Every election time I see traffic islands populated wih dozens of signs for the same candidates. What is the rationale for place twelve Smith signs and 12 Brown signs in clusters? If signs are productive, are more reaslly beter than one? Typically, I have used candidates's respective histories, positions, actions to decide how to vote. Whom do these signs influence?
sort by best latest
That's an interesting take. I wonder whether there is evidence to support the hypothesis or whether those of us who are annoyed by it balance that effect.
What about the candidates who leave the signs until they rot away from their stakes after the election?
But what about the plots that bloom with a garden f signs for the same candidate? Does that practice make sense?
It is all about name recognition. There are many voters who vote strictly based upon they know the name and nothing else about the candidate. This is one reason why it is easier to be reelected than to be a new comer elected for the first time.
The name recognition is pretty much what I had decided, but even given that, don;t the uninformed also resent the multitude of signs? Twenty signs for a single candidate clustered together are just insulting.
I think that it goes back to earlier comments about name recognition. If you haven't a clue, vote fot the name you recognize.
Of course, with fewer than half of eligible voters at the polls,I wonder how much these pinata voters skew results.