Not only does negative political advertising have a traverse affect on the democratic process, it also feeds false information to the voters. In my eyes, negative advertising would be acceptable if the large bulk of said-advertising was filled with half-truths and blatant lies. This is no way to win the hearts of voters.
If negative ad campaigns are continually being thrust into our world, it leads people to believe that none of the candidates are suitable for election. Spitting poison is not a favorable trait by the general populous. However, candidates from all over the United States seem to believe it is a desired and required trait. The North Carolina ads launched this year were despicable, distasteful, and dangerous. Both the Democrat and Republican party candidates were guilty of negative political advertising, yet one of them STILL won. Why does this have to be an acceptable practice? How can we stop it?
It truly distresses me every time i hear this blatent slander...From both dems and reps. The mute button and i have become good friends. I refuse to listen to this garbage. Shame on them...What a bad example to our youth. Why cant they spend money saying what they do stand for? Our michigan governor is an example of good political advertising. You'll have my vote. Thanks for your integrity.
All I see when I am forced to suffer through a negative political advertisement is a candidate who has nothing to offer but dirty gossip and half to zero truths, a douche bag basically.
I sit with a sheet of paper next the TV with each candidates name written across the top. Each time I am assaulted with a negative ad, the candidate being slandered gets a "point" for them. When election day finally rolls around and the torture of he awful, and I emphasise AWFUL, advertising assault ends, the candidate with the most points, or the one with the most negative ads directed at them while I was watching TV, wins or gets my vote no matter what political party. I figure they are the least disgusting of the lot running and they deserve my vote. Go John Hickenlooper, Colorado Governor, who has declared to not run negative ads, you have my vote on that comment alone,
Negative advertising does have a negative affect on democracy.After a certain point voters and potentially good politicians become disillosioned when all their hard work is for nothing and they have to compete with mudslinging day after day and cannot really make an informed decision in the end of the election.
Aside from the wasted millions being spent on them while they discuss how much to tax us. Never mind the fact that they are uninformative lies and half truths. What disgusts me is why am I all of a sudden being forced to field questions from my children on what abortion is and why Big Bird is evil while innocently trying to watch evening TV with my family? This is a whole new low in political ad campaigns! Get some class! You have already ruined being able to afford movies, eating out, vacations, and a list of other "luxuries" Can we at least watch TV in peace?
Our country was founded on strong principles and the backbone to succeed. The morale of this country takes a nose dive every time citizens are subjected to the mud slinging and crass behavior of those who want to be our leaders. The key here is that these people want to lead our country, but will debase themselves and slander and pander till the sun goes down, and then expect us to respect them in the morning. It is laughable.
When a political advertiser's uses money to bash someone that they are running against, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth towards that person. I feel that all political advertising should be limited to the candidate only being able to list their qualities, what they will do for the people, and how they will do the job. They should only be allowed to have three running advertisements a month.
Most negative ads today seek to manipulate voters emotionally, by spreading fear of immigrants or minorities, or by using other scare tactics. This does not help voters make better decisions and, accordingly, polarizes the electorate and harms the democratic process. The process would be better served by positive ads that clearly communicate each candidate's agenda.
I believe negative political advertising has a bad affect on the democratic process. Candidates should spend more time and money promoting the positive things they can and will do for the country. Negative political advertising also gives candidates with more financial resources an edge over their opponents. The more you slam someone in public, and they cannot or do not retaliate, it is more likely that candidate will not fare as well in the polls.
Negative political advertising has been going on for centuries. Negative political advertising should not be banned because of freedom of speech. Many of us have a right to speek and express ourselves. We have a right to know what candidate is saying the truth or is just a liar. For example a backfire. We have a right to know
Negative ads promote talk. They get people fired up. Negative ads are necessary and they're a part of our democracy and free speech. Many people believe that negative ads are unnecessary and do no good when in reality they actually motivate most people to vote while also bringing attention to what could be important topics.
Negative political advertising may not always be pretty, but it is a necessary part of the democratic process and serves a purpose. Negative advertising has a long history in democratic societies -- Jefferson and Adams had vicious campaigns against each other in 1800 -- yet the democratic process has endured. Furthermore, negative advertising is often necessary in order to inform voters of negative positions or attributes of a candidate.
Ask about a situation, a condition, or a problem. If it is only described in glowing terms or varying states of good, how can the severity of the problem be recognized? To ban negative political advertising results in a ban on saying anything bad at all for fear of being sued for violation of this ban. If we cannot say "my challenger stole from the public and cheated on his taxes", we cannot make good decisions on political candidates.
We don't need to curb expression. The best antidote to negative political ads is an informed electorate. Most negative ads are so transparent and stupid that they do more to tarnish and reveal the true nature of their source than they do to tarnish the target of their venom. Let them spew their venom and malicious half-truths, then let the experts sort it out - in the end, it will come back to haunt them.