At least some implementation of the process for states described at the Voter Responsibility tab could be implemented at the federal level. The executive branch, for example, could establish a forum in which candidates for federal office might engage in email debates. That branch, however, could not, however, require that the states require voters to attest to having examined the transcripts of the debates; under USC Art. 1 Sect. 4, only Congress (at least under the prevailing understanding of democracy) would have such power over the states.
But even if Congress does not, individual states would be free to incorporate such a requirement into their electoral process without having to go to the trouble of creating a forum for such debates themselves. Compelling unwilling states, however, to implement such a process, could be problematic. Federal legislation, however, or even an Executive Order, need not require all states to participate, but could rather simply provide the option to do so.
And even if no state requires attestations of email debates between candidates or political parties, it certainly cannot hurt for the executive branch to provide such an option to individual voters.
******
“This need not be a debate between the two candidates themselves, but may instead be between advocates that they select — people who would be authorities on the issue. And this need not be a debate that is conducted orally, but could be one conducted through written exchanges, allowing plenty of time for reflection between responses. These could be posted in real time over the Internet, and contended facts could be documented with hyperlinks.
“This would create a forum best suited for finding the truth — one in which advocates selected by the candidates would, in writing, confront each other. (And subsequent oral exchange between the advocates could follow as well.) Such confrontation, particularly mixed with authoritative advocates, could attract wide voter attention. Even if does not, however, it could still serve as a basis of discussion by commentators, and a basis for questions by moderators. And, if nothing else, it would force both sides to fully address the arguments of their opponents — something that, if they do not do so prior to the election, may be even more disinclined to do so after it. This is a process, in other words, that candidate and/or officeholders should undergo in any case. A political campaign would be a good time to do it.”
— Bert Peterson, “Coming to Grips with Muslim Immigration” American Thinker, 5/14/2016