The 2022 candidates for office at all levels littered the landscape with roadside signs, many of which remained in place for over a week after the Nov. 8 election.
I am certain of that time lapse because I lost patience on Nov. 17, at which time I removed and recycled 31 of them. I am confident that most, perhaps all, candidates would publicly object to both litter and wasted resources but their signs constitute both. The litter factor is self-evident and the large majority of signs are constructed of plastic; all are mounted on metal frames. The frames, at least, could be recycled, but plastic is with us forever.
Moreover, their marketing efficacy is highly doubtful, at best limited to name recognition for all candidates but offering virtually no information, not even party affiliation, to differentiate one from the other. The same could be said of the plethora of campaign mailers, many of which, based on my observations at the Wilton Post Office, were tossed into the trash receptacles, likely unread. I can’t estimate the proportion of campaign contributions allocated to either the signs or mailers, but am certain that neither produced any measurable return on investment as assessed by votes gained.
In an era when electronic communication is the dominant information source, I can see no justification for candidates’ reliance on either of these antiquated and ineffective forms of communication. I have no doubt they would be better served using the internet to far more effectively target their constituencies and differentiate themselves from opponents.
Ruth Smith
Wilton