Negative campaigning creates voter apathy and prevents accurate reporting of candidates’ policies and ideologies.

It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008[i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election[ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK. Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage[iii]. The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process. Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence[iv]. The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker. Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable. In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state. There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid. [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php [ii] The Electoral Commission, http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University. http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism. http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm