Liberal

Potter: Negative advertisements need to be reduced next election cycle

The campaigning this election has been excessively negative. It lacked content and may discourage registered voters from getting out to the polls. Instead of addressing the issues facing the nation and promoting their own platforms, campaigns have attacked opposing candidates. Despite the negative campaigning, it is essential that people vote for the issues that are important to them, especially considering the low turnout rates in midterm elections. In the next election cycle, negative campaigns need to be reduced in order to create a more positive political atmosphere that will encourage higher voter turnout rates.

The midterm turnout rates in 2010 were 42 percent, which is 17 percent lower than the 2012 presidential election, according to FairVote.org. It is arguable that midterm elections are as important as presidential elections because of their effects on the implementation of the platforms of the president.

If citizens only know the negative aspects of candidates, they’re less likely to be inspired to vote. In the future, candidates should focus their campaigns on the issues and avoid the unsubstantial campaigns of this election.

These criticisms of personalities rather than policy have been exemplified in attack ads this election cycle. According to a study conducted by Wesleyan University, ads for both House and Senate races are becoming more negative. From 2012–14, the percentage of negative campaign ads jumped 20 percent. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to run negative advertising. In early September, 70.5 percent of ads run on behalf of Democrats were negative in contrast to 39.5 percent of ads run on behalf of Republicans being negative. Our party shouldn’t be the villain. In future elections, Democratic candidates and their independent support groups need to drastically reduce the number of negative ads.

Negative attack ads are more memorable, but according to the Journal of Politics, viewers are not more likely to vote for a particular candidate, or vote at all based on attack ads.



Attack ads are counterproductive for American politics, especially considering that research shows that they are unlikely to be effective. Instead of personal attacks, ads need to discuss the issues at hand and aid voters in making informed decisions when casting their votes. Perhaps if campaigns did not focus so heavily on attacking their opponent, voters wouldn’t feel like they were choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Considering the current disapproval of politics as a whole, it is important that campaigns focus on the positive aspects of their candidates in order to get voters to the polls.

The negativity in modern American politics detracts value and effectiveness from the political system. When deciding what candidate to support today, voters should put attack ads and the lack of substance at the back of their minds and vote for issues that affect their daily lives. And in future elections, attack ads and negative campaigning should be avoided and should focus on informing voters on critical issues instead of personal flaws.

Rachel Potter is a senior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected].





Top Stories