Election Posters

AndrewJRenko

rubadub wrote: »

If you want to make it fair then ban any other advertising, no pamphlets in doors or advertising on bus stops.

Except that doesn't make it fair - that gives a distinct advantage to more established candidates over new candidates, as their faces would be better known. It would also give an advantage to wealthier candidates who can pay for commercial advertising on bus shelters and in local papers over community candidates who couldn't afford this.


Do we really want to be the best democracy money can buy?

rubadub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would also give an advantage to wealthier candidates who can pay for commercial advertising on bus shelters and in local papers over community candidates who couldn't afford this.

you were quoting me saying this any other advertising would not be allowed. I did go on to say this might be a step to far but I now think it is not, for the very reasons you and others gave.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do we really want to be the best democracy money can buy?

No -If I was a new candidate I would welcome my suggestions, a singular government issued booklet giving equal space in it to all candidates. No other form of advertising allowed like shelters or papers (seeing as some oddballs appear to be ticking a box like its a police lineup or something),. They might find some way to circumvent the law, like this new "public meeting" exploitation, but I think it is great that they are revealing themselves as basically law breakers, obviously going against the intent of the law. With this exploitation they can have posters up 365 days of the year.

People keep harping on about how posters "work", if some people are so idiotic that they studies are showing they truly do go into polling station and vote thinking number 1 means whose posters I have seen most than this crazy practice needs protecting against! not using this madness as a bloody defense for it!

At the moment many candidates are showing their complete and utter disrespect for the community, the council safety rules and for the ESB safety rules, which I think have been in place for over a decade now. It is fantastic that they are openly confessing how bad they are, if they do this publicly and are seemingly proud of it, then christ knows what rules, regulations and laws they will be breaking behind closed doors.

I had started a thread encouraging people to out them in my area, and name & shame them on their twitter accounts. The ESB have great interest on twitter and do appear to have removed some hazardous posters https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057976335

expectationlost

rubadub wrote: »

you were quoting me saying this any other advertising would not be allowed. I did go on to say this might be a step to far but I now think it is not, for the very reasons you and others gave.


No -If I was a new candidate I would welcome my suggestions, a singular government issued booklet giving equal space in it to all candidates.

that would be very complicated and expensive for the local elections for the government, would the gov increase candidate registration fee to cover it?

OldGoat

expectationlost wrote: »

that would be very complicated and expensive for the local elections for the government, would the gov increase candidate registration fee to cover it?

A quoted estimate of the number of posters for one candidate is 600. An estimate for the price of each poster is €5.00. Lets be conservative and estimate 400 posters at €2.5 for each candidate. I think that might cover the costs and then some.

EDIT: Adding a link.
An article from a couple of years ago estimating the numbers - https://www.thejournal.ie/poster-costs-election-2016-2587221-Feb2016/

L1011

OldGoat wrote: »

A quoted estimate of the number of posters for one candidate is 600. An estimate for the price of each poster is €5.00. Lets be conservative and estimate 400 posters at €2.5 for each candidate. I think that might cover the costs and then some.

So candidates who don't currently poster at all would be required to pay as if they did? Would be one way of reducing some of the loons, admittedly, but would fail any test of basic democracy.

rubadub

expectationlost wrote: »

that would be very complicated and expensive for the local elections for the government, would the gov increase candidate registration fee to cover it?

I believe the candidates all already have an allowance of 1 leaflet in the post, so it would save on postage of all of them by just sending 1, the candidates currently pay for production of their own leaflet and it would likely be cheaper to chip in an pay towards a complete booklet if they had to.

The government would save a fortune on cleanup. Loads of dangerous posters have been removed on my commute, presumably by the council and I have not heard of the parties having to pay for it. Then they will also have to clean up all the left over cable ties that the parties leave behind too when the posters do have to officially be taken down. The ESB have to spend money assessing all the poles for damage, many have been removed from poles and new ones go up, so it can be mulitple checks per election.

And of course it is NOT just election time anymore. They have given themselves the right to have what are in effect election posters up 365 days a year now, just but having "public meeting" in tiny writing somewhere on them.

OldGoat

L1011 wrote: »

So candidates who don't currently poster at all would be required to pay as if they did? Would be one way of reducing some of the loons, admittedly, but would fail any test of basic democracy.

I dearly wish that just putting a cash price on running for office would rule out the loonies, but sadly they seem to be better funded these days.
Candidates already have to stump up money to be eligible to run. Is that undemocratic in your view too?

Any candidate currently not using posters is doing so for one of two likely reasons. 1, they are standing on a green issue or 2, they cannot afford to poster at the same rate as the larger better funded parties.
In the first case I assume the candidate would be happy to see all posters removed. In the second case the poor of pocket candidates would be on a level par with the better funded candidates thus equalling them.
It seems to me that both cases would favour the idea of a single publication.

expectationlost

OldGoat wrote: »

A quoted estimate of the number of posters for one candidate is 600. An estimate for the price of each poster is €5.00. Lets be conservative and estimate 400 posters at €2.5 for each candidate. I think that might cover the costs and then some.

EDIT: Adding a link.
An article from a couple of years ago estimating the numbers - https://www.thejournal.ie/poster-costs-election-2016-2587221-Feb2016/

...for the government...

expectationlost

OldGoat wrote: »

I dearly wish that just putting a cash price on running for office would rule out the loonies, but sadly they seem to be better funded these days.
Candidates already have to stump up money to be eligible to run. Is that undemocratic in your view too?

Any candidate currently not using posters is doing so for one of two likely reasons. 1, they are standing on a green issue or 2, they cannot afford to poster at the same rate as the larger better funded parties.
In the first case I assume the candidate would be happy to see all posters removed. In the second case the poor of pocket candidates would be on a level par with the better funded candidates thus equalling them.
It seems to me that both cases would favour the idea of a single publication.

if you ban all other commercial political advertising

expectationlost

rubadub wrote: »

I believe the candidates all already have an allowance of 1 leaflet in the post

for the locals?