Conservative candidate Scott Anderson has recently taken a stand against 鈥渟ign pollution鈥� in his Okanagan riding. He鈥檚 reducing the number of political signs in his campaign, and he鈥檚 encouraging his opponents to do so as well. The Liberal incumbent, Eric Foster, agrees with Anderson 鈥� but NDP opponent Mark Olsen doesn鈥檛.
Signs aren鈥檛 pollution, Olsen argues, but rather a form of communication. Limit the number of signs you鈥檙e using and you limit how voters can express themselves. The takeaway message from Olsen is that electoral signs are how we communicate during an election.
Are they, though?
According to Elections B.C., in the pre-campaign period (Feb. 15 to April 15), parties are allowed to spend $1.5 million on self-promotion; during the actual campaign, they can spend as much as $4.6 million. As British Columbia gets closer to the May 14 general election, this means more money for staff, advertising and 鈥� you guessed it 鈥� signs.
We鈥檝e only just ticked over from the pre-campaign period to the campaign proper, so maybe we鈥檝e yet to see the real sign surge, but it seems to me that there鈥檚 been far less 鈥渟ign pollution鈥� in this election than in years previous. (I remember one particularly egregious election when I was in high school when it seemed you couldn鈥檛 drive for 30 seconds in Saanich without running into an Ida Chong sign.)
But the number of signs on my daily route has remained sensible and constant. There have been suggestions that candidates in Victoria have been discouraged from 鈥渟ign spamming鈥� 鈥� inundating public spaces with countless environmentally unfriendly advertisements. If that鈥檚 the case, then it鈥檚 a decision I agree with.
When I went to Japan last month, I spent a day on the island of Miyajima, which happened to be in the middle of a local election. On Miyajima, as in many parts of Japan, campaigning is confined to a few specific public billboards, where candidates are permitted to post their pictures and party platforms. That鈥檚 it; that鈥檚 the extent of the political signage. I was amazed 鈥� it seemed like such a novel approach.
Yet I鈥檓 torn. On the one hand, I enjoy the ubiquity of campaign signs around e-day. It鈥檚 a visual reminder of our common participation in the body politic. Even if we鈥檙e voting for different parties, we鈥檙e still involved with one another at the basic democratic level.
On the other hand, there鈥檚 something really distasteful about row after row of wire-framed plastic signs, all sporting identical photos of a candidate鈥檚 smiling face, as though the campaigners have realized that mind-numbing repetition is an effective stand-in for sound policies and persuasive arguments, and they鈥檙e not afraid to show us they know it.
I sometimes wonder why they use that strategy; surely it annoys more people than it persuades. Yet we all know that the more people are confronted with an image, the more likely they鈥檒l be to recall it and the more sway it will have with them on a subconscious level. Political advertisers are well aware that our visual natures are easily manipulated.
In an era of low voter turnout, we face the perennial problem of the modern 91原创 election: How do we raise awareness about the election and encourage people to vote without promoting a style of campaigning that reduces candidates to easily digestible images and sound bites? Do campaign signs promote an interested, educated voting populace, or are they the visual equivalent of two old neighbours shouting angrily at each other from across the fence? Do signs mean anything, or do they, as Anderson argues, merely give 鈥渢he impression of support鈥�?
While I鈥檓 glad the 鈥渂attle of the signs鈥� seems to have eased off for 2013, the issues surrounding election signs are relevant. People 鈥� especially young people 鈥� are frustrated that our elections are treated like popularity contests (although the fact that I鈥檓 a Michael Ignatieff fan might mean I鈥檓 immune to charismatic politicians), and sign spamming heightens that frustration.
This is a historic election for B.C. (although not, perhaps, 鈥渢he most important election in modern history,鈥� as Premier Christy Clark has argued) and voters know it. We don鈥檛 need to be barraged by 20 or 30 election signs in a row to know that what happens on May 14 will have significant ramifications for our province.
This might be wishful thinking, but maybe seeing fewer election signs is an indication that the politicians know that we鈥檙e taking this one seriously.
