No matter where you are, you’ve seen or heard them. They’re out to get you.

Political advertisements have invaded, and they’re not leaving until after the election. They want you to hear why Jerry Brown is a lifelong failure, why Meg Whitman ought to have a nose like

Pinocchio to keep track of her lies, why Carly Fiorina is selfish, why Barbara Boxer is a hypocrite–the list goes on and on.

Is this how politics are supposed to work in America? Should the winner be the person who can sink the lowest with attack ads and pay the most to fund them?

I say less ads, more debates. And more importantly, better debate exposure.

Having missed the gubernatorial debates on TV, trying to find videos online has proved to be quite a hassle. After about an hour of wading through search results, I finally found working links to only two of the three debates. And I grew up using a computer.

It’s true that statements made in commercials will be similar to those made in debates, but at least in debates, the opponent gets a chance to directly respond. Views are clearest when spoken with a candidate’s own mouth, and how much money he or she has is inconsequential to winning at the podium.  

Plus, there’s something really gratifying about seeing politicians squirm after a tough question, but maybe that’s just me.

For a voter who actually wants to think about an election rather than just vote along party lines, ignore the ads and watch the debates.

Reading the ballot booklets helps, too.  

My cousin’s Facebook status reads: “Dear politicians, please stop littering our street corners and television ad space with immature smear campaigns and get back to trying to fix problems, not making them worse.”

I can’t agree more.

Contact Kevin Hayes at [email protected]