What good do political signs do?

Factual Questions
1

Advertisements persuade us subconsciously, even though most of us are aware of it. Hi, Googleads. :rolleyes:
If we are bombarded with ten Coke ads instead of ten Pepsi ads today, we actually are more likely to pick up a Coke than a Pepsi at the 7-11 at lunch (I know, you may prefer one to the other, but you get me).
But what’s the deal w/ political ads for candidates? I’m not talking about the TV ads that smear or praise them- those are obviously useful- I’m talking about the ones that you stick in the ground all over the place.

WTF?:smack: It’s not like Coke and Pepsi, dumbass! If the American voting public is so f-ing stupid- which I know they aren’t- that they punch the hole for ---- instead of ---- b/c they saw more signs for ----- than they did for ---- while driving to work, the grocery store, on their neighbors lawns…

So what’s the point? It’s not like seeing the name actually prompts anyone to research the candidate(s)- either the voter is an informed one, or votes by party preference, or b/c of television/newspaper ads, or b/c of family/marriage/friends pressure to vote some way, or b/c of something they read (hi, Ayn Rand).

I say we petition these damn signs. Yeah, the ones you put in your lawn or business show your support for your candidate (like a bumper sticker does), but the rest are pointless and a waste of paper. Spend the money on your campaigns.

Oops- this isn’t the Pit- just a question of whether there’s a reason for them besides what I just mentioned.

2

Putting up signs increases ‘product visibility’. Voters may see a number of signs and find out for what the candidate stands. But I suspect that it may be a type of ‘herd mentality’ thing. People who don’t take the time to look into the candidates’ positions might, if they don’t automatically vote their party, vote for the guy whose signs they’ve seen most so as not to be a ‘loser’. If that’s the case, then the more signs a candidate has in an area the more likely he is to win.

But correlation does not equal causation. In those places where there are more signs for one candidate or another, the population (I think) is already going to vote for the one with the most signs and the signs are just showing how people are in the district are already going to vote.

3

I’m not sure if you’re talking about lawn signs or not, but either way:

Signs posted in public are also the easiest form of information for a low-interest viewer to acquire about local candidates. Around here, for instance, the lawn signs are always made up according to the colors of the political party… (blue for conservatives, generally, red for liberal, orangish for the new democrats etcetera,) and thus a voter who doesn’t research the local issues most but knows that he wants to vote NDP will look for an orange sign in his neighborhood and vaguely remember that name.

4

[QUOTE=andrewdt85]
If the American voting public is so f-ing stupid- which I know they aren’t- that they punch the hole for ---- instead of ---- b/c they saw more signs for ----- than they did for ---- while driving to work, the grocery store, on their neighbors lawns…

[QUOTE]

This is likely a Great Debates topic, but the key flaw in your analysis is that the signs motivate people to switch their vote. More likely they are meant to encourage people who would otherwise be unlikely to vote for either candidate. I suspect also the presence of signs in the commuity gives people who are inclined to vote for that candidate a sense that they are in-tune with local opinion, something that appeals to the usual “join the crowd” motive.

Someone will point out the the preponderance of signs usually appear at the polling place on election day, and as such they are meant to tempt likely votes (who else goes into polls on election day?) to switch their vote. I’d argue that the same motives are in place–some folks appear at the poll strictly out of a sense of civic duty, without a clue as to how they will vote–and think the sheer number of signs is due to overzealous campaign workers waging a war of escalation in one of the few large public areas where both sides can raise signs.

Yes, I hate the signs too, and given the familiar reports of the theft of campaign signsduring the 2004 election makes me think we’re not alone. one has to wonder if the only point of having these signs is so that they can be stolen by the opposition…

5

When you get your voting card, it says who’s for which party.

So seeing a colored sign and remembering the name is unnecessary. And, if you read my OP, you’ll see that I claim that either a voter is an informed one who knows about the guy, or isn’t, and a sign really never got anyone to go out and research a candidate.

“Ooh! Look at that sign! It’s blue, like my political affiliation! I’d better go research him, though, to make sure he’d be a good governor.”

[runs off to lab and runs tests like in that episode of Family Guy]

[runs back. Holds up fingers.]

“This many!”

6

Maybe yours does. I’m pretty sure that I’ve gotten some that don’t. :smiley: Maybe, again, a canada/US thing. If so… well, I’m sorry I wasted your time. :wink:

7

:smack: Ballot.

8

It makes sure you have seen his name 1000 times. Then if you see him talking about political issues, you have already heard his name, and are more likely to remember him. Without the ads, you see him on TV, you’ve never heard of him, and you’re more likely to forget him.

9

Wow. I guess more people read the signs than read OPs then, huh?

Maybe I should put my posts on signs next time.

10

Sans sarcasm, what I meant was that I’ve been arguing that it’s hard for me to believe that a large subset of voters in America vote based on how many times they’ve been bombarded w/ a certain candidates name, just like they are influenced by ads for Coke and Pepsi. That’s what I argued in my OP and subsequent posts- I feel that a lot of people are either influenced by party affiliation, or by commercials they see that talk about issues or smear a candidate, or by, as CJJ* says,

“I suspect also the presence of signs in the commuity gives people who are inclined to vote for that candidate a sense that they are in-tune with local opinion, something that appeals to the usual “join the crowd” motive.”

All of that makes sense, but saying that many- heck, any- Americans vote JUST BECAUSE of how many times they’ve seen or heard the name of a candidate, which is how ads get us to BUY CERTAIN BRANDS OF PRODUCTS OVER ANOTHER!!

seems hard to believe, that’s all. I’m sorry, I was just frustrated by several of you guys just leisurely assuming that that’s what happens, I know I should start a GD thread.

11

Not true in my state, and I think not true in most states. Besides, many voters - perhaps in higher numbers than for either major party in some places - are registered as independents or blanks or whatever the local equivalent is.

Nor are lawn signs around here color coded in as obvious a fashion as CJJ* stated. No signs are anywhere near polling places either.

A political sign isn’t necessarily out to convert anyone. It can simply be an expression of support. How many other ways can individual voters convey their support of a candidate to the public?

However, the other answers given here are good ones, and the assumptions given in your OP are mostly false.

Name recognition have been shown in after-election surveys to have a powerful correlation with the way people vote. A concentration of signs for one candidate in a neighborhood may signal that people like you, people who may have similar values and motives, have given their approval to a candidate they presumably feel will be good for the neighborhood. Conversely, a minority candidate’s sign may signal that your support is not against your neighborhood and increase the chances that you will vote if only to register a protest.

If the candidate is for a party other than the big two, it calls attention to the fact that more than just Republicans and Democrats are running and get you to look past those candidates. The percentage of people who only read the papers at election time is not inconsiderable.

And then the iron law of advertising is repetition, repetition, repetition.

In short, while lawn signs may not mean anything to you or to me, that doesn’t mean that they’re meaningless either. You don’t want to petition them. And, assuming you meant prohibit, you don’t want to throw out the First Amendment any time soon.

On preview. Everybody disagrees with you, so they must be wrong. I think you’d better take this elsewhere.

12

Lawn signs also tell you who is favoring a particular candidate. If I see a sign for Candidate X on the lawn of someone whose opinion I usually respect, I may give extra consideration to that candidate.

13

First off- did you see that I corrected myself by saying ‘ballot’ instead of ‘card’ after that post? What I was saying was, when you get your voting ballot, it says what party the candidates are for. And if someone is voting independent ‘or blanks or whatever’ then they surely know what they are going to vote beforehand, right?

Okay.

If you had read my OP- which you and many other Dopers never do, you just skim much of the thread and then post so as to impress others w/ your oh-so-humbling knowledge and wit- you would see that I say

By ‘the rest’, I should have clarified- I mean the ones that you see that AREN’T put up by home or business owners to show support, but are put there by campaigners to bombard you with the name many times, like on road dividers- you see the candidate’s sign dozens of times in a row as you drive along.

How about going over which assumptions I made are false? The assumptions that these signs are out to persuade people to a candidate, which I agree might not be the case? Be more specific instead of just sounding arrogant.

Good point; it was made about five other times in this thread before you said it, and once afterwards that I see upon preview. You folks are mostly here to throw in your knowledge to feel superior; you’re not here to learn or listen to what others have said, even.

That’s a good point.

The thing that puzzles me is how you can claim that my OP is full of false assumptions, yet you agree that these signs are ads out to persuade people. AND THAT’S WHAT I SAY IN MY OP. HOW ABOUT CLARIFYING INSTEAD OF JUST INSULTING ME?

I wasn’t serious about that.

It seems like you disagree with some points others have made, that many of you repeat what each other have said b/c no one reads threads or OPs, that most of you misunderstood that I wasn’t talking about LAWN ads but about NON-LAWN ads (b/c you hadn’t read my OP carefully enough), and that you agree with what I claim in the OP; and then you insult me, while not offering a constructive explanation of which assumptions in my OP are false.

I think you’d better take your arrogance and lack of thread reading elsewhere. :wink:

14

Advertising in America has conditioned people to name recognition.

In a major election (presidential, governor, U.S. senate) most people have already made up their mind before entering the voting booth. However, the ballot will also have a bunch of other races which, in more cases that we’d like to admit, the typical voter has not researched the positions of the candidates. Oftentimes, name recognition comes into play. Instead of withholding their vote, a lot of people will vote for a name they recognize. If name recognition swings 10% of the vote, it can be the difference between a win or a loss.

Name recognition is a big reason why incumbants hold such an advantage.

15

The stakes that hold up roadside signs make great, free kindling.

16

What other races?

To be honest, I’ve been old enough to vote in the last three elections, and I didn’t- first year b/c I had no desire to influence city or county law and I was having problems at college :smack: :wally, second year b/c the DMV hadn’t sent me a summons to go to traffic school for a ticket I’d gotten a year ago and I found out a year later and I missed traffic school one weekend and anyways I was having problems at college :smack: :wally, and this year b/c I don’t have a feeling about who should be governor or whatever and I don’t want to be, as we’re discussing, someone who votes on anything based on a sign or a commercial or party politics even (which I have none of), and I was having problems at college :smack: :wally which are now resolved.

So I don’t even know which other races you mean- you mean senator and congressmen, right? When it comes to filling out those, people just wing it based on what they’ve been saturated with most. I gotcha. I would too.

17

Don’t worry, andrew. Once you turn 18 they’ll have you vote, too.

18

And the signs themselves would make good hand fans if you’re stuck in traffic, I’d bet :D.

19

Are you telling us that you didn’t get up at 3 in the morning and turn on your radio to listen to the debate between the 2 guys running for deputy sheriff? You haven’t studied the policy statements of the candidates for 5th district circuit court judge? What kind of a citizen are you?

20

That, and I didn’t vote for the President or the governor of my state.

:frowning: