Democracy depends on a well-informed voting public. This concept is foundational to our democracy. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson insisted that a democratic government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Consistent with that view, George Washington’s Farewell Address urged the new nation to create and nurture “institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge” in ways that would secure an “enlightened” public. The Supreme Court has provided a constitutional dimension to the concept, recognizing that “[i]n a Republic, where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential.”
Public debates between candidates seeking office offer the capacity to promote an informed electorate. But the educational value of debates can be corrupted by erroneous and misinformed assertions advanced by the candidates. We, therefore, need to build into our debate protocols a meaningful opportunity for real-time fact-checking.
A debate between the two principal presidential candidates is scheduled for Tuesday. In theory, that debate promises to perform several important functions. First, it will allow the two major candidates to explain their policy positions and to challenge the positions advanced by their adversaries.
Second, it will allow the voters to evaluate the presentation skills of the candidates and their abilities to defend their positions succinctly, persuasively and in ways understandable to the voting public.
Third, it will provide voters with the opportunity to consider the character and personality of the candidates to the extent that qualities such as kindness, empathy, optimism and a sense of humor might also be revealed during the presentations.
Finally, it will provide the candidates with opportunities to convey to the voters their vision for our future and their understanding of our past.
But if debates seek to inform voters about policy differences between the candidates, the protocols need modest adjustments to serve that interest effectively. During candidate debates, claims are often made which are not entirely accurate. In the heat of the moment, candidates occasionally exaggerate. Some may do so more than others. Some may even do so intentionally.
And the intense back and forth of a debate may often fail to provide sufficient opportunities for the candidates themselves to correct the misinformation conveyed by their adversaries. In the previous presidential debate, commentators identified dozens of inaccurate claims made by the participating candidates, many of which went unchallenged. The consequence of such unaddressed misstatements is that the voting public comes away from the debate not well-informed but misinformed.
To remedy this deficiency, it might be helpful to structure the debate by calling upon the moderators to fact-check at intervals during the debate. The debate protocol could have the moderators raise one or two topics with the candidates; and after the candidates complete their responses and counter-responses, the moderators could pause the questioning to allow for fact-checking of the candidates’ statements. In an age of instantaneous electronic research, such a pause in the proceedings need not be excessively time-consuming.
This fact-checking pause could also be employed to address a second problem often encountered during candidate debates. It is quite common in ordinary conversation for individuals to convey their opinions without identifying the factual basis for their beliefs. Political debaters often engage similarly in conclusory assertions. In this regard, it is worth remembering that Washington, in his Farewell Address, was seeking an “enlightened” public. “Enlightened” had a particular meaning in the 18th century and among the Founders of this nation. To them, the term embodied a process of reasoning through empirical and fact-based inquiry.
Like Washington, we should aspire to reasoned discussion of public policies. Presidential debates should provide an opportunity for such discussion. Accordingly, when candidates offer conclusory opinions, the moderators should challenge them to identify the factual support for their assertions. And these facts, as well, should be evaluated during the fact-checking process.
In these simple ways, we can enhance our public discourse and promote a better-informed voting public. This refinement of our debate protocols would provide a modest step towards Washington’s vision.
Arthur Eisenberg is executive counsel of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
