One of the things that has distinguished this particular civic election campaign – even more than some of the issues raised by candidates themselves – is reaction to the inevitable plethora of election signs.
Some independent candidates have taken a bold stance against using them, citing environmental concerns. Others might wish they had the campaign funds to afford more of them.
The conventional wisdom is that anyone campaigning for public office simply can’t do without them, and, obviously, sign companies do nothing to discourage the periodic business bonanza.
At some point, however, when the smoke of current campaigning has diffused and the dust settled, it may be worth careful study what these plastic placards – with their bold letters and grinning mug shots – actually achieve in terms of the popular vote.
Name recognition, possibly. Irritation, certainly.
Just when it seemed a policy of fait accompli had become the new norm among sign posters, the City of Surrey got tough this year and enforced its election sign rules. More than 1,000 signs throughout the city that had encroached closer than 25 metres to an intersection were physically removed, with the campaigns charged $25 per sign if they wanted to retrieve and repost them.
Possibly this will discourage the process in future – the signs are costly enough and financial penalties for putting them in the wrong place must make them even less cost-effective.
(In White Rock, meanwhile, although there has been no similar civic move against its typically smaller signs, it’s evident the usual pre-election goblins have been busy. We have heard reports and seen evidence that signs have been defaced by vandals, while others have disappeared entirely. There is nothing new in this. It’s likely indicative of partisanship, mischief, irritation – or a mix of all three. And we fear focusing too much on this will only encourage the anti-democracy activists.)
On a civic level, Surrey’s action this year has been a good beginning, but doesn’t go far enough.
Election signs do not belong on public property, period. They are a blight on the landscape that fails to benefit the public at large.
Private property is another matter, of course – and election advertising, while far less imaginative, probably does no more harm than the usual Halloween spookery or Christmas kitsch – though is far less festive.
If you, as a candidate, can afford to smother your lawn and those of your supporters with your name and likeness for the duration of the campaign, so be it and good luck. Just make sure you recycle the materials come Oct. 21.
