Monday, November 6, 2017


In their "heart of hearts" most candidates/issue advocates believe that whichever side has the greatest number of campaign signs out alongside our roadways, streets and avenues is going to be the winner come election day.

The Stark County Political Report can provide anyone who is interested plenty of examples of election contests that the lesser number of signage won the day with voters.

For example, in 2002, Democrat R.A. Mallonn (currently, Canton city auditor) ran for county commissioner against Republican Richard Regula (currently a county commissioner) far out-paced Regula in putting up roadside campaign signs.

But look at the results:

Some will argue that the result was a consequence of Richard Regula being the son of the then 16th congressional district congressman.

And that may be so.

However, the point is the "weakness" of campaign signs as a focus of anybody's political campaign.

Unfortunately, there are all too many "totally unprepared" voters who appear to base their votes primarily on their perception of which side has the most signs out.

Fortunately, most voters require something other than signs upon which to base their votes.  But usually that "something" is not a whole lot more.

On The Washington Post masthead is:  "Democracy Dies in Darkness."

To the degree that voters vote primarily if not solely in response to:
  • campaign road signs,
  • political party i.d.,
  • gender,
  • race,
  • sexual preference,
  • appearance,
  • unvetted campaign positions, and
    • the like,
they are part of darkness that threatens the continued viability of our cherished democratic-republican form of government.

Even "informed" voters can turn out to have made a "not good for the country, state, or local community" decision once a given candidate takes office and fails to deliver for the common good.

However, the chance of a "best choice" goes up with preparation in the form of informing oneself of the pros and cons of candidates/issues using credible sources.

As the investigation of allegations that the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russia shows, whether proven to be true or untrue, it is important that voters who work at being informed voters must check out reliability of sources of candidate/issue information before making a decision on how to vote on the relative merits of a candidate/issue.

Recent revelations about Facebook and Twitter postings on the 2016 presidential campaign show clearly that the Russians were big time players with fake news about the two major presidential candidates.

Taking two examples, one statewide and one for North Canton school district voters, the SCPR cites sources for Stark County voters to consult in determining how to vote on the merits (in a particular voter's perception) on those issues.

As SCRP readers know, primary sources for a dispassionate Stark County voters' consideration of candidates/issues ought to be:
Second on the priority list ought to be considering the opinions of those of us who closely following Stark County government and politics like, if I may say so:
  • the SCPR,
    • The Repository editorial board,
    • The Akron Beacon Journal editorial board, and
      • their like,
Last on the list, if considered at all, would be:
  • propagandistic sent by "snail mail" campaign literature (unexamined, untested), 
  • campaign websites, and, of course,
  • campaign roadside signs
Vote tomorrow BUT make sure that it is a vote based on reliable, credible information!

No comments: