Attack ads = Low voter turnout?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:30 pm

Our company has a plant in the U.S. while making a call there I was put on hold and treated to the usual radio station entertainment. This time I listened to a republican ad slagging Kerry and trying to indicate that he was going to take parents control of their children away. I was quite shocked by the tone and level of innuendo. I'm sure the democrat ads were no better as this kind of thing gets to be tit for tat pretty quickly. Canadian election ads are moving that way too with ads in the last one warning that Stephen Harper had a hidden conservative agenda.

Voter turnout in the U.S. is horrible, something like 51% of elegible voters casting ballots and in Canada it has dropped to around 60% in the last few decades.

Do you think attack ads cause lower turn out by turning people off politics or are they the symptom rather than the disease and are just a way to break through voter apathy?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:52 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:Voter turnout in the U.S. is horrible, something like 51% of elegible voters casting ballots

I wish it were that good.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:34 pm

We have problems because lazy and stupid people surrender thier right to vote and allow to turn this country to be by the lawyers and for the lawyers.

If people got off their big fat ass and got involved with politics more mayby we would'nt have as many problems. If anything, the current slag in politics should incite people to be more involved and do something about it rather than sipping a six-pack and whining about this and that while scratching their hary ass.

If people realized that involvement is good and actually changes things for the better, mayby then turnout will be higher.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:42 pm

"Do you think attack ads cause lower turn out by turning people off politics or are they the symptom rather than the disease and are just a way to break through voter apathy?"

I think the former is true. Attack ads are not produced to gain support outright, though they may be a catalyst to gain support. They are produced to depress the turnout for the opponent, to make him look bad. In the end, you may gain the votes of these people, but more often than not, both sides run attack ads.

That creates a lot of people who don't want to vote for either candidate. Apathy ensues.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:12 am

We actually discussed a little of this in my politics class this summer. In a chapter we read about campaign finance, one author stated that TV ads are informative and needed to get voters interested in politics.

I believe the exact opposite is true. I think TV ads, particularly attack ads, turn voters away from politics in droves, piss off the undecideds, and they certainly dont inform viewers about the state of politics other than Jack Johnson hates John Jackson (remember that episode of futurama? lol).

IMO, we should ban 30 second spots and go to weekly debates, maybe even call in shows where someone asks both candidates a question and they talk about it a while.

Attack ads suck, and they are also the reason I am staying away from TV even more than usual this year. I'll stick to the conventions and the televised debates (except the vice presidential "Yo momma so fat" debate).

What are there, only two debates between Bush and Kerry on the docket this year? F***ing weak.

aldel · Post by **aldel** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:02 am

Vader wrote:IMO, we should ban 30 second spots and go to weekly debates, maybe even call in shows where someone asks both candidates a question and they talk about it a while.

I've been thinking something like this for a while now, except I'd go further on the debates. (I'm not so sure about banning ads; that infringes on free speech.) I'd like there to be debates five days a week throughout the election season. The official "election season" would be anywhere from a week long for local offices to a couple months for President. Anyone who qualifies to be on the ballot would be eligible to participate in the debates. Any candidate who doesn't participate in the debates would be ineligible to hold office.

Debate formats would vary. You could have some debates in the current format, standing behind podiums and answering questions with a short time limit. Others with a long time limit or no time limit. Then you could have some where the candidates sit around a table and try to have a conversation, with or without a moderator. And then you could even have "debates" with essay questions, where each candidate would have two hours to write an answer, then another two hours to read the other candidates' answers and write a response.

If there were more than two candidates, you could have some debates with all of them, and also one-on-one debates between each pair of them, round robin. Of course this wouldn't work if you had an absurd number of candidates, like in the California governor race, so it would have to be harder than that to qualify.

I think this system would greatly reduce the importance of money, ads, and party affiliation. The candidates would be spending most of their time debating or preparing to debate, and not shaking hands, kissing babies and making content-free speeches. All of the candidates would automatically get equal exposure. And they might actually be forced to discuss the issues in depth for once.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:39 am

five days a week? Uh, no.

And as to banning ads, I dont think ads should constitute protected speech. Maybe if he was showing them on a monitor at a campaign headquarters out a window, yes. But Money, which is whats needed to run ads, should not be protected speech.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:02 am

I think low voter turnout is a *good* thing. We don't need more people out there voting for the guy with the funniest name! If you don't know enough or care enough about the election to bother to cast a vote... PLEASE STAY HOME.

There's probably some merit to the idea that campaign ads turn voters away, though. I know they certainly turned my stomach. I didn't even vote--by choice--a few years ago. Mostly for that reason... I didn't have any party I felt loyal to, and the campaigning I had seen was all sugar and fluff--I couldn't form an opinion about anything.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:41 am

First, they give us the right to vote in order to give us some sense of "control" over the government.

Then, they make us apathetic about the process until the majority no longer cares who is in control.

Lastly, they take control away from us entirely.

aldel · Post by **aldel** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:44 pm

Vader wrote:five days a week? Uh, no.

Uh, why not? Do you mean it's not a good idea, or just that it will never happen? 'Cause I knew that part.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:57 pm

I would like to see voting moved from a workday to a weekend day. In this day and age, there is also no need to only allow it to last a day either.
Everyone who wants a say, should get to have one. There have been a couple times when I have been stuck in the lab all day and just couldn't get out. I'm willing to bet we would get an extra 20% voter turn out, of people who want to vote, that way.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:08 pm

I don't know where you live Goob, but around here we have like a week's span to vote. They encourage early voting, as they call it. Quite painless too, only took me 15 minutes or so last election.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:44 pm

I have to vote on Tuesday....

The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November so that all the farmers can stay home on Sunday and go to church. Since, as we all know, it takes a day ride on horseback or buggy to get to the polling places.

Naturally, it has to be the first Tuesday after the first Monday because we can never be required to vote on November 1st, which is "All Saints Day," because that is a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics.

We must have it in November because most harvisting is done by then, and the weather is still warm enough for travel.

This of course is completely relavent to my life. back to my harvest....

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:18 pm

LOL Gooberman. I wasn't aware of the reasons behind the election date in the U.S. (if what you say is accurate.)

In Canada where we have a Parlimentary system votes can be called for any date, any time by the governing party to a maximum of 5 years after the last election. I believe there can only be 38 days between the call to vote and the election day. This system at least eliminates what seems like a two year election campaign you have in the U.S.
Maybe that is another reason for the low turn out. It seems like the new campaign starts halfway through the president's mandate.

Attack ads = Low voter turnout?

Attack ads = Low voter turnout?

Re: Attack ads = Low voter turnout?