A vote against attack ads

The local strategy has been simple, effective and underhanded. Work hard on campaigning and then, just before an election, saturate the market with a negative ad ripping an opponent more than building up the supported candidate.

Sad thing is, that approach works. Even if most Americans hate it.

An interesting poll published in the December AARP Bulletin broke down responses by age of the 1,027 adults participating in the poll. The two age groups, 18 to 49 and 50-plus, were in essentially complete agreement on only one of eight questions: Do you think discouraging negative advertising would improve the campaign process? On that one, 76 percent of the younger group said yes, and 77 percent of the older group said yes.

Other results on the question of improving the campaign process:

• 72 percent of the younger group and 84 percent of the older group want to see who is paying for attack ads

• 70 percent of the younger group and 80 percent of the older group want to see who is paying for independent advertising

• 34 percent of the younger group and 24 percent of the older group want to make voting mandatory

• 35 percent of the younger group and 47 percent of the older group want to eliminate the electoral college

Asked how long do you think a political campaign should last, 50 percent of the younger group and 60 percent of the older group said less than 6 months; 40 percent of the younger group and 35 percent of the older group said 6 months to a year; and 8 percent of the younger group and 3 percent of the older group said more than a year.

As much as we despise attack ads at any level, we do not consider them the cause of what's wrong with America's maligned election system. While system improvements can and should be made, the real problem is voters who are gullible, mean-spirited or too lazy to do their own homework.

Or all of the above.