The More Lawn Signs the Better?
Prince George, B.C. – Do lawn signs matter during election campaigns?
A simple drive around the streets of Prince George and it’s impossible not to notice some candidates have spent a lot more than others on them.
However as a political science lecturer at UNBC explains it doesn’t necessarily always translate into more votes.
“It’s not really clear the direct impact lawn signs make on the success of candidates but that’s only because people vote for many different reasons and won’t solely base their choices on whether they saw a lawn sign on the bypass,” says Jason Morris.
“That being said it’s one indication that a candidate for mayor or council has significant support if it appears they have signs everywhere. Those signs had to be raised from funds.”
But does spending more money provide an unfair advantage?
“There’s always the fear that money can buy votes or influence but there are also examples of elections when that didn’t prove to be the case. There’s certainly even rights at stake when people aren’t free to use the funds that they raised,” says Morris.
“But at the same time we also want to guarantee somewhat of a fair election and that all candidates have a roughly equal chance of achieving public office so striking a balance between spending limits and caps and a free for all is a really challenging issue.”
And though the new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act requires third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time, the legislation still doesn’t mandate spending limits for candidates and third parties.
The government has indicated that won’t be examined until before the 2018 elections.
In the meantime does Morris think it’s possible to win an election spending no money at all?
“It’s theoretically possible that somebody could spend no money, have no signs and not go to any debates. We saw at the federal level surprise candidates that won for the NDP in Quebec. But that was probably just a blip on the screen, not a trend.”
Comments
At the end of the day, you have to do your own research and figure out who to vote for. I’ll bet many voters don’t do that and just mark down the names they know or have seen on the signs. The candidates don’t care why they get votes, as long as they get them. Signs are just one part of the equation.
Good reason for police to give distracted driving fines when they see people swerving everywhere while lookiing at those signs.
Municipal campaign election reform couldn’t come soon enough! People should be voted in on their merits, not their ability to spend excessive amounts of money.
I appreciate those who take the initiative and are proud enough to show that through their postings and signs. I for one will take the time to look closer at those names I’ve seen on the street. Not everyone subscribes to newsprint or listens to radio to catch all the candidate messaging. I will zone in to those names I’ve seen or heard.
Cicero – the debate is on whose merits they should be voted in? Candidates cant seem to please everyone…too much said to the public or not enough. Media isn’t cheap or free. Articles written often slant the way the print wants it. Those who can get the message out in their own words, yes they have to pay for it.
I suppose my view is more focused on campaign signs and money spent on traditional media. Huge amounts of dollars are spent on signage from the few campaigns I’ve seen so far. I’m sure that signage alone on a couple campaigns ranges around the $15,000 mark. If repetitive name recognition is the number one reason why so many voters mark a ballot, that in itself is a huge problem. How do good people compete effectively if they don’t have the money?
My impression is that Zuroski has invested more in signs than any of the other candidates. Unfortunately, I don’t like his messaging so far but I’m not very impressed by the other guy either. We may get poor representation again in the Mayor’s chair for four years now.
Who has the greater ability to be influencing without necessarily telling the true to the public?
A limit of how many signs per street or intersection would be nice. I find the candidates you have 3 or more within 6 feet of each other is a waste and a mess.
When I see 5 or 10 of the same sign in the same spot all I can think of is “STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE”
Spread them out,
cover more ground at less cost…
oh drats, I forgot that makes sense….
I see the hooligans are out already , tearing up signs…
Driving around the City today there definitely is a lack of visibility on the part of one of our Mayoral candidates. My headline would have been “Lynn Hall OUTSIGNED in MAYORAL BID”
I to, do not know whether signs equate to votes. However each of the 4×8 billboards do not come cheap. This said,it seems that Mr. Zurowski has some deep pockets behind him in his bid to the TOP DOG on November 15th.
It is now time to do some research to see what the budget limitations are for candidates who run in our Municipal Elections for my personal knowledge.
Presently if the election were decided on signage and visibility the unanimous winner is “Mr. Z and the Big Money Machine” behind him.
The odd sign here and there is alright but a whole clutter of them, to me is just so much visual pollution. Then I tend to ignore them all.
When it comes down to “Mine is bigger than yours”, it equates to immaturity in my mind.
Its like all these kids, “pick me! pick me!”
Sorry guys and girls, I don’t buy into it.
Prince George would never be fooled by deep pockets. OK, it might have happened before.We will see hopefully people will look at the issues, not the ads.
A UNBC student mentioned to me an idea I really like. He suggested the city create a dozen or so designated sign zones around the city. Campaign signs could only be placed in those spots. It would even the playing field when it comes to financing campaign signs, reduce the unsightlyness of having signs everywhere, and make it easier for voters to know who is running. All they would have to do is head to one of the designated zones. I’ve tried making my own signs to save money and avoid all the garbage, but it’s impossible to keep up. I wrote about it on my campaign website if you are interested. Jillianforcouncil dot com
I like Whistlers bylaw of no signs at all! What a wate of money!
Waste of money for sure! Plus those signs all end up in the landfill!
If it takes signs to remind or encourage discussion about the Civic Election, that’s a good thing. Those who complain about cost, well, candidates don’t get Government funds, so its either their own money or received from those folks who believe in them. Don’t think many signs go to the dump, as there are candidates using last election time signs. Seems signs could also be sent for recycle? If people want to put sign in their yards and be proud of who they support, then that’s democracy and freedom of speech at its best.
Signs are good for the sign makers. Money in the bank. The more signs, the more money.
Comments for this article are closed.