By Zoe Garbis, Project on Ethics in Political Communication
Every four years, Americans gather around their televisions on the night of Election Day and watch as networks gradually fill in a map of the US with red and blue, like an exercise in painting by numbers for adults. The 2020 map will probably not be colored in neatly in one evening.
Source: Library of Congress
The narrative of Election Day to which voters are accustomed is misleading, not only because of the increase in mail-in voting, but also because it never accurately reflected the election to begin with. People are already voting, and they will continue voting up until polls close on Election Day. The election process, in the form of counting all those votes, will continue for days—and maybe weeks—beyond November 3. States always take time to count mail-in and provisional ballots, and otherwise ensure their results are accurate. In 2016, some states did not certify their election results until the second week of December. For TV news stations and journalists to report on the election and its results based on this single-day election “event” narrative is misleading and this year in particular, it is unethical.
This election season, an estimated 55-60% of voters are expected to have mailed in their votes ahead of Election Day, in part at the request of state election officials who are taking precautions against the spread of COVID-19 at polling stations. As of October 22, over 32 million people have voted early by mail, and another 13 million have voted early in person. Notably, battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are barring officials from counting ballots until Election Day, and in Michigan, officials can only begin processing ballots on November 2. Unlike states such as Washington, in which all voting has been done by mail since 2005, these and other states face logistical obstacles to counting votes quickly. As the New York Times points out, “this year, federal law sets Dec. 8 as the deadline to determine which presidential candidate has won each state, 35 days after Election Day.” Consequently, voters—and TV news media—will have to prepare to wait for results. Even following the deadline there may be legal disputes and court battles about the results of the election.
While voters wait, they will be paying close attention to journalists and TV news stations reporting results. How these journalists and TV news stations report on and frame the narrative of the democratic process play an important role in how voters interact and engage with democracy, which makes the following few weeks an exercise in political communication ethics.
Voters must get past the expectation of receiving immediate, conclusive results on the night of Election Day. And media must not cater to this expectation, instead reminding voters the election isn’t over until all the votes are counted. Voters know all too well what happens when a Presidential election is called prematurely (few wish to relive the chaos of the 2000 election). The several risks of calling the election prematurely include: announcing the wrong winner; jeopardizing the credibility of TV news reporting and other journalists; and, the most ethically problematic, misinforming American voters, who “may be the most vulnerable to misinformation” during an extended waiting period. Furthermore, prematurely calling the election discredits the incredible amount of work that goes into administering voter registration, voting, and ballot counting, a process already under strain from conducting mail-in voting on a massive scale.
Most importantly, perpetuating the idea that the election process ends on November 3rd has an erosive force on democracy. In a process already plagued by democratic deficits and threatened by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and illegitimacy, we need to preserve all respect for the process that we can. Our democracy can only survive if people believe our disputes are fairly resolved at the ballot box, and not by force. That means waiting for conclusive electoral outcomes and recognizing that the purpose of democratic voting is for each eligible citizen’s voice to be counted.
Many officials and organizations are advocating for media outlets to refrain from calling the election prematurely, and there are clear ethical reasons for doing so.
For example, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold asked national media executives not to report results immediately on Election Day in the interest of protecting American democracy. Unfortunately, such requests have been misinterpreted; Griswold was accused of encouraging journalists to withhold facts about election results. The ethical approach is for TV news stations continue to report facts, accurate numbers, and results, but only when they become conclusively available. They must refrain from making speculative or grandiose claims about the outcome of the election on Election Day, or even the days following.
With two weeks left until the election, networks should be careful about how they frame the election. They should abandon relying on the coloring of a map to communicate results, and they should prepare audiences well in advance for what will likely be an extensive waiting time. As active participants in the process, TV news reporters must not race or compete amongst each other to provide the quickest results—they should compete to provide the most accurate results. They should follow recommendations from the National Task Force on Election Crises or the Election Coverage and Democracy Network, who have published resources for journalists about how to ethically cover the election process. As the Neiman Lab recommends, they should rely on information relayed from local and state election officials, not campaigns. And decision teams must abandon historical election models, which are built on the assumption that early results are accurate indicators of overall outcomes. Overall, they must take advantage of their positions as active participants in the democratic process, with a great ethical responsibility to reassure the public that they will report accurate and fair results.
Meanwhile, voters should be careful about where they get their information. They must ask themselves which media sources and reporters they trust to present fact-checked results. While platforms such as Twitter are taking steps to regulate inaccurate and premature Election-calling, voters must be vigilant about how they consume election-related information online. Voters must also give more consideration to the election as a process, rather than a hard deadline.
Lastly, candidates should not declare victory on Election Day, and in general should wait until after results have been confirmed by election officials.
It is common to not know election results immediately. Fair and accurate elections are a hallmark of a successful democracy. Not only are democratic elections themselves a process, but democracy at large is a process as well. To rush this process is to do a disservice to the millions of voters who showed up this year and the thousands of officials who are administering the election. Ethical and respectful behavior will continue to safeguard the integrity of our democratic institutions.
Further reading:
The election could be contested and last for weeks after Nov. 3. Here’s what experts think journalists should know The Neiman Lab
Task Force Media Guide: Covering the Election Before, During, and After Nov. 3 National Task Force on Election Crises
Recommendations for Media Covering the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Election Coverage and Democracy Network
Explainer: Red mirage, blue mirage - Beware of early U.S. election wins Reuters
Post edited on 10-26-20 to correct information about voting rules in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
.