Pollity poll poll

[docstrange]

A lot people are reporting the obviously partisan removal of political signs in MA with the upcoming election. I recall a lot of sign shenanigans around these parts in the 2008 elections. I'm curious about my readers and their general take on such things. So, a POLL

Comments

[ilcylic]

My "other" (not really a none of the above): "Use someone I found defacing a sign on my property as a baton fighting dummy".

[docstrange]

*snort*

Yeah, politics is really getting low around some of these parts. I don't know if it's nation-wide, but the apparent sense of entitlement to just mess up someone else's political expression around MA is stunning. Even around here, in the 2008 election we had "attack signs" - that is, signs of a candidate placed to utterly surround the opponent's.

[caladri]

That all (removing, surrounding, ...) was certainly common practice in Durham, North Carolina, in the mid-'90s, even being done by the candidates themselves. I'm surprised to hear that this represents any sort of change anywhere.

[docstrange]

Perhaps before your time there, but in the 1990 election, almost every voting machine in Durham and Orange counties turned out to be malfunctioning election day morning. That was the Jesse Helms vs. Harvey Gantt election.

What. A. Coincidence.

[maradydd]

I would not deface signs or steal them from private or public property, and I would not put up signs of my own on private property I didn't own, but I would put up signs of my own on public property.

I did that in grad school, actually; someone put up a bunch of signs in the humanities building advertising the next meeting of the Young Socialists, so I printed up signs advertising the next meeting of the Objectivist club and taped them up right next to the socialist meeting signs.

[docstrange]

Similarly, but perhaps a little more on the wry side, when the university put up "no smoking" signs in a location where no one had any problems with smokers (huge hall, smokers by some unstated consensus all sat at the end with outbound ventilation), I had the uni sign shop make some "no spitting" signs on the same material and font, and put them up right underneath.

[tezliana]

3. Other - I would curse under my breath at it. I would put a sign of my own next to it on public property.

[cruiser]

My "none of the above" (which I'm also interpreting as "other") includes two things:
1) If the sign I didn't like is on public property, I would certainly put up a sign of my preference, if it is legal to do so.
2) If the sign is on public property, but is posted in violation of relevant local election laws, I would report it to the local Board of Elections (who, of course, would do nothing) and the candidate's campaign office (who, of course, would also do nothing) - if it was still posted illegally after a few days, I'd pick it up and throw it away, since an illegally posted campaign sign is trash just as much as illegally posted advertising.

[keyne]

Yes, #2 was my answer -- it's not legal to put up political signs on public ways in either my previous or current towns in MA, as far as I know.

I had some trouble with your other questions as well. I'm probably a little more liberal than moderate overall (and definitely liberal on social issues). And I am registered Unenrolled but generally vote Democratic and identify with the Democratic Party; I am not, however, a "member", and have been known to vote for candidates for other parties. Dunno where that puts me in your poll.

[docstrange]

It seems to put you in the majority. ;-)

I chose those categories because they are the ones the news tends to report, figuring some or many would elect to explain out of them.

[rmjwell]

I'm a big believer in freedom of expression is for everyone, so I would leave the sign be and put my own view on display on my property.