Voting

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I am so insulted by election signs that only have a name and a party. Evidently they must assume that most voters will vote by name recognition, policies are irrelevant? I think it is safe to say that most voters know almost nothing about the issues or the policies of the candidates. So why not have a skill testing question about the candidate you are voting for, and the parties policies. If you get it right, your vote counts, if wrong, the vote is void. And ideally, allow the competition write the questions.

That way, I could still vote for someone just because he has nice hair, and I've heard his name in the media a lot, but when I can't answer how he plans to pay for all of the promises, my vote doesn't count.

[burnt]

AlbertaFarmer5 - A brilliant summation of the process! I've often had similar thoughts - what, exactly, is the purpose of poking a thousand signs into the ground on a busy intersection or open country mile? Wow, are we so intelligent that we might be influenced and who has the biggest of most signs?

The only problem with your proposal is that it would disenfranchise a lot of low-information voters. You know, the ones who help elect to one who makes the biggest, emptiest promises.

Oh wait...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Perhaps there is an election law forbidding any useful information on a sign?

[perfecho]

I dislike the signs as well, but I certainly disliked the radio adds.
The Conservative adds here started early, the "He's not ready"...got tired of them real quick. During the campaign, I actually had considered not voting, because they all stunk...and the last few days were the worst.
I really wished we didn't have "parties"...just people.

[mustardman]

Around here the Bigger the Sign, the less intelligent the candidate.

My Cypress Hills-Grasslands encumbent Always has Huge signs