Thank goodness it’s over! The 2016 partisan primary with negative television ads primarily for the Republican candidates for the 1st Congressional District was as distasteful as it was troubling.

The last couple of days before the election, the ads were all running back-to-back. A positive ad would run for a candidate. Then, the next ad was a negative attack ad.

It appears at first the Tom Casperson team started slinging mud. Then Bergman fired back, calling the Casperson team liars.

Then the the Jason Allen team joined in the mud fight.

It’s unclear to us why the candidates fail to realize how much viewers dislike these negative attack ads. There was a time when negative attack ads worked – to a degree – but in the last major election, the candidates that ran the most negative attack ads lost.

We understand why consultants promote attack ads – that’s how they make their money. One attack ad usually gets a response from the person being attacked by buying another attack ad against the candidate that attacked them. From the perspective of the voter, this turns into a three-ring circus they would prefer to not have been a part of.

One way for the average voter to change the system is to not vote for anyone who runs the negative attack ads. If candidates running negative attack ads don’t win the elections, hopefully candidates will not allow their campaign team to run them in the future.

A good example of a positive political campaign was exhibited by the three candidates running for the Marquette County sheriff’s race. Their advertising was all about their attributes and showing who endorsed them. There was no mud slinging or attack ads used in their campaign.

We believe this is what voters want and deserve: A positive campaign explaining why you should vote for a particular candidate instead of why you shouldn’t vote for a competitor.

Congratulations to all three candidates for setting a good example of how to run a proper political campaign.

Mining Journal (Marquette)