Seemingly gone are the times which presidential candidates try to sell voters on their platform and merit.
Slanderous advertisements and outright bashing of the opposition at speeches or rallies are what appear to be the norm for campaigning, especially in the current presidential election.
Both parties have taken a liking to telling the general populous why they should not vote for the other candidate, rather than why you should vote for theirs. This means of so-called campaigning would normally speak more about the one doing the talking than the one being spoken about, which is still somewhat true in this instance.
However, since it currently seems to be the universally accepted way to win an election, it speaks volumes about the election as a whole.
First, it illustrates the lack of quality in the candidacy, being that the primary reasoning people give for voting for Candidate A is that they are not Candidate B.
Obviously, this could be a supplemental reason for voting a certain way, but this should not be the primary thought behind deciding your vote.
This is especially problematic in this specific example, given we are electing the most powerful person in the country based of the shortcomings of one other person.
It highlights the already prominent and steadily increasing divide between parties.
All these strategies do is appeal to the people who already support the candidates using said tactics, and drive away people on the opposite side without giving them reason to change their minds.
This also scares off moderates from picking a side, if according to the media, both candidates are terrible. Debates between opposing party members become a lot less about merit and a lot more about who can trash talk better, and even then it does nothing to convince anyone who was not considering them to do so.
People without extreme views of hate for the opposing party and those without party identification are left without a side to take.
Not only is this method of campaigning bad for the election, it could be detrimental to the nation.
We should not feel as though the lesser of two terrible candidates are all we have. Even if this was the case, though, the strategy should be to explain why you are better and not why the other is worse.
This trend could continue if the problem is not recognized, which would lead to the population not being informed about each candidate’s qualifications or ability.
Instead, we are shown lies and skewed truths about why someone’s opposition is lesser, leading to us essentially electing positions blindly on the basis of who had better television advertisements.
Dylan Brister is an sophomore economics major from Gulfport.
