Roadside political signs
 

I am about to post a topic that could quickly spiral into an ideological contest of particular candidates or political views. But I would ask that all resist the urge to tunnel into those topics and instead keep the topic at the generic level: specifically discussing the pros, cons, and views of roadside political signs, regardless of the party or candidate.

(Webmaster: if this does spiral into political demagoguery, please feel free to delete quickly)

This week, while driving the stretch of Rt. 28 between Alton and Wolfeboro, I noticed that one candidate’s supporters have installed at least 100+ roadside signs along the way. The signs are in clusters of 6-10, every half mile or so. I find this interesting and annoying on many levels;

• I believe that the placement of the majority of the signs is in violation of NH law, albeit one commonly overlooked. Namely, New Hampshire law (RSA 664:17). It states that campaign signs should not be placed on either private or public property (including highway rights-of way) without the consent of the land owner, and they are not allowed on state highway rights-of-way.
• Given many of these are clearly on state-owned land or ROW’s, I find it hard to believe that permission was requested or granted. Why would I want to vote for someone who doesn’t follow our laws?
• Many of these areas are filled with litter (over and above the signs themselves…my view). If those placing the signs can’t take the time to pick up the area while they are planting their signs, why would I want to vote for them?
• Given the NH political season stretches into Feb/March, it’s a given these signs will be buried in snow and ice that will not see the light of day until April. This will make it difficult for them to remove them within a week after the election is over (another RSA), at which point they become litter that will use our tax dollars to clean up. See vote questions above.
• I’ve always wondered about the voters who might be swayed by a roadside sign. While the occasional lawn posting may make me think about researching a candidate further before entering the voting booth, is anyone really swayed by seeing the same sign a dozen times in 100 yards? If so, do we really want them voting? ;-)

While a lot of this is clearly posted tongue in check, I am curious to know if others are as annoyed as I am by the blooming signage during the (seemingly never-ending) political season.

I was really put over the edge during the last election when a neighbor plastered his lakefront with these signs. I had to view them every time I came into dock, rather than enjoying the normal beauty of our shoreline and the Lakes Region.

No politician ever received my vote due to roadside signage, though some have lost it as a result. How effective can they be versus the downside of litter, ugly vistas, and cost?

What do others think?

Merry meeting: I haven't been up that stretch of road in quite a while so I don't know which candidate is represented on the signs you reference. However, my guess is that this is a candidate/party you don't support. Thus, the signs are extra annoying to you. Am I correct?

It's unfortunate but people running for office are so anxious to get their name/face/message out, they use behaviors that they would normally criticize when done by other people or for other activities. Legislators have exempted themselves from the 'do-not-call' rules. Public servants are afraid to remove illegally placed signs to avoid political retribution.

I guess you can call it 'situational entitlement.' Myself, I consider it a form of corruption but I can't think of a practical way to stop it.

Litter
 

I would be happy to see a ban on political signs. They create a mess and I assume that our tax dollars end up funding the litter removal after the campaign, or the winter, which ever comes later.

I would not make a political decision based on yard signs but there are many "low information voters" who will never watch a political debate and spend little or no time watching the news to keep themselves well informed. And, unfortunately they vote. It is just my opinion but if there were an intelligence test to qualify to vote many elections would turn out entirely different.

Here is an example of a real talk show with a low information voter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpCHvHWUAvw

Those signs plus bumper stickers are probably the number one way people learn a candidates name.

Most people don't watch the news, those that do are exposed to Bruce Jenner's change to Caitlyn, an update on the Kardashians and a lesson on how to cook a hot dog. Most candidates are responsible with them, some are not, but bottom line they are protected by the first amendment.

Very few people actual seek out, or even care what is going on.

"Given many of these are clearly on state-owned land or ROW’s, I find it hard to believe that permission was requested or granted. Why would I want to vote for someone who doesn’t follow our laws? "

Don't think the signs bother you......you just don't like the candidate.

Political signs
 

Maybe political signs should have a 'season', with a date before which no political signs are allowed in public, and a date after which no political signs are allowed in public, sort of like the 'season' for ice houses, or hunting.

We held a garage sale one year and stapled a sign to a utility post and within one hour someone brought the sign to us saying it was illegally posted on the utility pole.

I agree with you, merrymeeting, this thread has all the potential to sink into a discussion of personalities, not signs. Let's hope not.

You don't pay for my welfare she says? Obama does, it comes from his stash which comes from the illegal aliens?? I have heard Obama's stash before but never the illegal aliens paying for it part. People really are numb aren't they!!!?? If you didn't listen to this, you should.

I agree the signs are messy and most of them are illegal but it has gone on forever and almost never enforced. They do need to get their names out there. And for people like the above low information voter, it is probably the only way they are ever going to hear of some of these people. Although I agree, you shouldn't vote if you are uninformed. They do have a limited number of days to pick the signs up (is it 30?).

I wish we could ban them all , along with realestate signs and the like.....Nothing but litter

I was annoyed the minute the signs went up along route 28 between Wolfeboro and Alton. The number of them is ridiculous and I immediately thought who is going to return and remove them? They're already falling down and will be buried once the snow flies. I have no beef with the candidate - just the person who decided to litter the roadside.

FWIW, to the prior posters,

The signs on 28 are actually for a candidate that I would consider at this point. But the excessive behavior shown by one of the candidates support groups might cause me to reconsider. In the case of the lakefront one, it was someone I actually voted for. Just didn't like it in my face for 6 months.

As I stated, I did not intend for this to be for or against any one candidate or party, rather the practice. I think the signs are an eyesore, ineffective, and in most cases, illegally placed.

Perhaps if enough people emailed the political machines that drive this advertising madness, with links to threads such as this one, and suggesting "negative advertising," the bright camaign managers out there might be persuaded to advise their workers to tune it down some. But I fear that some statistic will show that there is more to be gained by saturation exposure than lost by overdoing it.

The only other ways to do something would be to lean on current office holders to put pressure on the campaigns. I'd like to see such an official word go out, saying: "Make your signs comply with law, or the town will pull down all offending signs and send the campaign the bill for doing so." But then current office holders may well be running again and don't want to set a precedent. Ah.

Then I guess it would be up to those of us who don't want to see sign saturation to do some midnight enforcement. How likely is that to happen?

Who is the candidate?

I just ignore them and go on with my life, must work they don't bother me. :D Isn't it also a law their supposed to come down within a certain amount of time after said elections are over?

"illegally" placed is pushing it, we (all) "break" laws everyday, Do you EVER cross the street not within a crosswalk?

Be a cheerleader for NH
 

In my area, the state highway dept picks up signs the next work day after they are put on the state ROW. On local roads they mostly get left alone. For local elections, state Rep, selectman, school board, the candidates pick up their signs the day after the election. Somehow, they must informally agree not to put signs up before a certain date. Then, a few crocuses can be seen and a week later the yards are filled with color. Happens every spring.

Obviously, signs are effective, and it's only once every four years that the "paid volunteers" come around. I'm happy to have NH as "First in the Nation" and if a few signs encourage people to come here and rent cars and hotel rooms and eat in our restaurants, I'm happy for that too.

In June 2004, my wife and I were eating in a restaurant on an island off the coast of Scotland. Learning that we were from NH, the owner wanted to know all about the NH Primary. We're famous worldwide. Who knew? I told him it is as much an industry as a political event and it brings great favorable publicity to our small state. How else could we get 6 networks to stand in front of a bandstand or a white church and tell the world how friendly and engaged the people of NH are?

OK here's my take. Signs = Advertising. Obviously some people respond to that, while others may be turned off by it. Now I leave it to any thoughtful person to come to a conclusion as to whether the volume of signs is really a proper measuring stick for choosing our next leader, but make no mistake about it, they wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. Some elections have come down to a handful of votes and with margins that can be razor thin yeah candidates will do whatever it takes to get as many votes as they can. That means tons of signs. We should have a contest, how many signs will be posted on that stretch of road the day before the NH Primary. Bet it would be in the thousands.

Hopefully by nowthe OP has found something new to be offended by. Maybe we should simply not allow anyone to campaign in any manner whatsoever and then we can vote by the alphabet as they seem to do in Mississippi.

I am very confident that no quality election in history was won with roadside signs.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

And just when was the last time we had a quality election?

To be debated, but I'd start with the following qualifiers: 1. Substance over snippets, 2. Character vs. Cult of Personality, 3. A pensive population.

None of these involve sidewalk signs (or alliteration!).

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

He didn't say he was offended, and he didn't link it to the rest of the campaign. Most people I know consider it trash, and a lot of it turns out to be just that.

Actually if it were not for road side campaign signs 97% of the American population (our wonderful low information voters who neither read nor watch any news broadcasts)) would never know that there even was an election nor who was running.

Seems simple enough to have registered candidates post a bond to pay for sign removal. But, the ones in office would have to vote and pass such a measure so almost certain it wouldn't happen.

roadside signs
 

I know EXACTLY what signs you mean and where. I think they look tacky, and are totally unnecessary. One sign would do the job and look better than these clusters. I know it isn't the actual politician putting them up but it still makes me question them.

Did you know that 84% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

[QUOTE=Merrymeeting;254367]
[*]I believe that the placement of the majority of the signs is in violation of NH law, albeit one commonly overlooked. Namely, New Hampshire law (RSA 664:17).It states that campaign signs should not be placed on either private or public property (including highway rights-of way) without the consent of the land owner, and they are not allowed on state highway rights-of-way.

[*]Given many of these are clearly on state-owned land or ROW’s, I find it hard to believe that permission was requested or granted.[/B]

From the very same RSA that you are using...

Where can political signs be posted?

RSA 664:17 regulates the placement of political advertising.

Public property – no political advertising shall be placed or affixed to any public property including highway rights-of-way

Private property – requires the owner's consent

Utility poles/highway signs – no political advertising is allowed

State-owned rights-of-way – political advertising is allowed as long as the advertising does not obstruct the safe flow of traffic and the advertising is placed with the consent of the owner of the land over which the right-of-way passes


Don't get me wrong, I dislike the "trash" on the side of the road as much as the next guy, unfortunately they are legal.

Source:
http://doj.nh.gov/election-law/faq.htm#signs

$
 

Every election I always think to myself it must be a good year to be a sign company.

Its called a SWAG, :laugh:

And 5/4s of people surveyed don't understand fractions.

Professional input
 

To brk-lnt and ITD
I know we're getting off course, but, as a professional in the business ($100 less taxes and license plate fees) the % of statistics made up on the spot is just below a supermajority, 57.8%. The 84% applies only to the second amendment and Planned Parenthood. In those two instances, 84% could be accurate for both sides of both issues. In the FITN primary, I believe the national candidates rely on something less than a supermajority, 42.6%, as I recall. I'm sure Quinnipiac has the exact number based on age, sex, and which Winnipesaukee Island you were born on. To my knowledge, none of the major candidates has professed to being a fisherman. We therefore must assume the ruler in their pictures really is 12" long, and is not one of those specialty rulers sold in bait shops alongside the 1/2 metric scales. LOL

True but only if you make sure you are paid when the order is taken.

While I'm not a fan either, banning them would violate free speech and if you start going down that road where do you stop? Suck it up and just ignore them.