Political marketing needs revamped system

As long as you have seen any television in the last 12 months, you have likely seen a political campaign advertisement. In today’s day and age, the belief is for one to make it in politics, they must advertise as much as humanly possible. This leaves the majority of citizens as the victims of this strategy.

Candidates from all across the nation are guilty of this, and this style of marketing needs some sort of regulation, as the only thing the over-marketing does is upset the viewer.

In order for there to be a truly fair election, each candidate must be capped at a specific allotment for their marketing. Then, the public would help limit the advertising, as well as bringing the best campaigns to the front because each would be starting on a level playing field.

Heading into the 2016 elections from the Presidential levels down to the city levels, it is estimated campaigns will spend over $4.4 billion. This is a massive chunk of any campaign’s funding, meaning the donations they receive go straight towards these pestering television commercials. Recently, campaigns have begun trending more towards derogatory ads at the expense of their opponents. While existing in the past, the negative ads are more prevalent each year.

According to studies from Rutgers and George Washington Universities, the effects of the attacking advertisements are extremely minimal, providing little to no help in turning the voters, at less than a one-percent change in the polls on many trials. Thus, proving how diminutive an impact commercials can have.

Additionally, the amount of advertising done by each candidate is completely based upon how much money they have, or how much their donors have. In other words, those who have more money have a significant advantage on those without.

Now obviously, advertising can be helpful. Television commercials can bring a candidate into millions of households across the country. However, that is really only advantageous to the lesser-known politicians.

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, all extremely well known in the eyes of the average person, highlight the 2016 election. In a race where many of the contenders are well known, the impact of each commercial is less and less.

Overall, the difference in this kind of race is so exceedingly minimal that it would be unwise for the politicians to use their funding on this, when it could go to something more beneficial, such as perhaps increasing visits to swing states and others.

The mass majority of U.S. citizens are being victimized, and the political advertising needs to slow down. Not only does it provide little to help to each candidate and provide an unequal playing ground, but also it is very costly to their funding. In order for the best race for 2016, campaigns need to drastically reduce their marketing and alter their techniques.