Why is stopping criticism by the opposition harmful to voters during a campaign?

Correct answer: Voters lose alternative viewpoints and an important source of accountability

Correct answer: A. Campaigns are useful when voters can hear competing views and compare claims. Opposition parties or candidates can question promises, point out weaknesses, and offer another explanation of public problems. This criticism does not automatically make the opposition correct, but it gives voters material with which to examine the ruling side and judge its accountability. If criticism is stopped, voters hear a narrower and possibly one-sided account, so their ability to make an informed choice is weakened. Option A expresses this problem. Option B is the opposite of what usually happens. Option C concerns access to nomination, not campaign debate. Option D is also unrelated; suppressing criticism does not remove the influence of money. Memory cue: democratic debate means hearing more than one side.