Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 22 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Campaign signs may foretell future
Published Friday, May 2, 2008
Annexation — check.
School board appointed or elected — check.
Dilapidated houses — check.
Recreation complex — check.
Futura font, patriotic colors, attention-grabbing slogan — check.
When it comes to choosing who gets my vote this year, I have decided to look past the “big” issues in the campaign and look no further than what I see from my car window.
After weeks of passing by sign after sign, I have started to realize that these 18-inch by 24-inch pieces of plastic tell a whole lot about the candidates — more than what you might think.
As a newspaperman, I have had the luxury to be able discuss issues in depth with many candidates. I have had the opportunity to learn who the candidates are and what their vision for the city is.
Unfortunately, knowing where a candidate stands on the issues does not predict what kind of leader a candidate will be.
So this election I have decided to look to perhaps a better predictor — the campaign sign.
Campaign signs are the first impression that a candidate gives to voters. Sometimes it is the only impression.
The always popular, red, white and blue color scheme conveys to voters ideas of patriotism. Voting, after all, is rooted in American ideals.
Some candidates choose color schemes associated with a local school or local church. Some choose a different color scheme, to stand out — show independence.
And then there is the use of a particular symbol to convey a particular message.
Looking to the graphic message of a campaign sign for voting inspiration is a little like talking to the candidates in passing. It is all about image and a little about substance.
For me, it is the location of campaign signs, not what’s on them, that can be the most enlightening.
I am sure I am not the only person who enjoys playing the election season game, “Who’s sign is in who’s yard.”
But the one thing I don’t like about the campaign season is finding campaign signs staked in places where they shouldn’t be.
It happens every election season. As election day nears, a proliferation of signs show up at street intersections, on city property and in the public right of way.
In the past few days, I have witnessed many plastic signs crowded along the side of the highway and huddled around traffic stoplights.
The problem is that all of these signs are illegal.
Election laws prohibit the display of election signs on public property, including the right-of-way along streets and highways.
Officials say the law exists because the display of such signs creates a safety hazard. Such signs, they say, creates a distraction for drivers and blocks the view.
But for me the issue is more than about safety.
It is about respect — respect for voters, respect for the office for which they are campaigning and, ultimately, respect for the law.
Why should I as a tax-paying citizen allow someone to use public property to campaign for public office?
In past city and county elections, officials have ignored the laws they say they will uphold when they get elected.
Some candidates may say they are only doing what the other candidates are doing. With so little time left, how could they allow another candidate to get the advantage, especially when there is little recourse?
But if candidates and their supporters feel like they can bend the rules or, even worse, feel like the rules do not apply to them, imagine what they might think if they are elected to office.
My hunch is the candidates who think they can circumvent the campaign laws, will be the same elected officials who think even one secret meeting is acceptable.
Doesn’t sound like respect to me.
I hope candidates remember the bigger message they are conveying before they consider locating their signs on public property.
Ben Hillyer is the web editor of The Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3540.
Comments
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ben, very well stated...of course, no candidate can control all of his or her supporters and mistakes will be made, but when it becomes evident that illegal signs are the norm and not the anomaly, the candidates are to blame because they've at least given tacit approval to break the law and/or even worse, turned a blind eye...a prediction of future behavior.
Don't be too swayed by the numbers or locations of signage, that is prone to change as the general election draws near.
Posted by supertrucker47 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 4:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the mayors add is a lie.unemployment is at an all time high in adams country.statewide unemployment was 11.6% mayor.in adams county it stands at a wopping 9.3%jefferson county its 11.9%.now statewide in ms unemployment maybe 6.5%.but not in adams county.and mayor you had nothing to do with the unemployment droping statewide you idiot.false advertisement is what it is.its also lieing you twitt.nothing has gotten better sense you came to office.its gotten worse.and you still do what the p.g.c tells you to do.all mayors have.let the pgc run natchez.we dont need a mayor.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
supertrucker47...well, at least we convinced you not to YELL, maybe now we can work on your spelling, grammar or maybe the ability to state an opinion with name calling...while I agree with your premise, I don't think people listen much when eptithets are flying through the air.
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
even if supporters place the signs in "illegal" places, how about pinning down the candidates about going around taking down the signs. Ask them, Mr. X. how many illegally posted campaign signs have your removed?" Breaking the law is breaking the law. It is a slippery slope.
Posted by silly_willy_24_7 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh, yes! it would be so nice if the campaign signs littering the streets and roadsides after the elections would disappear as quickly as the promises that got the candidates elected!!
also, the losers signs should go even faster.
Posted by hitormiss (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Supertrucker47,
The unemployment rate is around 6% in Adams County. It has been cut almost in half in the last 4 years.
http://natchezdemocrat.com/news/2008/apr...
Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This story is a complete waste of space. Campaign signs in certain locations???? All candidates do it, some accidentally, some on purpose. It's done everywhere, not just in Natchez. Usually it's completely harmless. What a complete waste of effort. In no way, do these signs represent the character of ANY candidate. They all have signs in illegal locations, most don't even know it.
Posted by nowHEARthis (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a little like underage drinking, smoking one joint isn't eagle. It doesn't harm anybody even if it is against the law. Right? Everyone else does it.
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeah hitormiss--and it is entirely due to Phillip's leadership--rah rah rah.
Gimme a break.
Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO Rantnrave......It's not at all like that. Making that comparison is absolutely idiotic. Smoking a joint and putting a campaign sign on the side of the road are two completely and totally different things.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good Point !
Posted by ou812 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Signs? Colors of signs? The election will be won on demographics, not signs or location of signs! The two white guys will split the white vote and Mayor West will be re-elected. This isn't rocket science! A furniture store owner/manager split the vote last time or else Sue Stedmond would be Mayor today! Do not construe these comments as racially negative. Candidates represent their constituents. Popularity has overcome integrity and credibilty in today's politics! Regardless, the process provides for fair representation of the population. The only fault lies with corrupt redistricting of voters.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ou812...Uh...the white candidates won't be running against each other...how will they divide the white vote? Not getting into the race thing, just questioning your logic.
BTW...I know that the racial component exists, but it shouldn't, and every time we bring it up we just reinforce it. We should all be working for Natchez and not against each other!
Redistricting, unfortunately, is in the hands of the victors...I find the Ward 3 lines particularly ridiculous.
Posted by ou812 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, we have a democrat, republican and an independent running for mayor. I apologize for my ignorance, but which part am I confused on? Again, I previously stated that my comments were not based on racial slurs, but based on representation of our population. That's entirely different. Our cities population happens to be about 50/50!
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ou812, Who is the Republican running?
Posted by ou812 (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, just went back and read that Mr. Middleton is registered democrat! My mistake!
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ou812, Ok. Thanks. He's a Democrat, huh? That equals LIBERAL. No wonder his posters here hate the Garden District.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 3, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ou812...the party affiliations and the Democratic primary before the general elections must change your evaluation, eh? That's why I questioned...not trying in anyway to put you down...we all make mistakes...even OldGrandDad...LOL.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 3, 2008 at 1:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ou812...Google your demographics again...I cited the demographics in a previous post in another blog, but from what I recall the black percentage is about 54%, the white percentage was about 40%, the remainder being various persuasions, not that they aren't important too.
These percentages only become important if people vote according to race. I certainly hope they won't and don't...it destroys us all! Vote for the best candidate and person, not for party or race!
BTW, your handle was a good album by Van Halen.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 3, 2008 at 1:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh come on, Sam. I knew the parties. I was just funnin'. Besides, Democrats ain't all bad. Just most of 'em.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 3, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(Sam) Again you are throwing out a little "smoke"? We all know the best independent thinker? Some people, as you know, still can't see past their "nose"! We'll know soon enough? I've contacted family and approximately 100 plus voters. I hope that it helps!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 3, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OldGrandDad...I was just pullin your leg...and some of my best friends are democrats...although I've never understood why...LOL
rushinghjr...smoke?...I'm not sure what you mean.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)