Feb 04 2011
Democracy in the News 3: “Attack ads hurt democracy”
An article titled “Attack ads hurt democracy” on thestar.com has Green party leader Elizabeth May urging other
“party leaders not to further suppress the voter turnout by resorting to mean-spirited ads that do not deal with policies and priorities but rather personalities”.
May argues that political attack ads like the ones used by the Conservatives to question the patriotism of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff are contributing to lower voter turnout as it paints a negative picture of politics. May also suggests that the vicious ads are a cynical strategy used by parties aiming for a lower voter turnout that could potentially be especially beneficial for the Conservatives.
Although the article only briefly refers to the subject of democracy when May is quoted saying that the cynicism of the party machines “is devaluing the whole business of democracy at a very fundamental level”, it does resonate a feeling of apprehensiveness with the talk of a spring election. Have voters been swayed since the emergence of the attack-style campaigning to not only vote for the party being attacked but to not vote at all?
Polling done after the 2008 elections suggest that 11% of respondents did not vote for any candidate due to the Conservative campaign ads attacking Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. More Canadians are becoming reluctant to go to the polls suggesting that attack ads lower voter turnout and ultimately lower voter participation in the democratic process. An ethical overhaul of campaigning strategies is needed to promote a more democratic process in Canada.
I am really glad you were able to find some more data on this situation. I also wrote on the article and found it unconvincing because of its weak data. The additional data you found lends credibility to an article that otherwise is a suspected and poorly measured feeling.
I personally find the attack ads contrary to the spirit of campaigning. I want to know why a candidate is best and how their platform will affect me, not why the other candidates are bad people or un-Canadian.
As I wrote in my blog post I would also argue that not only are attack ads keeping people from voting but also keeping good politicians out of politics because it has become too dirty. Decent people and strong female candidates in particular (Carole Taylor, Dianne Watts) do not want to participate in something that encourages them to “attack” others and opens them and their families to attack.
I totally agree that attack ad’s are definitely negative and the statistics are definitely interesting to see the correlation of attack ads related to voter turnout.
However (I’m playing devil’s advocate here… well kind of) I have seriously been unimpressed with Canadian leadership, I personally would love to see another Trudeau and although I didn’t particularly like Mulroney he did have some charisma that was intriguing. Although I have recently stopped supporting Obama, I think his initial ambition and affect on citizens is something Canada could use.
So, no I don’t approve attack ads… but I don’t think Stéphane Dion was a good candidate either and I don’t think it was because of attack ads that he was not voted in.
I guess the moral of the story is attack ads are very superficial but I think the low voter turn out goes far beyond them and has a lot to do with lacking leadership.