Do election signs influence informed voters?
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?
I think that it's a matter of building name awareness, mostly. It's not so much that the signs will make you vote for someone, as they will help that name stick with you and sensitize you to the candidate's messages.
There are two additional effects I can think of:
1) They build involvement on the part of people who host them on their property--"My sign" may easily slide into "My candidate."
2) Just as exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics--the advertising of the biological world--may signal good health and an abundance of energy to devote to matters other than immediate survival needs, an excess of campaign signs may suggest a healthy--dare I say, "virile?"--campaign. (This part of my answer may have been influenced by the pop-up ad for SpeedDate displaying--and I do mean "displaying"--next to the answer box.) "Nothing succeeds like excess."
This may be wrong but, I will never vote for a candidate that has signs placed near corners obstructing vision when turning. If they are putting their own personal goals ahead of others safety, they are not who I want in a political position.
There must be a reason signs are used. I just don't believe there is one answer. I think signs can persuade someone undecided. I certainly have been asked if signs can be put in my yard. I think there has to be balance with those signs. Too few can look like weakness, where too many can be backfiring. Too many people are just not informed, though.
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.
In an election year we are bombarded with election signs and political advertisements. Typically elections signs should not have an impact on voters though it may for some. While it does put names in view of voters passing by them what really matters is what a candidate stands for and his/her record if they are running for re-election.
I do agree they do provide some name recognition when we go to the ballot box the amount of signs we see is a waste of financial resources. When there is an over powering amount of signs for one candidate or another it presents a picture of excessive spending. The question voters must ask is whether the money being spent projects a picture of the spending habits a candidate may continue if elected.
Today in many areas of the country there is financial constraints on many government entities. Money needs to be spent efficiently to get the most from what government receives through tax dollars. It is about making the right choices and only spending what is necessary to get the job done.
I can only answer for myself. They do not influence me. There are way too many of them out there, and they only get worse the closer you get to election day. It just becomes a blur.
I really don't understand the purpose of election signs, to be honest. I think that any informed voter knows who they are going to vote for long before election day, and I doubt a sign on someone's lawn really sways anyone.
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.
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
Listening to a couple political pundits discussing a local election result - I heard them agree that the low voter turnout for the election probably helped unseat an incumbent.Their logic was that the voters that did bother to vote were probably more-informed voters than would be the case when...
by John Wilson 14 months ago
Clinton supporters - what would it take for you to NOT vote for the Hillary? To accept Trump?All the accusations about Trump that are now coming out, just weeks before the election. Not a coincidence. Even the mass media admits a bias against Trump and a love for Hillary. Doesn't it bother you ,...
by GA Anderson 2 years ago
Is it time to consider a coalition government?It is my opinion that neither party, Democrat or Republican, can win a national election with just their base. Both parties need some part of the Independent or undecided vote to gain an election victory.The far Left seems to think that only they know...
by hockey8mn 6 years ago
Define what it means to be an "informed" voter.
by John Wilson 21 months ago
Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes. Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide. The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing it's will on the rest of the nation - which is why it was put into place when the...
by David Stillwell 6 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national and foreign debt, national banking and international banking issues, has raged......
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|