Pictures and politics

With the forest of signs growing larger each day, both here and London, I am wondering what the motivation is to either place your image on the sign, or to omit it? Do you include your image so that you can show the potential voters that you look trustworthy, that you have an honest face? On the flip side, if you don’t include your image, does it mean that you would rather not be seen by the voters? As I believe most candidates have websites, or at least brochures or leaflets with their image on it, does it come down to money? If you don’t have your likeness on the sign, does it mean you are financially responsibly? The same can be said about the size of the signs, does bigger mean anything, does it mean you can afford to spend more? Does it mean that size IS important?

In my ‘world’ I would have each candidate given a budget with which to advertise their wares as it were. How they chose to spend it would be up to them, but the voting public would know how much they had to spend and would be able to see what that money bought and how well it was used.

Would someone have large signs but only in certain high traffic places? What about lots of small signs? What about signs on cars? It would be a great way to see how financially responsible a candidate would be. How about not only being given a budget but the amount of money they had left the night before the election could show undecided voters would was either able to stretch the money the best or able to save the most.

I just had a great idea, what about paying someone on a bicycle (gotta go green) to ride around all day with a sign on a trailer? It would be cheap, create employment, and provide exercise! What about someone on roller blades? I got a million ideas, if only some of them were good ;)

Check Also

The coolest bar you don't know about!

My wife (the back end of the elephant) and myself (I like to think of …