Campaign signs have a purpose

Friday, January 6, 2012

Sharon Pyes made two excellent points in our story last week about campaign signs when she said: “They’re such an eyesore. Why do we need 20 signs to vote for anybody? Isn’t one sign going to do it? I don’t think it changes anybody’s mind.”

1. They most certainly are eyesores.

2. They don’t change a single mind.

What they do, of course, is jog the memory. Oh, right, Santorum’s running. Right. The idea is that when you go into the voting booth – if you’re one of the few who will bother to go on Jan. 10 – you might have a particular candidate’s name in your head, so he, or she, might get your vote.

But change minds? Not a chance. If you’re for Mitt Romney, you’re not going to vote for Newt Gingrich because you saw a sign bearing his name. Or 20 signs bearing his name.

Campaign signs also remind us that there’s a vote coming up. We don’t always have primary day in the forefront of our minds, although we should, but it never hurts to be reminded that you have something to do next Tuesday.

The real problem with campaign signs is that after the election too many of them remain. Campaign officials are supposed to pick them up. Some are very good about it, but some aren’t, and they just leave the signs. Now, that is annoying, and it’s something we should all remember, to wit: If, on Jan. 15, you see a sign with a particular candidate’s name, make sure you promise yourself never to vote for her, or him, again.

Seriously, though, sometimes the placement of signs causes traffic issues and the police have to step in and ask campaigns to move the signs. Campaigns really need to look at the area around where they are placing signs.

Campaign signs are with us always and, in the main, they’re not bad things. But, yes, we agree that 20 signs in a row for a particular candidate is annoying and senseless. Will it ever stop? Not a chance.