Sept 30th, 2009

Some of you may have already noticed that two of the parties contesting this municipal election have chosen not to put up traditional election signs, and that the third party simply did not have the means to put enough up to get noticed. All three pat themselves on the back by claiming not wanting to pollute our “visual” environment.

Take a walk in my district and you will quickly notice I do not subscribe to that theory.

Election signs play a vital role in getting people to vote. We are currently witnessing the lowest voter turnout rate of all time and now they want to make the democratic process even more obscure by getting rid of signs?

Most of us barely have a clue that there is going to be an election this November 1^st, let alone who our candidates are. Election signs are the Pavlovian bells that awaken the reflex of asking ourselves “who are our leaders, and what the hell do they do?”

I am starting to wonder if certain political players on the municipal scene don’t want us to know there is an election. These political fixers gain by limiting participation to a small core of supporters over whom they exercise tight control instead of risking a wider, more volatile electorate.

Signs also help inform voters on what district or riding they are in. Just by their geographic whereabouts, voters can tell at a glance what area they are in, who is running, and most importantly, that they will be able to exercise their right to vote soon.

It’s not the signs that voters are sick of; it’s of our leaders and their strategists who would rather keep the majority in the dark in order to try and secure their own victory.

As for my signs, 100% of the materials will be recovered, re-used or eventually recycled. Putting up signs does not mean avoiding our environmental responsibilities.