Let each candidate lay out his/her policy without saying anything about the other candidates policy. Let the people decide who they want to vote for by determining which candidate's policy they agree with more. It would keep elections civil and there would not be so much hatred toward either candidate. It would just be about policy.
We are an embarrassment to other nations. Is it any wonder that visitors to this country laugh about our political campaigns when they watch political advertising? We lack civility to one another. Leadership comes from the top and our two leading presidential candidates and their national committees have exhibited a lack of leadership with respect to negative advertising. Where is the honor in running or holding office anymore?
On who is the better candidate.. When they both just slam each other. Please explain what you are going to do. Right now it's no more than a tattle tale , he said /she said playground sand throwing contest. Please just start selling yourselves and show strong moral values instead of attacking the opponent
Most of the negative adds are made up of carefully fabricated lies designed to make a candidate look better than their opponent by comparison. Besides, all that money wasted on adds could be put towards a good cause. Political slander is essentially insults hurled at each other insteaf of focusing on their individual achievements.
In my opinion negative advertising is a way to deflect the candidates own shortcomings to capitalize on their opponents. I believe a candidate's main tool to get supporters should be honesty. The candidate should focus on their main goal to accomplish while in office. Bashing another candidate in my opinion is weak. If you have a strong stance and really value you ideal, you would have actions to capitalize on. I will not vote for a candidate that use negative advertising as a primary tool to get ahead.
Voters need to be clear about what a party stands for to make an informed voting choice. How can they do that when campaigns focus so intently on the negative attributes of the opposition parties. Voters need to be trusted to make their own decision based on policies they support.
Smear campaigning is stupid. But what's more stupid is not getting a clear picture of what candidates actually stand for because they're too busy whining about how much their opponent supported or rejected Obamacare. Our political system is broken and corrupt enough as it is, and harassing potential voters with countless negative advertisements just makes them want to go home and never vote again. This is not what our country should promote and it's disgusting.
If anything, the ads could speak to the character of the candidate or supporting groups spewing the negativity. My hope is people will do their own independent research before hitting the polls. I believe it takes more strength to adhere to 'if nothing good to say, say nothing at all.
I cannot support attack ads when the majority of voters in this country don't realize the lies and deceit they are reading or seeing in many of them. That's why so many people are misinformed. They are listening to the wrong people and passing the misinformation to others. If only facts could be presented in political elections we may have better leaders in this country today.
I think it's unfair to begin with. It means whoever has the most money and can afford to say the worst things about another wins and that's just not right. I would rather hear honesty than hogwash!
It's sensationalism and that alone should be reason enough to ban them. I think they should be rated by a non-partisan group and that rating should preceed the ban. I love the fact that a lot of TV stations will apply a truth test to the ad, but I don't often get to hear or see that; whereas, the ad is in my face repeatedly.
Without Negative advertising the people (voters) will never truly know the character of the political person running. It is the persons job to get informed and decide what is truth and what is propaganda. Of course there will always be someone who uses negative advertising because they have nothing else.
It is Fair because freedom of speech come in to play when they are speaking because the can say what they want and that is what freedom of speech is. Also it makes the debates fun and more interesting because with out it its just people talking about boring things.
If negative political ads were banned, how would a politician get a point across to the voter? Elections would be boring. But if you kept "negative" ads, politicians could get a point across and expose scandals. This would create a higher voter turnout and make it a more interesting election.
If all negative advertising in political campaigns was banned, then it is true that candidates could not advertise slanderous lies about opponents, but by restricting a political campaign's right to free speech then you have additionally taken away their ability to spread negative but true information about a political opponent.
Most people claim to hate negative political advertising, yet it also seems to work (otherwise it wouldn't be done!) Studies have shown that negative advertising can affect a person's opinion of a candidate, even if the ad is later proven false. However, a blanket ban on negative advertising would be a difficult thing. Who is to say what is considered negative? Pointing out that a senator voted against a particular bill, would that be negative? Making the statement that because that bill failed, thousands of people lost their jobs? Would that be negative? Any debate must necessarily not only point out the positives of a solution, or candidate, and also point out the flaws of the alternatives. It isn't the government's place to censor that debate, even if members of the government are involved. Instead, such well-meaning measures are often used by the ones in power to silence those who disagree with them, as many have suggested is the case currently in Venezuela. The tone of election campaigns needs to be changed... but a ban on 'negative ads' isn't the answer.
If the information presented is true, then voters will have more information to base their votes on. Even if the information is a lie or distorted, that could also help voters decide, as they would be able to see the deceit and be able to discern the candidates more clearly. Most important campaigns do a great amount of "mud slinging" in order to cast their opponents in a dark light, but I really think that's healthy. It encourages the people to do the research and use their discernment to pick the best candidate. Taking things on face value is a dangerous procedure, when it comes to giving people power. Presenting all the facts makes the final choice easier.
I think most people who look at these political ads just know that there a promotional tool. Elections are won at debates. A person votes for the best candidate who addresses their issues. I personally don't care what a person did in college, if we judge all adults by how they acted in their early 20's we would all feel shame. Mean ads just make a candidate look desperate.
If negative ads are banned then so are the discussions of legitimate issues. The screaming queens throwing wigs character assassination spots hurt the people who make them more, and we do need to hear about the true problem issues. Banning any kind of discourse weakens and censors the debates we do need to have about the issues. We are adults here, we can take both excesses of personality and talk about real problems. We are voters, not preschoolers who need half cups of juice and padded table edges.
We have freedom of speech through the First Amendment--which means that we have to allow political candidates to have their say, especially when it helps us to decide which person to elect. For good or ill, negative ads are certainly the most entertaining part of any campaign--they can be viewed as satire, which is supposed to make us laugh AND think, or just an adult version of the rubber-vs.-glue children's taunt. Either way, it makes an otherwise lackluster campaign worth watching.
While the majority of the voting population does not support the use of negative advertising when seeking elected office, the fact remains, so long as it is truthful, it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Political speech enjoys the greatest protections which we can afford under our laws. If we should impose such a ban or limitation, the potential for abuse is great. The argument would then become whether the statement, even if factually true, is or is not negative, which creates an endless cycle of argument and detracts from the political process. While people may not like negative advertising in politics, political free speech should never be abridged.