By Rit Carter

Following a long, hot summer, fall brings a welcomed seasonal change with its beautiful colors, cool temperatures, hot tea, tag sales, football, and, of course, those political lawn signs.

They appear suddenly and in clusters, almost like an invasive species. Some, though, are outliers, popping up in unlikely locations by themselves; it is almost as if they have gone rogue.

The signs of today, a wireframe contraption that appear on front lawns, became part of the suburban landscape in the 1960s. However, their origins can be traced back to the ancient Romans who promoted candidates with paintings on their walls.

In the United States, they first appeared in John Quincy Adams’s days and the Presidential election of 1828.

Signs come in a variety of colors, sizes, and appearances. Generally, candidates opt for the safe red, white, and blue scheme. Presumably, it makes them more patriotic than their un-American opponent.

But in Bristol this year, office seekers explored the color palette. Green and white, red, dark blue, and even pink sprinkled in. For my money, Mayor Jeffrey Caggiano’s sign, with its cool-looking font, and Rippy Patton’s stylish logo, were the best ones.

Political lawn signs bring out interesting reactions in candidates and the electorate alike.

In 1971, Bristol Democratic City Council Alec Kaminsky displayed no signs during the campaign season because they “defaced the land.”

In 1980, the city council asked the ordinance committee to consider limiting the number and size of campaign signs because it had gotten out of hand.

This was followed by a 1990 controversy over several signs being too big.

Through it all, there is one certainty: every year, signs are defaced or stolen because some people think nothing of infringing on the First Amendment rights of others, especially those with whom they disagree.

Many signs lack imagination because they have a name and little of anything else. So, why have them?

The 2015 study “The effects of lawn signs on vote outcomes” conducted by Electoral Studies concluded they do. “Signs typically have a modest effect on advertising candidates’ vote shares — an effect that is probably greater than zero but unlikely to be large enough to alter the outcome of a contest that would otherwise be decided by more than a few percentage points,” they wrote.

Translation, in a close race, they matter.

Laura Bailey photos

As you go out and vote today, have a good look around. Several signs will never be seen again, while others will reappear in the same location as a perennial.

---

All TBE readers, supporters and donors                

The Bristol Edition will be limiting the number of stories non-members and free readers may access each week. This decision is based on our financial projections and, most certainly, to remind people that TBE is serious about providing accurate, timely and thorough reporting for Bristol. To do this we have devised a financial support structure that makes unlimited access extremely affordable, beginning with a $6 monthly donation.                

• Non-members will be able to access four (4) articles per week.                
• Free readers and people who have subscribed by email will be able to access four (4) articles per week.                
• Donors and financial supporters will have unlimited access as long as they log in.                

Note: Donors may have to contact TBE if they find they are being limited, since we will need to set up a membership account for you. Email editor@bristoledition.org for instructions. Sorry for any inconvenience. People with financial difficulties may write editor@bristoledition.org to be considered for free access.