Political Corrections
Quality Control

• Attack of the Mudslingers
• Facilitated Discussions
• None of the Above
• "Values" as a Campaign Issue
• Responding to Criticism
• Which Came First, the Opinion or the Fact?
• Winning - the Only Thing?
• Half a Loaf or None?
• Full Disclosure

Fair Elections

Your representative owes you, not only his industry, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.
Robert Quillen

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
Mark Twain

Word Counts

• Pythagorean theorem: 24 words.
• Archimedes' Principle: 67 words.
• The 10 Commandments: 179 words.
• The Gettysburg address: 286 words.
• The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.
• US Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

Mudslingers might try to justify their attacks by claiming they just want voters to know the truth about the other candidate. Unfortunately, truth is often the first casualty in negative campaigns. If a candidate believes that critical questions weren't asked by the voters or the press, or a question wasn't fully answered by an opposing candidate, try asking more questions. Candidates should direct questions to their opponents, the voters and the press. These new questions can then be asked of all candidates, with follow-up questions if the answer seems vague or misleading. Candidates without convincing answers may harm themselves more than a layer of slime from the opposition could ever do.

These questions should be as broad as possible, and relevant to the duties of the winner. Rather than asking about a specific past speech or behavior, a question might involve general beliefs now, and how those beliefs might affect the candidate's actions and decisions if elected. If there's a discrepancy between the candidate's answer and past behavior or stated beliefs, follow up questions should explore what changed and why.

Remember the story of the junior executive who made a serious blunder which cost the company millions, but wasn't fired because the CEO just spent millions educating him and needed his experience. If the mistake is recognized and fully understood, it can be a valuable learning experience. If the mistake is denied, blamed on others or simply ignored, there's a danger it will happen again under similar circumstances.

If you're targeted by a slime-slinger, take the high ground and hope at least some of the slime oozes back downhill toward the perpetrator. It's not your responsibility to disprove a vague accusation. Your accuser should offer credible evidence supporting any claims. Rather than respond defensively, you can say something like, "I assume my opponent is concerned about how I would handle a situation like ..." Propose and answer the types of questions your oppenent should be asking rather than seeking refuge in a mudhole.

Traditional political debates sometimes become smear-fests with one candidate making accusations, and another responding with counter-accusations. Simply broadcasting an unedited live debate that limits responses to a specific format might leave out important information or make all the candidates look like squabbling children. Instead, a facilitator acceptable to all candidates could lead one or more extended preparatory sessions prior to the public session. Another option could be an edited, recorded presentation with "just the facts" taken from the preparatory sessions.

Candidates could propose topics for themselves and their opponents in advance. The facilitator would encourage candidates to ask questions in a neutral, non-judgmental way, or rephrase questions appropriately, relying on the answer to convey all relevant information. Accusations would be rephrased as questions. Anything not covered in the answer would be clarified by follow-up questions from candidates or the facilitator.

If one candidate refers to a printed quote attributed to another candidate, the facilitator might ask the candidate to either reaffirm the quote, explain why it's inaccurate, or why the candidate's current position is different now, perhaps with a follow up question about what changed and why.

If candidates provide conflicting information, the facilitator might ask if there's an independent source everyone could accept as "close enough". If sources don't agree, the facilitator might ask how the candidates might change their position as information becomes more certain. The facilitator might even do some additional research before the final presentation.

If the final presentation will be live, candidates and the facilitator might agree in advance how to present disputed facts, or other potential problems. If the actual presentation is to be recorded and edited, candidates could either trust the facilitator to edit the final presentation or schedule additional meetings to approve the editing, perhaps with a prior agreement about what to do if a candidate doesn't want a particular portion included. Many elected officeholders must resolve disagreements as part of their job. This is a chance for them to demonstrate how they might handle such conflicts.

Don't vote for them - it just encourages them
Unknown

Sometimes no candidate seems very appealing. Before giving up and not voting, remember that you'd be delegating the decision to those who do vote. Let all the candidates know what kind of person you want to vote for. Ask them how they plan to represent the interests of people like yourself. Give them a chance to show you what they have to offer. If you don't get a straight answer, ask again. Let the candidates and others know you're not satisfied. If enough people ask the same questions, it will make a difference.

Before candidates claim they share voters' values, they should declare any values or lessons to be learned from their own speeches and the way they conduct their campaigns. If voters get a different message, candidates should rethink their approaches and take corrective measures or find a better way to communicate their intentions.

Some criticism is just mean-spirited, but when confronted with thoughtful criticism, does the person just dismiss it as irrelevant, make excuses, or carefully consider the possibility that something got overlooked and reevaluate the situation?

Are opinions based on all relevant and verifiable information, or did the person first form a pleasing opinion and then go looking for "facts" which might be interpreted in a way that appears to support the opinion while ignoring any facts that are inconvenient?

• Do the candidates put winning above serving their constituents?
• Do they try to cover up mistakes rather than provide accurate information to best serve constituents?
• Do they provide all needed information, or just their own preferences?

Candidates might claim that if they don't get elected, they can't make changes.

• If they sacrifice their ideals to get elected, how will they reclaim their ideals after election when they're pressured to keep things unchanged?
• If they can't communicate the importance of their ideas to voters, how will they communicate the importance to other elected representatives who must for vote for proposed legislation?

Before settling for half a loaf, consider if it's really enough to be worthwhile:

• Can development continue with the existing system, or must the old one be scrapped?
• What kind of improvements can be made to the existing system?
• At what point must the current system be scrapped and entirely replaced?
• Will it create a false sense of security that might reduce future development?
• Is the money better spent on more development?
• Is there an urgent need that can't be met any other way?

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts .... For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth ... is a nation that is afraid of its people.
John F. Kennedy

The same might be said of candidates. If they won't agree to full disclosure before the election, will they suddenly start telling the whole truth after they're elected? All promotional material should include a website, phone number or address for the opposition. Printed material and websites should include all three. A brief TV ad might only provide a website. Candidates could agree on a format and wording and insist that anyone running ads on their behalf use it.

Compliance would probably have to be voluntary, but refusing sends a strong message to voters. Serving constituents requires setting aside self-interest and personal agendas. If candidates can't agree on a brief message, how will they make complex decisions if elected? If a candidate can't make a case without withholding information, or resorting to distortions and innuendo, how will citizen's interests be served if this candidate gets elected?