CAMPAIGN - Campaign Signs

     [ While I have never said it in so many words, people who have followed my campaigns in past elections have probably ascertained that I have a certain disdain for the thousands of campaign signs that are put up each election. I'm not bothered by the thousands of dollars that some candidates spend to put their campaign signs on every street corner.
     What bothers me is that some candidates disregard the law as to where signs are placed. Signs can only be placed on private property, presumably with the property owner's permission. But a significant number of signs are illegally placed on public right-of-way. Right now, I would only have to walk less than two blocks from my house, to find a campaign sign that's in the public right-of-way.
     That's why I was delighted to read a column in the Sunday, March 9th News-Review, featuring a column of Richard Packham. I don't agree with many of Packham's columns, but in this instance, I agree with his sentiment. The following column appeared on page B2 of today's newspaper. ]

     Unless I am mistaken, we have an election coming up rather soon. The evidence? The seasonal appearance on streets and vacant lots of cardboard signs with somebody's name on it. As the days pass more will appear, with someone else's name, and perhaps a sub-line like "For Senate" or "For Position 2."
     I have never been involved in politics, except as a voter (and critic), but I confess I do not understand why office-seekers go to all the trouble of manufacturing and circulating those signs. Really, do they have any effect at all on the outcome of the election? Do they make the difference by putting that candidate into office?
     Yes, I do understand that it's a traditional part of any political campaign for office. But why? Does any rational voter change his mind after seeing a sign with a candidate's name on it? "Gee, look, honey. There's a sign on the corner that says 'Macklethorpe for City Council.' I guess I'll vote for him. Glad I saw the sign! I was wondering who to vote for."
     But if there is another sign down the street that says "Thimbleswick for City Council," how does the voter decide? Based on the signs? I assume so, since the politicians believe that the signs are so crucial. "The printing is a lot nicer on Thimbleswick's sign, so he'll get my vote. Too bad Macklethorpe's wasn't so plain."
     Perhaps the point is not the signs on roads and street corners, but the ones that people put in their yards. They act as a kind of endorsement, saying, in effect, "We are voting for Macklethorpe!" If the front yards in an entire neighborhood are filled with Macklethorpe signs, any Thimbleswick supporter will either be so discouraged that he won't bother to vote, or he will see it as a challenge, and start working full time to gather support for his candidate.  
     In that case, the signs may have some effect. But it's a double-edged sword. As a good friend of Thimbleswick, I bristle to see a Macklethorpe sign in my buddy's yard. When we simply cast our secret ballot, no friendships are damaged. But now I KNOW that my buddy is crazy. And if the town idiot has a Thimbleswick sign in his yard, is that an endorsement that will help Mr. T get elected?
     Basically I do not understand how any advertising is supposed to work on this subtle level. Advertising that appears to give information (however propagandistic and false) should be more effective than simply stating the name of the product or the candidate. Does anyone suddenly start recycling by seeing a sign "Please recycle"? Once? Or a hundred times?
     We really haven't learned anything in 2,000 years. In the ruins of ancient Pompeii, you can see signs on the building walls saying something like "Vote for Marcus Publius" (in Latin, of course). We don't know whether Mr. Publius won the election, but his supporters obviously thought they were helping with the graffiti, even then.
     As the election draws nearer, the number of signs cluttering the roadsides will grow to a forest. Fortunately there are election regulations that require them to be taken down after the results are in. Marcus was obviously under no such requirement.
     That is one forest I won't mind seeing clear-cut.

[ Monte's note: IF a campaign sign is legally placed on private property, I do not believe the government has the right to force the removal of a campaign sign from private property. Such a law would infringe on the free speech rights of the landowner. Of course, there are legitimate rules regulating the use of giant billboard signs next to freeways, since those signs can cause a distraction or blight the landscape. But I don't have a problem with a homeowner leaving a small campaign sign on an election stake sitting in their yard, if a person were so inclined to do so after the election. ]