Do the major political parties deliberately engage in dirty politics to drive down the vote count?

Question

After listening to a friend whine this weekend about how turned off they are to dirty politics she expressed that she didn't want to go out and vote for either candidate. That made me wonder if that is an intended consequence of the dirty politics, to keep the uncommitted voters away from the polls. Each party knows they have a following of 40% of the voters, leaving about 20% undecided. The negative ads dont convince a dedicated Republican to vote Democratic and vice versa, but it may convince them not to vote at all.

If each candidate keeps the independent voters away and chips into the opposing candidate's base of voters they may win by attrition. Is this an intended or just a consequential goal of the negative politics?

Answer 1

Jesi! I never would have pegged you for a conspiracy theorist! lol Good question, but I would have to go with unintended...as I read posts here, I get called a baby killer daily...that is what voters respond to (unfortunately)

Answer 2

I think it's consequential.

The appeals to the rabid base will continue, mainly for two reasons:

First, (especially for national elections), the party leadership's support, campaign donations and ultimately the nomination goes to the candidate that energizes the "base".

Second, a thoughtful appeal to the middle (uncommitted voters) would require an admission that some of the ideas on BOTH sides of the fence make sense. Ask Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi to concede ANYTHING good about the other side. It'll never happen.

Just ask Joe Lieberman how well his party's "base" appreciated his support of George Bush's Iraq policy. Funny thing is, he'll probably win. But it will be written off as an anomaly...an example of how independent the voters are in Connecticut.

Remember Lowell Weicker? He was the Republican version of Joe Lieberman. Ironically, Weicker doesn't support the war and was considering reentering politics to run against Joe Lieberman.

(If he ran as a Republican, he'd get no more support from the Republican party than JL got from the Democratic party)

Answer 3

This is a very good question, as well as a concern. I've often thought that all the mudslinging between candidates were more of a turn-off than of any informational benefit. The best way to find out about who you want to vote for is to go on-line and look for your candidates voting record...how he voted on issues that matter to you. That gives you an idea of where he stands on things that make a difference to you. Watch the news too, to see what he's been up to in the past. Do research before voting. The commercials are just that...commercial, and only meant to change your mind, one way or another. Yes, it turns me off too. Especially when there's a guy I really like, and his opponent digs up something that had been settled years ago, making it sound like it's something that's still going on, and really amounted to nothing more than a hill of beans. I guess if I was a candidate and got attacked by my opponent, I'd have to say something in defence of myself. Silence isn't always the best way to handle mudslinging. But, I would like to see their responses to be more positive, answering the attack with facts instead of more mud. Even though I'm not really impressed with many of the choices of candidates we have now days, I still vote. It sometimes seems that no matter who you get, you get short-changed. There are too many voices that politicians listen to, and unfortunately, John Q. Public isn't heard very much. My way of thinking is that if you don't vote, you get what you deserve and don't have a right to whine. Yeah, I voted for Bush. Do I agree with him in everything? Nope. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do, given the choices I had researched. Unfortunately, I don't see much better coming up, but I'll still vote. The commercials will NOT keep me from doing my duty as an American citizen. I also attend city and county board meetings too. They're real eye-openers, and I highly recommend everybody attending a few, just to see your local leaders at their best (?). <*)))><

Answer 4

An interesting question. I have long believed that both parties are, at their foundations, the same. They both bow and scrape for the major business leaders and lobbyists. Both go to extremes to further Imperialism throughout the world. So, it really comes down to bragging rights: Which party gets to claim they are the best.

The theory that, by eliminating the undecided, they can better get a feeling for the strength-in-numbers of their party faithful seems like a good approach.

Sadly, there isn't much way to stop this until the country as a whole stops worshiping money.

Answer 5

I see it as a consequence and not as a common goal. Higher voter turnout has long been though to favor Democrat candidates and low voter turnout favors Republicans.

Yet, both sides are dominated by dirty politics, mudslinging, and generally negative campaigns. Democrats, I guess, suppose that some of their fringe voter base might be stimulated to vote by such chilidish behavior. Republicans are more dedicated voters, so they are less likely to be affected by campaign style.

Personally, I think that either party could be helped by establishing a positive campaign style. The political handlers, speech writers, and spin doctors obviously disagree. It appears they know more about the political nature of humans than I do. At least they get the big bucks for their opinions. I just get YA points. d:c)

Answer 6

No, I think it's to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Like you said, each party has 40%, compared to 20% "undecideds." Nothing is more important than "rallying the base," as we've certainly seen lately - and you don't do that by playing nice or even fair.

One of my friends asked a similar question the other day - why doesn't somebody run a campaign with so smear tactics, no name-calling etc? The answer is that it obviously doesn't work. The people running campaigns know what they're doing. If nice guys finished first, they'd all be nice, but it's pretty clear that they don't.

Answer 7

Hey Jesi,

We actually agree on something!

And you're instincts are exactly right. I took a telecomm class several years ago and it was on this very topic. All studies have proven that negative advertising does drive down voter count, and even though they've been proven to not be effective in drawing votes, they've been proven effective for the very reason you mention.

Answer 8

It seems that those who don't actually vote get what they deserve. In my opinion, if both of the major parties candidates suck, I vote independent. Although this person might not win, at least my vote was cast. Inaction is rarely a solution. Get out and vote. I figure the least your friend could do is go and vote on local issues.

Answer 9

I just know the attack ads in California against Arnold have been pretty ugly, heartless and tasteless. And the funny thing is they seem to be backfiring on his opponent because the gap is widening even more.

Thank God Arnold will win in a landslide.

Answer 10

It is a desperate trick some very obvious Republicans are trying out.They have nothing left to lose.

As one Republican put. "I just want the Republicans to win so I can keep thumbing my nose at the Democrats".

Typical,but now they're power sliming the Democrats.No vote is better than a Dem vote,they believe.

And yes,that type of hate went against EVERYTHING our Founding Fathers stood for.