I needed answers, fast.
And if I’m honest, turning to AI for help felt a little scandalous.
Voting is one of those places where we’re supposed to do our own research, form our own opinions, and arrive at our own conclusions.
But I had a lot of catching up to do before California’s primary— a race that decides who even makes it to November.
So I did what millions of people increasingly do when they’re trying to get smart on something quickly:
I opened Chat.
Beyond endorsements
In the past, voting meant skimming voter guides, reading organizational endorsements, and sorting through campaign mailers.
This was different.
I could ask questions, compare candidates, run scenarios, and explore tradeoffs in real time.
I entered the process with a slightly preferred candidate. I admired her intelligence, appreciated her willingness to challenge powerful interests, and value having more women in leadership.
I also spent time with candidates I was fairly certain I wouldn’t support. Even so, I wanted to understand how they framed affordability, housing, regulation, and economic growth.
Finally, I ended up taking a much harder look at candidates I’d initially overlooked.
The questions that changed my thinking
The most valuable part of the process was asking better questions.
Which risk worries you more? What kind of leadership does this moment require? Can this person hold competing realities at once? What information, if true, would change my mind?
As I compared candidates and pressure-tested my assumptions, I got clearer about what mattered to me.
What outcomes am I trying to protect? How much do I value reform versus stability? What kind of leadership matters most to me right now?
I walked away with names to fill in on a ballot and a cleaner understanding of my own views on leadership, power, and change.
Where the gut check entered the conversation
The most surprising part of the exercise happened when I started asking for scenarios.
At one point, I asked: what does success look like under this leader? What does failure look like? Then I asked the same questions about another candidate.
Possible futures. Possible leadership expressions. Possible strengths and shadows.
As I read them, I noticed myself paying attention differently.
Not away from the facts. Toward my response.
Which possibilities felt grounded? Which concerns felt legitimate? Which future seemed more likely to hold under pressure?
I wasn’t treating that response as evidence. I was treating it as information.
Discernment emerges when multiple forms of knowing are allowed into the room. The facts matter. The analysis matters. But so does our ability to notice what rings true, what creates tension, and what feels coherent once we’ve done the thinking.
You know that gut check you get when something doesn't quite sit right, even when you can't explain why? That's what I was listening for.
The body has a vote. The mind has a vote. The challenge is learning how to hear both without letting either one run the whole show.
We all have access to that signal. But it’s easy to forget to include it.
The skeptic has a point
A thoughtful skeptic should push back on using AI like this.
How do I know I wasn’t being influenced?
I experienced the process as reflective and illuminating. But that doesn’t make it neutral.
The value came from feeling like I was being helped to think, not nudged toward a conclusion.
As these tools get more sophisticated, that distinction gets harder to detect.
One of the most useful questions I asked? Who benefits if I think this way?
And eventually: who benefits if AI helps me think this way?
That’s a harder question. And I don’t have a clean answer.
At one point, I found myself wondering how differently this might have felt if advertising were woven into the conversation. What if candidates could sponsor responses? What if persuasion became invisible? Would I have noticed?
I honestly don’t know.
A few guardrails I’m keeping
Use AI to surface options, not make decisions. The decision is yours. The responsibility is yours. The judgment is yours.
Ask what would change your mind. This keeps the conversation from becoming a search for confirmation.
Explore viewpoints you don’t initially agree with. Some of the most useful research came from understanding perspectives I ultimately rejected.
Follow the tradeoffs. Every policy creates winners and losers. Every leadership style comes with strengths and risks.
Keep asking who benefits. Candidates, media organizations, political parties, corporations, and increasingly, AI systems.
Stay connected to your own values. The goal is clearer access to your own thinking not better compliance with someone else’s.
A leadership question
By the end of the process, I had my ballot.
I also had something I rarely experience after researching an election: a sense of clarity.
Not perfect information, but a sense that I’d examined the tradeoffs, challenged my assumptions, and arrived at a decision I could stand behind.
And perhaps that’s closer to what discernment actually looks like.
A willingness to examine the tradeoffs and make the best decision available with the information at hand.
As AI becomes more capable, the challenge is learning how to remain sovereign while using it.
The ability to question assumptions. To recognize influence. To examine tradeoffs. To update our thinking when warranted. To think critically without becoming cynical.
Those are leadership skills.
They matter in voting. They matter in business. They matter anywhere important decisions get made.
That’s not a technology question. It’s a human one.
About Meredith
I help women leaders strengthen discernment and inner leadership in a world that keeps accelerating.
If you'd like a guided way to recognize your pressure patterns in real time and lead from a steadier place, explore the Nothing To Prove Ritual.
If you're curious which pressure pattern most shapes your leadership, take the Pressure Pattern Quiz.