Artificial intelligence may not touch the ballot, but it has already entered deep into the voter's mind
Opinion article by Ioanna Lazarou
Donald Trump's speech, on the evening of July 16, 2026, brought back to the fore an issue that America has been trying to solve for years without always daring to look it in the face: how safe are elections really and, above all, how free do voters remain?
The US president spoke of foreign interference, voter rolls, electronic voting systems and information that he said had been hidden from the American people. He also reiterated his well-known reservations about postal votes and counting machines.
His allegations are serious. But that means they also need serious evidence.
It is not enough for a president to declare that he has discovered something troubling. He must accurately present what was found, by whom it was verified, how many actual votes it involves, and whether it could have influenced an election outcome.
In his speech, Trump cited evidence that more than 270.000 noncitizens were found registered to vote in four states. The critical point, however, is that the presence of a name on a list does not in itself prove that a person voted illegally. So far, no public documentation has been presented to prove that such a number of people participated in the vote or changed the outcome of an election.
This does not mean that every possible irregularity should not be checked. Quite the opposite. In elections, even the shadow of a doubt should be examined.
It means, however, that it is one thing to investigate and another to convict before the evidence appears.
You don't need to change your vote when you can change the voter.
The great debate of our time is not just about what happens inside the ballot box.
It concerns everything that has happened to the citizen before he or she reaches it.
Today's voter spends hours every day in front of a screen. He reads news that is suggested to him by algorithms. He watches videos that are selected based on his previous reactions. He receives advertisements tailored to his age, region, fears and personal concerns.
Not all citizens see the same reality.
One sees constant crime. Another economic disaster. A third sees the country one step away from war. A fourth is convinced that only a specific politician can save it.
And all this does not appear by chance.
They appear because some algorithm has calculated which image will keep each person on the screen the longest, which word will anger them, and which fear can most easily influence their behavior.
Here lies the new form of political power.
You no longer need to steal a ballot. It may be enough to guide, for months, the mind of the one who will cast it.
Each voter receives a different promise
In the past, a politician would stand on a podium and address everyone with the same message. Citizens could listen to him, judge him, and publicly discuss his positions.
Today, a candidate may appear different to each group of voters.
To the worker, he is presented as a protector of jobs. To the entrepreneur, as a champion of the free market. To the elderly, as a guarantor of security. To the young, as an agent of change.
Political campaigns now have tools that can analyze millions of people and divide them into small groups, depending on their habits, anxieties, and beliefs.
Thus, the citizen does not always hear the real program of a party. He hears that version of the program that is specifically designed to win his own vote.
This is not information. It is psychological targeting.
And when it is done without transparency, the distance separating it from manipulation is very small.
Artificial intelligence has changed the rules of the political game
Artificial intelligence can today create, within minutes, a convincing political video, a false statement, a fake photo, or a voice that perfectly resembles the voice of a real person.
It can also generate thousands of posts and comments, creating the illusion that a political view is spontaneously supported by a large part of society.
US cybersecurity agencies have warned that generative artificial intelligence can be used for disinformation, impersonation and influence operations that undermine public trust in elections.
The danger is not only that a fake video can convince some people.
What's even more dangerous is that, when fake videos become numerous, citizens may stop believing even the real ones.
And then everyone will only accept what agrees with what they already believe.
The truth will no longer be common. It will be personal.
From citizens, we became data
For decades we used to say that politicians are asking for our votes. But today, parties, platforms and political communication companies know much more about us than our party preference.
They know what we look for, what we buy, what scares us, what angers us, and what issues we react to most strongly.
The voter is not only treated as a citizen with judgment and rights. He is treated as a set of data that can be analyzed, predicted and, in some cases, directed.
This is the point at which democracy risks turning into a market.
The candidate becomes a product. Politics becomes an advertising campaign. Fear becomes a tool. And the citizen becomes the target.
Does the best leader win, or the one with the strongest data engine, the most money, and the most effective influence technology?
Trump opens a debate, but must provide evidence
Donald Trump has every right to demand checks, transparency, and safer election processes.
No democratic citizen should fear real scrutiny.
But he also has an obligation to separate suspicion from proven fact. American elections are run by thousands of state and local agencies, with different systems, controls, and bipartisan oversight. This decentralization creates difficulties, but it also makes a single, nationwide operation to alter the outcome extremely difficult.
To date, audits, recounts, and judicial proceedings have not proven widespread fraud capable of changing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
This doesn't mean the system is perfect.
It means that criticism must be based on evidence and not just on the political power of the one expressing it.
Democracy is hurt both when there is actual fraud and when unfounded accusations of fraud are spread. In both cases, the result is the same: the citizen ceases to trust his vote.
Who will control those who control the information?
The discussion cannot be limited to voting machines.
We need to examine who controls the algorithms, who funds political ads, who collects personal data, and who decides what appears on the screens of millions of citizens.
Clear rules are needed.
Any political video or audio clip that has been created or altered with artificial intelligence should be clearly labeled. Citizens should know who paid for an ad and why they were selected to see it. Platforms should disclose more about how political content is disseminated.
Paper proof of voting, independent audits, transparent recounts, and public presentation of data when serious complaints are made are also needed.
It's not a Republican or Democrat issue.
It's a matter of democracy.
The ballot box may be secure and the voter already manipulated
Perhaps the machines are not yet directly deciding who will rule.
Perhaps no algorithm can change the ballot paper on its own inside the ballot box.
Algorithms, however, decide every day which news we will see, which voice we will hear, which fear will grow, and which person will be presented as a savior or an enemy.
And that's enough to worry us.
Because an election can take place without a single vote being tampered with and yet public opinion has been subjected to a long, invisible and methodical manipulation.
We should not claim without evidence that artificial intelligence directly elects governments and parties.
However, we must admit that those who control technology, data, and the flow of information have acquired a power that we could not even imagine a few years ago.
And the most worrying question is not whether artificial intelligence can cast a ballot.
It's as if he has already decided what will be written on the ballot we hold in our hands.
And what is happening in Greece?
It would be easy to watch the debate in America from a distance and believe that all of this is just about Trump, American parties, and the United States elections.
It's not like that.
Greece is also in the same digital sphere of influence. Greek voters are informed daily by platforms whose algorithms are not controlled in Greece. They see news, videos and political messages without always knowing who created them, who financed them and why they appeared on their own screen.
Foreign influences do not necessarily appear with a foreign official giving orders to a Greek party. They operate much more discreetly. Through websites that resemble regular news outlets, anonymous accounts, organized content reproduction networks, manipulated videos, and narratives that play on the already existing wounds of Greek society.
The European External Action Service describes information manipulation and foreign interference as a growing threat to democracies in the European Union. The aim of these operations is not always to elect a specific party. Often it is to deepen divisions, to lose trust in institutions and to convince citizens that no one is telling the truth.
In Greece, the terrain is already volatile. Political polarization is intense, information is largely obtained through social media, and public trust in news is at an all-time low. According to the Reuters Institute’s 2025 report, Greece had the lowest trust in news among the 48 markets surveyed.
This does not prove that a foreign government changed the outcome of a Greek election. To date, there is no public and documented evidence that a foreign actor tampered with the count and directly determined the outcome of a national election in Greece.
There is, however, another kind of influence that is more difficult to measure.
How many citizens voted out of fear of a fake news story? How many formed a political opinion by watching a cut video? How many believed that an organized online campaign was the spontaneous voice of society? And how many abstained because someone convinced them that everyone is the same and that their vote has no value?
These questions cannot easily be given a number.
Foreign influence does not need to enter the Ministry of Interior or touch the ballot box. It is enough for it to enter the citizen's mobile phone. To cultivate anger, fear and confusion. To magnify existing contradictions and turn public debate into an endless conflict, in which no one listens to anyone.
That is why Greece needs more transparency in political advertising, substantial control over the financing of online campaigns, clear labeling of material created with artificial intelligence, and real education of citizens in recognizing disinformation.
Because democracy is not only at risk when someone tampers with the ballot box.
There is also a risk when the citizen reaches the ballot box having previously lived in a reality that someone else constructed especially for him.
And perhaps this is the most difficult type of intervention: the one that leaves no imprint on the ballots, because it has already left its mark on our thinking.
photo Greek News FL
