With elections for the new Connecticut governor right around the corner, Democratic candidate Ned Lamont and Republican candidate Bob Stefanowski will not stop until someone is elected. Because of the tensions created in political atmospheres, candidates often degrade each other through negative mediums. This puts both candidates’ reputations on the line.

Negative advertisements from both sides have taken over the television realm across the state, with 30-second to one-minute-long clips showing exactly why the other candidate is not fit to hold the role of governor.

“What a hypocrite. Lamont’s the one who personally profited off of payday loans, and while laying off workers by giving himself a big raise. Now, Lamont’s promising to openly raise taxes on everybody. We can’t afford tax-hiking hypocrite Ned Lamont.”

This political advertisement, primarily streamed on television, is one of the methods Stefanowski chose to use to portray why he is the best candidate for governor.

“Bob Stefanowski’s plan cuts taxes and grows the economy leading to more money for healthcare and education. I’m Bob Stefanowski and I approve this message.”

One of the tactics used to smear Lamont is to transform the letters of his name into “Dan Malloy,” comparing his proposed policies to the much-maligned current governor, who recently polled a meager 17 percent approval rating, according to the Hartford Courant.

But Stefanowski was not even affiliated with the attack ad, as it was the “Change PAC” behind it. The usage of these ads has now spanned beyond the two primary candidates going after one another.

A study conducted by researchers at Rutgers and George Washington Universities found that there is no conclusive evidence to support the notion that negative ads affect voter turnout in a positive or negative fashion.

Why do candidates feel they have to stoop down their platforms and lower their campaign credibility with the use of negative ads against one another to get their point across? People view negativity as a form of entertainment rather than focusing on a candidate’s platform and accomplishments.

The need for entertainment does not justify the shift in political tactics we see today. Voting is about having your voice heard and taking matters into your own hands as a citizen of the United States. It is not about voting solely on the basis of negative advertisements.

Publicists for each of the candidates’ campaigns consist of mainly a single goal that emphasizes the nominee in hopes of winning. The point of the campaign these days is led primarily by the notion that the ends justify the means and, in all efforts, to make the opponent look bad.

This poses a serious problem because it may enforce inaccurate influence over voters in a manner that fogs judgment, making it hard for them to choose the proper candidate for the job. When it comes to voting it is a time to reassess the facts and not fall for negative gossip stemming from these derogatory endeavors.