Here's an idea whose time has come: How's about no election signs?
Some may argue that having no election signs favours incumbents whose names are already known. But on the other hand, it would also level the playing field for independent candidates who can't afford to compete with the billboards being erected by well-heeled political slates.
Some people might question the motive behind a newspaper (which heartily accepts paid-for campaign ads) in publishing an editorial calling for the end of wood-n-cardboard election signs. And clever they are.
The thing is, newspapers don't create road hazards by blocking stop signs or views to other traffic signals, as election signs often do. Nor do newspapers create actual physical traffic hazards, like wood-framed signs can do, once they're inevitably knocked down or blown over into the street.
Of course, there are other reasons why the signs should go - an important one being that they're just plain ugly, right?
And is it not wearisome hearing the grumbling and moaning, week after week, from candidates complaining about their signs being defaced, painted on, knocked over, trodden on, dismantled, re-arranged, ripped-up and otherwise badly used?
Fact is, folks, if you don't want idiots mucking up your signs, don't provide them with the canvass to do so. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of candidates to get known, election signs have always been, and always will be, targets for idiots.
There's got to be another way. Hey, why not a newspaper ad? (Wink, wink).
Surrey Now