Campaign Tracking in American Elections

This morning, I read an article on Politico that I want to share. This article, entitled GOP unnerved by Democrats' candid camera techniques, describes a new and growing practice in American elections: campaign officials hired to intensely scrutinize the opponent’s personal life.

Most serious campaigns already employ campaign trackers to record every public appearance and statement made by the opposition. This practice allows campaigns to capitalize on gaffes that in the past would have slipped away unnoticed. Recently, campaigns have extended this scrutiny to their opponents’ personal lives. According to the article, campaigns have videotaped opponents during personal activities, like grocery shopping or visiting children at college, as well as their homes. This article focuses on the obvious privacy concerns raised by such a practice.

I have a different concern with campaign tracking: I believe it undermines the integrity of our elections. Elections are intended to select the best possible candidate for public office through rigorous competition. The competition between the campaigns provides the electorate with the information needed to choose the best candidate. In theory, more intense competition should provide more information, which in turn leads to a better result. However, this competition does not occur in a vacuum: it is shaped by laws and customs.

The nascent custom of campaign tracking the private lives of candidates inhibits the effectiveness of the electoral process. First, by exposing the private lives of candidates to certain surveillance and potential danger, the custom discourages potentially qualified candidates from entering the race. The remaining candidate pool will be filled with those best qualified to survive and exploit this tactic rather than those best qualified to govern. Second, the custom contributes to the increasing focus on nonissues in recent elections, which reduces the value of the information that the electorate receives from the campaign. The custom shifts attention away from information relevant to governing qualifications, thereby depriving voters of vital information. Third, like other negative campaign tactics, the custom suppresses voter participation. Lower participation results in less representative decisions, which leads to policies that fail to serve the public good. Therefore, the custom results in elections that do not select the best possible candidate for public office.

Of course, this custom is only one of many that collectively undermine our electoral process. Attack ads, sound bites, and increasing focus on the “gaffe” have similar effects. As far as I can tell, these customs are fueled by the 24/7 mass media. I wonder what can be done to counteract the pernicious effects of the mass media on our elections. If you have any ideas, please share them.