert Sun Opinion Page Experiment Curbed Polarization” (2021), at www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2021/03/31/desert-sun-opinion-page-study-shows-experiment-curbed-polarization/4826254001 (accessed 1 Sept. 2024).

32 Joshua P. Darr, “Does Local News Reduce Polarization?”, Carnegie Corporation of New York (2024), at www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/does-local-news-reduce-polarization (accessed 1 Sept. 2024).

33 Penelope Muse Abernathy, “Introduction: News Deserts and At-Risk Communities,” in The State of Local News: The 2023 Report, at https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2023/report (accessed 30 Aug. 2024).

34 Samantha N. Peko, “Newspapers Drop the Paywall for Covid Content: A Case Study on How Paywalls Influence Local Journalism” (2023), doctoral dissertation, Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University, at https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ohiou1683801989575892&disposition=inline (accessed 1 Sept. 2023).

35 Hopkins, 11.

36 In order to judge whether subsequent versions of ChapGPT might provide responses that are stronger than ChatGPT4, the same prompts were entered into ChatGPT4o for California and Utah in September 2024. Initial analysis of these two profiles by the project team suggest that the same issues in the profiles created in ChatGPT4 are also present in those created in ChatGPT4o. In both cases, problems with sourcing remain prevalent. See 50 States or Bust!, ChatGPT4o Project Profile: California (2024), at https://chatgpt.com/share/17c952ce-9ed0-4d65-bc9d-baebcc94f79b; 50 States or Bust!, ChatGPT4o Project Profile: Utah (2024), at https://chatgpt.com/share/66ed5d1b-9b48-8000-968b-83696f8fb21d.

37 ChatGPT produced only a single paragraph of caveated text that did not answer the questions: “I apologise for any misunderstanding, but as an AI model developed by OpenAI with the knowledge cutoff in September 2021, I do not have access to the internet to provide real-time data or sources post 2021, nor do I have the ability to cite specific academic work. However, I can provide general historical and political background based on the data I was trained on up until 2021. Please consider contacting local authorities, checking the latest publications, or using online databases for the most recent and specific information. I encourage you to take my responses as a general guide rather than the definitive or most current information. I’m more than happy to help answer questions or provide explanations to the best of my knowledge and abilities within these constraints.”

38 Ethical approval for these interviews was obtained from Bournemouth University in June 2023.

39 Project Interview 13 with Karen Kedrowski, 13 Dec. 2023.

40 Project Interview 17 with Dante Scala, 10 Jan. 2024.

41 Project Interview 1 with Rich Meagher, 16 Aug. 2023.

42 Project Interview 2 with Christopher A. Cooper, 30 Aug. 2023.

43 Project Interview 6 with Kevin Fahey, 30 Oct. 2023.

44 Project Interview 18 with Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, 24 June 2024.

45 Project Interview 9 with Leah A. Murray, 28 Nov. 2023.

46 Project Interview 11 with Jaclyn J. Kettler, 11 Dec. 2023.

47 Project Interview 12 with John Forren, 1 Dec. 2023.

48 Interview with Rich Meagher.

49 Interview with Christopher A. Cooper.

50 Project Interview 14 with Bert Johnson, 18 Dec. 2023.

51 Project Interview 5 with Samantha Pettey, 23 Oct. 2023.

52 Interview with Christopher A. Cooper.

53 Project Interview 4 with Robynn Kuhlmann, 19 Oct. 2023.

54 Interview with Robynn Kuhlmann. See also Project Interview 7 with Michael Card, 6 Nov. 2023; interview with John Forren.

55 Interview with Robynn Kuhlmann.

56 Project Interview 3 with Jeffrey Cummins, 6 Sept. 2023. See also interview with Michael Card; interview with John Forren.

57 Peter Johnson, “Resolution to Support Israel Turns Emotional on Utah House Floor,” KSLNEWSRADIO (2023), at https://kslnewsradio.com/2059353/debate-gets-emotional-for-utah-resolution-support-israel (accessed 13 Sept 2024); interview with Leah A. Murray; Utah State Legislature, H.R. 901 House Resolution Supporting the State of Israel (2023), at https://le.utah.gov/∼2023Y1/bills/static/HR0901.html (accessed 13 Sept. 2024).

58 Project Interview 19 with Calvin Jillson, 3 July 2024. See also Calvin Jillson, “The 2024 Elections: Texas’ Key Issues and Political Players” (2024), at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2024/08/02/the-2024-elections-texas-key-issues-and-political-players (accessed 13 Sept. 2024).

59 Interview with Jeffrey Cummins.

60 Project Interview 8 with David Damore, 20 Nov. 2023.

61 Project Interview 15 with Wendy Martinek, 3 Jan. 2024.

62 Interview with Christopher A. Cooper.

63 Utah Legislative Compensation Commission (2024), Report of the Utah Legislative Compensation Commission, at https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000532.pdf (accessed 13 Sept. 2024).

64 Interview with Leah A. Murray.

65 Interview with Christopher A. Cooper.

66 Interview with Kevin Fahey.

67 Ibid.

68 Interview with Michael Card.

69 U. Peters, “Algorithmic Political Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems,” Philosophy and Technology, 35, 25 (2022), 1–23, 1.

70 I. Shumailov, Z. Shumaylov, Y. Zhao, et al. “AI Models Collapse When Trained on Recursively Generated Data,” Nature, 631 (2024), 755–59.

71 ChatGPT-generated response to the prompt “Were you trained on state or local news sources?” Response generated 1 Sept. 2024.

72 Nic Newman, “Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2022” (2022), at https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2022#sub6 (accessed 1 Sept. 2024).

73 Richard Stengel, “Democracy Dies behind Paywalls: The Case for Making Journalism Free – at Least during the 2024 Election” (2024) The Atlantic, at www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/paywall-problems-media-trust-democracy/678032 (accessed 1 Sept. 2024).

74 Interview with Leah A. Murray. See also interview with Jaclyn J. Kettler.

75 Interview with Christopher A. Cooper; interview with David Damore; Project Interview 10 with Fred Slocum, 8 Dec. 2023; interview with Kevin Fahey; interview with Karen Kedrowski.

76 Interview with Dante Scala.

77 Interview with Calvin Jillson.

78 Shumailov et al.

79 Finn, Tatum, and Leicht, “Assessing ChatGPT as a Tool for Research.”

80 James Madison, Federalist Paper #51 (1788).