Wonder What Would Happen If The Two Major Political Parties in Texas (Houston: school, move to)

[TexasHorseLady]

. . . passed a rule for the next elections that every candidate running for office under their flag could only have positive campaign materials/ads/what have you? If they were not allowed to say anything negative about the other guy and were required to state positively just exactly what THEY had to bring to the table beyond "I'm not that other guy"?

I know it would certainly be refreshing, and certainly a lot more credible than the cesspool that I've been watching Texas politics, in particular, turn into over the past years.

The moment I see one of these ads on television or hear one on the radio or see it in the newspaper that is doing nothing, basically, other than tearing down the other party and their candidate, my first thought is, "So, you really DON'T have anything to offer, do you, since this is all you can think of to tell us?"

How about the rest of you. Would you vote for a candidate who actually said, "Here's my qualifications for the job and here's where I think the state should go, and here's exactly how I plan to accomplish that" without saying one word about his or her opponent? Or do you get off on the negativity and think that governance of the State of Texas should be determined strictly by who can sling the most mud?

Just curious if I'm the only one who thinks it would be an interesting experiment?

[Willsson]

I'd agree. Voters need to control their local party rather than the party controlling the debate. Eliminating negativity and requiring a statement of availability, with intent and method to produce, would offer better candidates for office.

Maybe the League of Women Voters could provide a score card for voters, to track and report positive and negative advertising.

[Westerner92]

I agree with you, but sadly I tend to think that hell will freeze over before anything like this happens.

[TT Dave]

I agree as well, however, like Westerner92 said above, it's not likely to ever happen.

[TexasHorseLady]

tofurkey, I like that idea! Hold them accountable for the misbehavior of their candidates by giving them a "grade".

The rest of you, I do realize that it's a faint possibility, but I can hope, and spread the word and we can at least TRY to get across to them, can't we?

[Rapunzll]

Will never happen, has never happened. People act like negative campaigning is something new when it has been going on as long as our country has been around.

[Bo]

Negative campaigning is designed to deter a candidate's weak supporters from going to the polls. Alas, it's a part of campaign strategy that is here to stay as long as it continues to produce results.

[TexasHorseLady]

I think it's also designed to appeal to the worst in us (that part that really wants to believe that anyone who doesn't think exactly as we do must be evil, about as un-American a concept as I can imagine), and as long as a sufficient number of us allow ourselves to be manipulated in that fashion or get off on the negative campaigning, I fear you're correct. What it would take to change it would be the voters just saying no to that particular drug rather than demanding their "fix".

I'm aware that negative campaigning to some degree has been around for a long time - not only do I read history, but I'm old enough to be darned near historical myself! (When you learn that the period of your youth is being studied in history class, you know you're old!) However, I am also old enough to have watched it getting, as a general thing, getting steadily worse in Texas, and that's what I'm concerned about. I once actually saw a political commercial on TV and wanted desperately to move to another city just to vote for the candidate, because he did exactly what I'd like to see. His opponent was not mentioned at all. He simply said, "Here's my qualifications, here's my vision for Texas, and here's how I plan to accomplish it. Please vote for me." That was several years ago and I STILL remember it, while all of the negative campaigning has turned into just an ugly, undifferentiated sludge in my memory.

I do, though, really like tofurkey's idea.

[jazznblues]

I really don't see how eliminating negative campaigning would produce better candidates for voters to choose from.

If we use the governor's race as an example, Bill White certainly won't volunteer any information concerning Houston's budget problems and huge growth in spending during his terms. He would talk about how he spent that money and the good things it did for Houston.

Perry would talk about jobs jobs jobs jobs and nothing else. He wouldn't talk about school funding, state budgets, etc.

I think negative campaigning is a critical component of the information made available to voters. The biggest problem with it is the truthfulness (or truthlessness) of many of the messages - and the omission of context. Candidates latch on to numbers and use them over and over without acknowledging the true value of the data.

[TexasHorseLady]

I completely disagree. Oddly enough, the voters usually are aware of problems with candidates' history or can easily find that information.

The reason it would provide better candidates is that they would have to talk about themselves. Granted there would be puffery, but they'd have to show us exactly what they have to offer, and what their vision for Texas is, beyond "That other guy is horrible! I'm not him! Don't look at the man behind the curtain!" which is what we're getting now.

I know that there are people who are truly addicted to negative campaigning and consequently think that there could not possibly be elections without it. But I think that's a fallacy that encourages candidates to take the easy way out of trying to get the voters to focus on how bad the other candidate or the other party so that those same voters don't take a good, long look at them.