But none of these are the things that really make me glad that I don't get to vote. It's the negative ads. This campaign seems to be about what will you vote against, rather than what you will vote for. Vote against Obamacare, or vote against capitalist greed. Sad. But maybe that's what democracy is all about. For the most part the politicians try to do what's best for their country (though I suspect most do what's best for themselves or their lobbyists), so as long as they don't do anything crazy - have at it. But if they do something that does seem crazy to the masses, then they get to vote them out! Hopefully the next guy or gal will do a better job.
Still, I recall from my college education that negative ads aren't as effective as positive ads. Or maybe that was only in the UK and here in the US you're a more blood-thirsty lot! "Without vision the people perish" so it would seem that a vision means you need to be for something in politics and not just bashing the opposition, otherwise there is no way to govern or inspire people? But what do I know about politics? I'll close with this interesting note on Coke versus Pepsi. Surely the same applies to the politicians. For sure their negativity has turned me off...
Unlike politicians, companies hardly ever run negative ads. Pepsi ads don't tear down Coke; they build the brand image of Pepsi. Why? Because a tit-for-tat war of words would turn off consumers of both brands. And sales growth, not just market share, is what puts money in shareholders' pockets.
As the market leader, Coke would never give the underdog Pepsi the benefit of a mention in its ads. For its part, Pepsi would worry that negative ads against Coke would say more to consumers about the character of Pepsi than Coke. And when Pepsi did famously "challenge" Coke twenty years ago, it was with blindfolded consumers choosing between two unlabeled samples, as close as you could get to a scientific test. http://blogs.hbr.org/quelch/2008/05/how_negative_advertising_works.html
Posted with Blogsy
Interesting commentary on American voting. I cannot disagree about the neg adverts (why oh why don't they play nice), or about most wanting to do what is right (do feel it is more true at the state/local level than at Federal level).
ReplyDeleteI like that we are allowed to vote (well not you, you foreign boy) vs. required to vote (as in AUS), or not allowed or told how to vote (as in many parts of the world), but am sad that more people don't exercise this right. Because only a small number of eligible voters exercise their right to vote we are ruled by the 'majority of the minority', whether or not that group accurately represents the feelings of the majority of Americans.
Negative ads aside, the system can work but could be improved with some much needed changes. I think I would be in favor less government involvement on the whole, but not sure I could stand the consequences at this point in society (though perhaps knowing you aren't getting a handout by working the system would cure some of those social issues).
I've heard arguments for lobbyists from intelligent people I respect, but still feel there is no good lobbyist. If you have a point of view to express to your congressman by all means you should do so, be you corporations or individual, but to wine/dine/bribe/stalk - well, I think it should be illegal, though much of what is being done is already illegal or smuggled through some loophole in the laws. Get rid of the loopholes, simplify the laws; it can't always be black and white but there are far too many shades of gray.
None of the problems you've mentioned are exclusively American, and I have yet to decide if the nastiness in elections here is worse than the behavior in Parliaments elsewhere (our reps might toss around biting banter but rarely resort to physical fighting).
Good post, Andy!