"Are Election Signs an Essential Part of Democracy or Just a Visual Nuisance?"

nn the last election less than 30% of the public came out to vote. In October, 4 of the Councillors were acclaimed. Oakville has also become a far more diverse community. We have many residents for whom, English is a second language. We desperately need to get more people engaged in local government. This is not just to vote, but also to stand for office.

One of the biggest challenges is the power of incumbency. Existing members of Council are front and centre on cable tv and media interviews. They get introduced at community events (and the opportunity to speak). This includes activities such as a tree lighting or Canada Day. They are also asked to speak to community groups and ratepayer associations. Then there is the taxpayer funded community newsletter that comes out every 6 months. Yes it is important to keep residents informed. But again the incumbent is front and centre. In fact, one of the newsletters is sent out to every resident in June, just before the campaign starts (September) during election years. In the case of the Mayor, he gets to deliver a State of the City Address.

There is also the Town website that provides a visual and digital access to the Councillor. Communication and accessibility to our elected officials is essential. They are also critical in ensuring accountability. But at the same time, it also provides them access to an incredible level of visibility to the electorate on an ongoing basis. For a person running for office for the first time, they have access to none of these opportunities (many of which are essentially paid for by the taxpayer). They have to spend significant dollars, pound the pavement, knock on doors and try to connect with the voter. They don't get invited on the stage at Canada Day or introduced at a community event like Lake Notes. They don't get a taxpayer funded news letter distributed to every household 3 months before the election campaign starts.

Signs are for many the only affordable communication vehicle where the election playing field is level between and incumbent and a new person running for office (with exception to the highly structured and scripted and very few candidates debates). Yes for a few weeks, Oakville looks cluttered and yes sometimes rules are broken with regard to placement. The proposal limits election signs to private home owners. How does that work for apartments or condos? But again think about this. If you are a homeowner, you got a newsletter from your councillor, good chance you know who they are. So again there maybe a built in benefit, bias to the incumbent.

Any discussion, on restricting election signs needs to include, a reduction or limit to the benefits of incumbents. For example should they be allowed to speak a community events (particularly in election years) should we prohibit news letters during election years. Should the State of the Town Address not be held during election years and turned into a debate between candidates.

The real discussion needs to be about attracting candidates, particularly from our diverse communities. It needs to deal with language and cultural barriers. It needs to address low voter turn out and removing barriers to voting and information.

At its core, by stating the issue is a problem with election signs cluttering up the streets, in of it self, is an indirect benefit to an incumbent.

One last thing to think about, the any decision to limit election signs, rests with an incumbent politician, who was either acclaimed or elected by less than 30% of the electorate. Effectively they are getting to potentially limit how a future challenger can communicate to the electorate if they try to run for office.