Guest Blog: Virginia’s Antidote to Toxic Campaigns
By Neel Kamath
When did Virginia normalize mudslinging? This past election saw “record levels” of political smearing amongst candidates, leaving voters feeling more disconnected than ever. But the real damage of this surge is who it is driving away.
Frankly, I’m a 16 year old who has never voted. Nevertheless, politics is still shaping my relationship with democracy. Too often, people forget how close young voters are to the ballot box: today’s high schoolers will soon be voting in midterms, and 15 year olds will be eligible by the next presidential election. The future of America is being formed now. Yet long before Election Day arrives, the flood of attack ads creates a sense of pre-voting fatigue that pushes young people like me away from the political process entirely.
Youth Suffrage Amnesia. That’s what the Old Dominion is suffering from.
This past election was unique for many reasons, yet the most striking is the rise of attack ads. Countless Virginians were bombarded with aggressive political messaging, experiencing extreme voter fatigue as a symptom. Even so, debilitated voters are not the sole price of negative campaign rhetoric.
In early October, it was revealed that Republican attorney-general candidate Jason Miyares spent over $1.5 million in oppositional campaigning against his Democratic opponent, Jay Jones. Nationally, the picture is just as bleak: in 2022, almost 70% of the $2.1 billion spent on political campaigning was adversarial.
Beyond irritation, attack ads are often processed through a murky system of political financing. In 2021, the VPAP reported that $1+ million in GOP ads came from political action committees whose donors weren’t required to disclose their identities until after the election. Some of these PACs were even registered in other states, and loopholes in Virginia’s election calendar meant voters would never know who was bankrolling the negativity until it was too late.
As voter turnout declines and civic fatigue deepens, the consequences become more severe. The truth is, Virginia is transforming into a political battlefield of negativity, and it is craving a solution. Beneath the noise lies a simple solution to our elections: Ranked Choice Voting.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) requires voters to rank their candidates by order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed based on voters’ next choices. Although RCV offers a bevy of benefits to the modern landscape of elections, its most compelling advantage for Virginians is its ability to curb toxic campaigning.
In her 2021 research article, political scientist Martha Kropf explains that RCV fundamentally alters candidates’ incentives. Under RCV, a candidate has “much less incentive to go negative for fear of offending a voter who might have given them a second-place vote.” Simply put, candidates must aim to be acceptable backup choices in an RCV election. Excessive attacks risk alienating voters whose second or third preferences could decide the race, shifting campaigns toward coalition-building and away from personal hostility.
Instead of characterizing a political campaign as “Don’t vote for the other person,” RCV encourages candidates to promote policies that garner a positive environment. Too many negative ads in an RCV election backfires, leading to a politician being seen as a bully and losing crucial follow-up votes in the process.
Kropf’s findings are echoed by veteran political strategist Wy Spano, who argues that RCV forces candidates to seek broad support rather than rely on divisive tactics.
The effects of RCV on the youth population is not theory nor hypothetical. Extensive research has found that younger voters are significantly more likely to vote in RCV cities such as Berkeley, Minneapolis, Oakland, San Francisco (compared to plurality cities). In fact, voters aged 18 to 29 showed up the most in NYC’s newest RCV election.
Critics may cite studies suggesting negative campaigning did not decrease after the state adopted RCV, but this argument misses two key points. First, these studies primarily focus on crowded federal races, where harsh messaging is common regardless of voting system. Second (and more importantly), voters in RCV elections consistently perceive campaigns as more civil and less hostile. That distinction matters. Trust, participation, and long-term engagement are shaped more by tone than by sheer ad volume.
The Commonwealth stands at a crossroads. Continuing down the path of attack-heavy campaigns risks further Youth Suffrage Amnesia. Ranked Choice Voting offers a clear way forward: a system where candidates win by earning trust, not by tearing others down. It’s time Virginia stopped rewarding tantrums and started rewarding respect.
