There’s good news and bad news about negative campaigning.

The bad news is that it is pervasive for one reason: sometimes, it works.

The good news is that voters can do something about it by not letting shrill and venomous campaigns have an influence at the ballot box.

Negative campaigning is a broad term for what is a full spectrum of tactics unfortunately used by more and more candidates. What the negative tactics all have in common, however, is that they attempt to put the focus on something that has little or nothing to do with the issues or the office.

The purpose of negative campaigning isn’t to point out a fact or legitimate difference of opinion, its purpose is to raise suspicion and doubt about the opponent. The hoped-for result is more votes, not for the candidate using negative campaign tactics but votes against the candidate who must now address innuendo instead of issues. An unfortunate fact is that motive doesn’t matter when the votes are tallied. An even more unfortunate truth is that, sometimes, negative campaigning works.

It works because political campaigning often becomes a battle of sound bites, not platforms. The winning candidate may not be the one with the best ideas or the most talent in getting things accomplished within the system. Instead, negative campaigning increases the chances of electing someone who chose the tactic because they didn’t feel they could win by making a cogent case for their own point of view.

With Tuesday’s primary now finished, the field is set for the November 4 general election. The best way to reduce the impact of negative campaigns is demand that candidates outline what they stand for, not elevate themselves by pushing down others, and cast ballots for those who can lead us along the high road.