Can we all agree to work towards ending campaign signs on public spaces?

Many blogs and columns are busy dissecting and interpreting our election results from last Monday. I am still too tired to wade into that realm right now after weeks locked into a campaign office (a few weeks in Australia should remedy that starting this Saturday). The last couple days have been exhausting in packing an office while making sure that countless signs and related materials are picked up and recycled/disposed of and I can’t help but be frustrated by the waste of both materials and time in placing campaign signs on public spaces.

Campaign signs serve an important purpose. They help build familiarity with the name of a candidate and their party. On private lawns campaign signs allow people to openly demonstrate their support for a particular candidate to their neighbors. Private placements can have some impact as many people can be more inclined to join the wave if they see a large trend of neighbors supporting a particular candidate. The impact of signs on public space is negligible.

The bottom line is that in a campaign no candidate can afford to let their competitor gain an edge in any manner even if the advantage is very slim. If only one candidate refuses to participate in the placement of public signs they will look weaker as their competitors flood spaces with their signs. I got many calls from supporters who were concerned about certain public spaces being under represented by our party in signs and of course that led to a compulsion to add yet more signs to the mess.

While I am indeed libertarian leaning and generally am not favorable of increasing any regulations, I have to say that I would like municipalities to step in and place an outright ban on placing campaign signs on public space for all elections. We simply cant rely on campaigns to choose not to place these ugly and generally ineffective signs on their own. If one campaign begins the placement, others will follow. If it is legislated, no one campaign is given an advantage or disadvantage.

Signs can and still would be utilized on private lawns. Large signs can be used as well of course. It is a person’s property, let them display whatever they want on it. Wouldn’t it be nice if our parks and public spaces were immune from that visual pollution during campaigns though?

Some of the major intersections were nothing less than stomach turning as a virtual vomit of colors assailed the eyes while one drove looking at blur of signs from a variety of parties. I am pretty confident that most people simply stop seeing the signs after a few weeks.

It would be good for all campaigns if they were freed from the perceived obligation to jam public spaces with mountains of signs. Those signs are expensive. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on public signs by campaigns in Calgary alone in the last election? How many volunteer hours were spent on the placement and maintenance of these signs? The public signs are magnets for vandalism and every large campaign has a full time person designated to simply keeping those signs standing. Those dollars and those hours all could have been more effectively used in other aspects of the campaigns. I would prefer to have a volunteer on the phones or door-knocking full time rather than wasting time fixing and placing public signs. I would rather those dollars be spent on another lit drop or even better beer on election night. Both expenditures would be of more value.

This is not a great thunderous electoral reform issue such as recall or even fixed election dates. This is an issue of colossal waste happening that can be very easily fixed. I think it is time to start the process of getting legislation into place. I seriously doubt many people would miss the signs on public space in future elections.

8 thoughts on “Can we all agree to work towards ending campaign signs on public spaces?

  1. I agree 100% – in fact, I’d ordered a sign for my lawn and never got one, probably because they were too busy replacing the publicly placed ones. (I saw a tweet from my candidate about replacing !600! signs one day – insane waste)

  2. That’s money better spent on the campaign trail, and door knocking. I live in Mahogany, not a single candidate came by to say hi. They were all to busy with signs me thinks!

  3. Meh. I actually like some signs on public property, just not when they get super-cluttered. How about have a minimum and a maximum size (force campaigns only to use relatively large signs on public property instead of all these tiny lawn signs) and then only allow one per campaign per 200 meters or something. That way even candidates who don’t have the resources to do voter contact all of the constituency still have an opportunity to get some visibility, there’s not too much clutter, and the community still gets the “election feel” when they drive down a busy road. My two cents. Thanks for posting this blog!

  4. The joh form clung campaign, Alberta Party, chose to put signs only on lawns after hearing the disgust of the constituents. Didn’t win this time, but we thank you for supporting what we believe to be in the best interests of all!

  5. I totally disagree with you Cory. Our democratic deficit has nothing to do with signs placed on public property or anywhere else. I see this as nothing more than a red herring.

    If signs bother you to the point that you call for electoral reform perhaps you could take a look at doantion limits, corporate and union donations.

    Maybe we need to consider a cap on campaign spending.

    How about talking about real representation and how to achieve more realistic representative outcomes? How about initiating a conversation about accountability.

    Is this suggestion of yours about election sign placement the depth of your thoughts about the democratic deficit we have in Alberta?

    Let’s get a real conversation going and forget the flights and fancies of trivial matters such as sign placement!

  6. Well Linda, for one I don’t see a great democratic deficit. Albertans all had a chance to vote and they made their decision clearly. Yes your Liberals faltered and my Wildrose did not form a government. I see that as a deficit in both parties being able to present a product that a majority of Albertans wanted to govern them.

    Petulance on your part will not change that either way. I am dicussing something real though perhaps not as graven as the “democratic deficit” that you perceive.

    I think I said rather early in my posting that I understand that many are discussing issues of broader impact and possible importance on other sites. This does not preclude discussion of other matters even if you should indeed see them as petty and apparently not worthy of any discussion.

    No “red herring” Linda. Just discussion on an issue that I assure you many are concerned about though it may not be on the top of their agendas.

    Thanks for your input by the way. 😉

  7. While I do think public signs help in raising a candidate’s profile and name recognition, I think it is a good idea to ban public signs. Not necessarily because it’s a waste of time and resources, but simply because public signs are mostly a reflection of which party/candidate has the most money. And so, the more money a candidate has, the bigger the unfair advantage he/she has over others when it comes to public signs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.