Democracy can be complicated, at times it is noisy, messy and disruptive. Sometimes the democratic process does not fit neatly into the peace and tranquillity that many of us wish for in our lives. Every four years the issue of election signs resurfaces. It is an important issue, and it is disappointing to hear the voices of those that would put their aesthetic sensibilities ahead of an important part of the electoral process.
After every election, we hear grave concerns about low voter turnout and the need to increase residents’ participation. In the last municipal election, only 37% of eligible voters in Oakville cast a ballot. We need to use every tool at our disposal to engage citizens and encourage them to participate in the democratic process.
I have heard the comment from residents that if it wasn’t for the signs, they wouldn’t even know there was an election. Election signs create awareness, the first step towards engagement. That alone should be enough to put the discussion to rest.
In the last municipal election, only 37% of eligible voters in Oakville cast a ballot.
Many candidates will tell you that they hate election signs. They are expensive, and installing, maintaining, and removing signs requires significant time and resources. However, candidates will also tell you that signs are a vital component of a successful election campaign. Signs create a level of awareness of the candidates and the issues in the minds of the local electorate that no other medium can provide.
In order for democracy to work, there must be a fair and level playing field. Municipal politicians seeking re-election have inherent advantages over other candidates. Incumbents have had the opportunity and resources to enhance their name recognition, public profile and develop important contacts in the community. Limiting the ability to display signage creates an uneven playing field and gives an advantage to an incumbent over someone seeking office for the first time.
Other than complaints related to “clutter” I have heard two other concerns regarding election signs. The first “driver distraction” is a red herring.
The current regulations related to election signs require setbacks and placement restrictions that minimize the potential for driver distraction. Of all the collisions I have read about over the years, I cannot recall a vehicular collision caused by an election sign. (I will be submitting a request to Halton Regional Police for statistical data regarding vehicle accidents in 2018, the last year a municipal election was held in Oakville.)
The second concern is about the cost to the Town related to election signs. Candidates do pay a permit fee to display election signs and that offsets some of the Town’s costs. The Town already has staff and resources in place, so allocating costs is really an administrative shuffle. The incremental cost to the Town is minimal compared to the importance of an open and fair election.
In the spirit of balance and compromise the following are some suggestions regarding simple changes to the current regulations that may help address the aesthetic concerns expressed by some residents:
- Increase spacing between election signs from the same candidate from 10 metres to 20 metres.
- Reduce the period election signs are permitted from 45 to 30 days prior to voting day.
- Better, more timely enforcement of the current regulations.
- Limiting areas where election signs are permitted forces signs to be concentrated in relatively small areas. Expanding the areas where election signs are permitted would reduce the concentration of signs.
- Publish the names of candidates and the number of their non-conforming signs removed by Town officials.
Please do not let the loud voices of a few that would put their aesthetic sensibilities ahead of a healthy, vibrant democracy persuade you to further limit a vital aspect of the election process.
