Sign City?

12 Oct

With less than two weeks to go before the election, the sign wars are in full swing around Vaughan. We went out and shot a sampling in Ward 5, where a variety of colours (and potential political affiliations) are well represented. With some candidates complaining of sign tampering, the colourful election materials have become a hot issue. What do you think readers: Do signs make a difference in terms of which candidate you choose? Which ones catch your eye? Are you sick of them by now? Leave us your comments!


(Note: your email address is required, but will not be published)


6 Responses to “Sign City?”

  1. Richard Leong October 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM #

    Election signs do serve several purposes.

    Firstly, with the two little letters “Re” they tell us who is an incumbent and who is trying to be elected for the first time.

    Then, the colour of the signs is significant. Since municipal politics does not apply the party system used at the provincial and federal levels, the colours of signs used by municipal candidates is an indication of their party “affiliation”. Voters often vote for the party that they traditionally support, so the colour of candidate signs plays a role in assisting them in determining who they should support.

    Finally, election signs provide a degree of name recognition in the consciousness of voters.

    Despite all of the above, I think that election signs are a blight on the landscape and a distraction to drivers to whom they are primarily directed.

    Let’s face it, the number of signs that are erected are meant to imply the level of support that a candidate claims to enjoy. And, in that light, I don’t think that candidates (and their volunteers) should be allowed to plant their signs at will (even within guidelines) on public property.

    For there to be meaning to the number of signs posted, each sign should reflect a formal permission granted by the property owner.

    As a compromise, maybe one sign on ONE corner of an intersection should be allowable. But on all FOUR corners is excessive!

    I enjoy going around my neighborhood seeing the various signs on my neighbors lawns. It tells me who they support individually and in combination for various positions. It also provides me with a sense of support for specific candidates. This is important so I can evaluate for myself if I should consider voting strategically to try to prevent a disliked candidate from prevailing.

    So, in summary, I do support the notion of election signs. But, I think that the rules governing them need to be strengthened so that their use can be more meaningful.

  2. Illya Marchak October 13, 2010 at 8:31 PM #

    I agree with Richard Leong that the signs should “reflect a formal permission granted by the property owner”. However I have to disagree on some things. For example, I think that these signs serve as a reminder to the public that there is an upcoming election and that they should start learning about their candidates. If we did not have the signs on public property I don’t think that as many people would come out to vote. So although, much to my dislike, every intersection now looks like a fruit salad, I think that it’s a necessary evil. In addition, as far as I understand the candidates are responsible for the removal of the signs after the election (which makes it a temporary necessary evil). Speaking of being evil, I think that it would be quite funny if the losing candidates had to remove the winning candidate’s posters as well.

    With regards to the questions posed in the post, I think that the most eye-catching poster is Linda Jackson’s. Will I vote for her? Probably not, but it’s the most eye catching. Will the posters affect my voting decision? YES! For example, before I saw Rob Mileto’s poster I was indifferent to him. However after I saw his claim of being “A Hero in Vaughan” I almost bent over laughing, and decided I will never vote for a candidate that makes (in my opinion) preposterous, and untactful claims. And come on, who calls themselves a hero?

    So I definitely think that posters affect people’s decision, but it may not always be in the way that the candidate expects.

  3. Robert Craig October 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM #

    Have had alot of good comments on my signs, especially the new ones. It is unfortunate that with the six hundred out in the city that you could not find one to take a picture of and tag like you did for the seven regional council candidates listed.

    • vaughanelection October 15, 2010 at 3:10 PM #

      Hey Robert. Can you send us a pic? As the post said, Josh was in Ward 5 for those pics so perhaps he just didn’t see any there? Email me a pic and we’ll add it (Same goes for other candidates reading this!) -AD

  4. Scarlett October 19, 2010 at 10:57 PM #

    As a graphic designer, most of these signs make me cringe. the best sign out there is Maurizo Bevilacqua’s (and I don’t even like him.) He has 2 colours, one type face, and 2 words on his sign. It’s kind of genius. His name and what he’s running for is just the right amount of info. Half of the stuff people put on their signs you need to be standing in front of to read.


  1. What’s my Stand? « Evoke Change - October 19, 2010

    […] neighbourhood I drive through I’ve noticed an overwhelmingly powerful display of lawn signs! Vaughan Today describes the phenomenon as Sign City and asks the question; do lawn signs make a difference on who […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: