The saying goes “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” This… The saying goes “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” This saying worked well on the playground in grade school and is still a good idea when at the bar. However, these words of wisdom do not apply to politicians seeking to win an election. It’s impossible to watch your favorite program on television without hearing that Bob Casey wants to grant amnesty to 13 million illegal aliens presently living in the United States or that Rick Santorum voted with Bush 98 percent of the time. Campaigns nationwide are bombarding Americans with negative attack ads in an attempt to gain votes or at least take votes away from their opponent. The effectiveness of attack ads are something experts argue over today, but one thing is for sure; nothing is better than watching an ad rip a politician you hate.

According to Janice M. King, president of Janice King Communications, negative attack ads create what she calls FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. Attack ads that generate fear in voters can lead voters to switch their vote to a different candidate or inflame a candidate’s base. Other ads or a combination of opposing ads can create voter uncertainty. In this case, voters are uncertain about which candidate is the best to vote for. This then leads to a suppressed voter turnout for both candidates, which can either work for or against a candidate. Lastly is doubt. When one candidate attacks the other, a supporter of the attacked candidate may begin to have feelings of doubt about his candidate. Doubt-causing ads lead to a suppressed voter turnout for only one candidate. Political strategists must consider these outcomes when they institute a negative ad campaign.

With almost every aspect of FUD having the possibility to suppress voter turnout, it comes as no surprise that a Stanford study of Senate races found that in primarily negative campaigns, voter turnout was 5 percent less than elections in which the majority of the ads were strictly positive. Another result of negative campaigning is ballot run off. Ballot run off is when voters vote for high offices such as president or Senate but ignore lower offices such as the state House of Representatives. During primarily negative campaigns, ballot run off can be almost double that of positive elections, or 6 percent.

If negative ads can decrease voter turnout, then why is it practiced? Many times a candidate engages in negative ads out of fear. The politician may fear that his opponent may initiate the smear ads first and create a lasting negative impression in the voters’ minds. Secondly, if a candidate may feel that if he doesn’t engage in negative campaigning, that he may appear weak. Negative ads also enlarge the size of political conflict. This tactic brings in organized interest and the media. When the conflict between candidates is exaggerated, more voters are drawn into it. The media then adds fuel to the fire, giving the candidates more air time and furthering the conflict. The increased air time amplifies the effects of the negative ads.

Mudslinging should be abandoned by political parties, special interest groups and other organized movements. Candidates should educate America about their positive qualities, what they have done for the constituents, or what they plan to do for their constituents, not why their opponent is the Antichrist. Special interest groups and organized movements should educate people about the importance of their causes and not blast people or organizations that don’t agree. Pennsylvanians don’t need to be reminded by Bob Casey Jr. how many times Rick Santorum voted with George Bush; they need to be told how Casey plans to rectify problems facing Americans and Pennsylvanians. During the 2004 presidential election, Americans didn’t need to hear about possible George Bush DUIs, they needed to hear how Kerry planned to deal with the increasing threat of terrorism. Americans know what the problems are; what they want are solutions.

Every political party and every candidate needs to stop using negative campaigning or mudslinging. They need to educate voters about their strengths and goals.

The end of negative campaigning is presently unrealistic. Until the effects of negative campaigning cease to work, they will be prevalent and harsh. Until voters stop responding to smear tactics, politicians will never stop smearing their opponent. Voters need to educate themselves on numerous issues from sources they trust. They need to vote using their conscience and their mind. Voters cannot let a 30 second ad on television or radio change their mind and ultimately the course of an election. Demand answers from candidates, not a reiteration of the problems.

Tell Joe your favorite smear ad currently shaping the minds of possible voters at [email protected].