The behavior displayed in political advertisements becomes a concern among many students

By Mattie Stevens

After a long day at school, you slump onto the couch and turn on the TV, flipping through the guide to find something that will distract you from the looming pile of homework that awaits. You settle on E! News, hoping the frivolous details about the latest awards shows will send you to a world of utter disinterest. But then it cuts to a commercial, and you hear that deep, male voice, and you know, you know, that President Obama is about to tell you just why you shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney.

You might have experienced this same kind of relapse back to reality when watching mindless music videos and vlogs on YouTube. You were excited to watch the video for the South Korean pop hit, Gangnam Style, but first you were forced by a candidate’s campaign team to listen to an anonymous voice talk about Romney’s outsourcing or Obama’s socialism. Now you’re dreading the future of our country, and all of a sudden, the Gangnam video doesn’t seem as funny.

While technology has been utilized to its advantage in recent elections, mail is still a convenient way to advertise, as the Romney campaign must believe. In the past two months, my family has received several letters “personally” signed by Romney, thanking us for our support of his campaign with a picture of a smiling Romney. The first letter was unexpected, but harmless. The second and third, aggravating. When the fourth letter fell from the mail slot to the floor, it felt like the equivalent of Mitt Romney down on his knees begging for my vote.

Not only do I feel harassed by these attempts to reach out and inform me, but I feel as though politicians and their campaigns are not helping themselves at all. These candidates and their supporters are putting negative information out about the other, which aggravates the public. By the time fall rolls around, voters are tired of the constant battery and want to know what each candidate has to offer. Not only would people be pleased with the atmosphere surrounding the election, but they would also be more certain of their vote. When the public is only fed negative information, they begin to question the validity of the information, whereas positive information reaffirms people’s ideals.

If you are being interviewed for a job, you would not tell your potential boss that the guy who interviewed before you is a drug addict. You would look over your resumé and focus on why you are the best fit for the job.

If candidates were to advertise their platforms and not their opponent’s weaknesses, I think that they would see a major difference in the polls. And maybe this would change the nature of society, to not look for the negative in public figures, but to ask what they will do to better our country.