A while back at Crosscut, Casey Corr asked some questions about the use of yard signs in local political campaigns. That's a topic worth considering as Labor Day comes to a close and sign activity in assorted local races picks up.

A couple points about Corr's query:

1) Somewhat contrary of Corr's ultimate assessment, signs actually can be a valuable part of local campaigns, particularly those with no TV time. An effective sign campaign can establish name ID for a little known candidate. Name ID is more important than many people think in down-ballot races where voters have less information than when they vote for high profile contests. A good sign effort can also create a positive impression for a race, particularly when a campaign starts with a modest but respectable base of signs then builds toward a peak of sign coverage. This demonstrates a campaign in motion, gaining support, and building momentum as the race unfolds.

2) Corr does make a prudent point that good sign coverage does not equal a good election outcome. Bluntly, message matters. The best statewide sign campaigns in recent memory were Linda Smith in 1998 and John Carlson in 2000. We know how those turned out.

A campaign can get everything right as described in point #1 and still fail, sometimes miserably. Other, more substantive points of voter contact matter, including doorbelling, mail, and phone calls, not to mention local media coverage in assorted civic races. Never underestimate the power of good coverage in a well-read local weekly. Regular voters read such things, especially the further away you get from an urban population center. Even the voter pamphlet statement can have a major impact in the era of absentee voting in local, down ballot races where fundraising capacity for other forms of voter contact is small.

Interestingly, the sign war fetish is largely a creature of the Republican side of the aisle, despite Corr's admission of his own interest in them during his own campaign. A not inconsequential number of Republican activists love yard signs...I mean absolutely L-O-V-E them...especially big ones. They get grumpy if they don't believe their candidate is getting enough up, even if that candidate is still thumping the relevant Democrat's sign coverage.

A couple unnamed local Republican campaigns have even been accused of reaching the point of diminishing returns, where sign coverage was so obnoxiously ubiquitous it turned voters off. As Corr notes, there are always a vocal few who object to even legally placed signs. They're nuts, you can't worry about either them or the dedicated few (usually minors) who make destroying signs a personal hobby. But annoying voters en masse is usually a bad thing.

Notably, Republicans have been winning sign wars in partisan races here in Snohomish County for years, but losing most of the actual elections. There may be a lesson there about the need for better candidates and an agenda that appeals to voters.

Message does indeed matter. In local non-partisan races where voter attention is more limited signs are indeed a great tool. But at some point, as Corr himself discovered, there are bigger dynamics at play.

A few final thoughts: Like Corr, I used Boruck Printing for my own 2005 campaign for Charter Review Commission. Great price, excellent product, pretty good service. And I too agree plastic beats cardboard. It's not even close.

Lastly, do make the sign all about either the first or last name. Don't clutter them up; that includes gratuitous use of multiple colors. Everything else required by the PDC should be just large enough to read if the viewer looks really close (Hint: most don't). This isn't a broadsheet you're putting out on the side of the road, you're just trying to drill a name into people's heads. Dino Rossi's signs in 2004 were a great example of such design in action.