Why are we still hanging election posters

PhilOssophy

Why do TDs still do this? Given the current prominence of climate change, and the associated need to cut out this sort of waste, I think they should all be banned.
I will vote for any candidate who is not useless and I don't see on a poster in the next 3 weeks.

ILoveYourVibes

Shrug. I don't get it either.

jam_mac_jam

I hate them. They are awful and should be banned

L1011

Because candidates without them don't get in; and they are vastly cheaper to have people see your name than any other form of advertising.

The "I'll vote for a candidate without a poster" thing usually means you end up voting for someone completely insane. Even the Greens use posters.

freshpopcorn

I like them if they are produced in Ireland.

They're archaic nonsense.

theoneeyedman

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Why do TDs still do this? Given the current prominence of climate change, and the associated need to cut out this sort of waste, I think they should all be banned.
I will vote for any candidate who is not useless and I don't see on a poster in the next 3 weeks.

Because they work.

I don't like them either, but they allow for increased recognition for candidates, especially new ones, ie not incumbents.

jaxxx

Waste of money.

Unnecessary garbage.

Should be done away with. FFS we're living in a digital age, all this $hit can be found online.

is_that_so

theoneeyedman wrote: »

Because they work.

I don't like them either, but they allow for increased recognition for candidates, especially new ones, ie not incumbents.

Exactement! Very good for newbies, although we could do without the forest of them. TBH at this stage FB ads would be just as good.

freshpopcorn

jaxxx wrote: »

Waste of money.

Unnecessary garbage.

Should be done away with. FFS we're living in a digital age, all this $hit can be found online.

I think the FF/FG need them. Especially for the younger candidates.
I know several older people and they'd never be online and would probably not hear of the younger candidates without them or other forums of leafleting,mail.

whisky_galore

The recent ones are airbrushed within an inch of their lives. I don't recall some of them hoors to be that good looking.

jam_mac_jam

L1011 wrote: »

Because candidates without them don't get in; and they are vastly cheaper to have people see your name than any other form of advertising.

The "I'll vote for a candidate without a poster" thing usually means you end up voting for someone completely insane. Even the Greens use posters.

That's why they should be banned. I wouldn't vote for someone just because they has no posters but if everyone was stopped from using then an incredibly stupid wasteful practice could be stopped.

ILoveYourVibes

I think they fear the older vote is not so present in great numbers on social media.

They probably instill them in the collective subconscious mind..

daheff

It's advertising. Cheaper than TV radio or print newspapers. Gets seen by more people.

TallyRand

Have thought they’re old hat for years, should be one designated area per town / village like outside post office, main square etc where each candidate gets one campaign poster laid out alphabetically and also make the candidates fill out a questionnaire (same one for all candidates) on their views and let punters make their choices. No ugly posters all over the place

freshpopcorn

Haven't a lot of town centers already banned these anyway?

Lyan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think they fear the older vote is not so present in great numbers on social media.

Sure why not grab the young people vote with Tik Tok ads

Zaph

jaxxx wrote: »

Waste of money.

Unnecessary garbage.

Should be done away with. FFS we're living in a digital age, all this $hit can be found online.

The problem there is that they can only be found online if you go looking for them, whereas if there are posters at the side of the road you'll see them regardless.

Obviously the likes of Leo or Micheal Martin don't need posters for people to know who they are and they'll get elected regardless. But your local independent candidate who doesn't have the funds for large flyer drops and doesn't have a load of party workers at every shopping centre and train station in the area needs some way of getting their name out there. Posters are the quickest and cheapest way for them to do that. However I do think that there should be a limit as to how many any given candidate can put up every 100 or 200m. I'm not any more likely to vote for someone because their poster is on every single lamppost for half a mile than I would be if they only had a poster on every third or fourth lamppost instead.

I think a lot of them plaster posters everywhere not so much to advertise themselves as to deny their opponents space for them to advertise. It's a legitimate tactic but unfortunately it generates a massive amount of waste and is as ugly as hell.

L1011

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That's why they should be banned. I wouldn't vote for someone just because they has no posters but if everyone was stopped from using then an incredibly stupid wasteful practice could be stopped.

A ban would disproportionately benefit sitting candidates with existing name recognition

OldGoat

L1011 wrote: »

A ban would disproportionately benefit sitting candidates with existing name recognition

A ban would benefit non photogenic candidates.

banie01

Because hanging politicians is frowned upon?
And effigies are hard work?

KildareFan

I support the use of posters in public places, but I would also support a limit to the number of posters in each constituency. The rules for removing posters after the election are strict and I don't see what harm is done during the few weeks that the democratic process is taking place.

Posters are a visible & uncensored aspect of the electoral process. They ensure that everyone knows an election is taking place and they give candidates the opportunity to let voters know who is going for election. Every other form of publication is subject to censorship and gatekeepers, whether it's on broadcast or social media, or cost restraints.

Election literature intended for households doesn't always reach its target audience - from the 'No Junk Mail - Election Literature' stickers, those with no letter boxes, not to forget the household gatekeeper who reaches the literature first and dumps it in the bin without making sure other residents have had a chance to read the literature.

At least if I see a name on a poster I can do some further research on their policies. I have had the experience of seeing a ballot paper with names of candidates that I'd never heard of and might possibly have voted for if I had known what they stood for.

The Nal

They benefit the incumbent. GF had the kids out before anyone getting the best spots.

JohnnyFlash

I was out putting them up last night. Important to get out quickly to get the prime spots. I have 4 vans as well so we can get a huge area covered in a night. The reason we put them up is because they work.

On a personal note I do think some of the enjoyment of putting them up wasn’t there this year. It was dark and cold. A summer election was great for putting up posters one time. You’d be tipping away at the cans putting them up as a group.

Fr Tod Umptious

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Why do TDs still do this? Given the current prominence of climate change, and the associated need to cut out this sort of waste, I think they should all be banned.
I will vote for any candidate who is not useless and I don't see on a poster in the next 3 weeks.

In the locals last year a councillor from our area was very environmentally friendly and put upnot only his current posters but also ones dating back to at least 2009 if not 2004.

Looking at the way he aged over the years was the the three ages of Elvis from Fr. Ted

L1011

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In the locals last year a councillor from our area was very environmentally friendly and put upnot only his current posters but also ones dating back to at least 2009 if not 2004.

Looking at the way he aged over the years was the the three ages of Elvis from Fr. Ted

Bernard Durkan was reusing *black and white* posters with an FG logo from the era of Garrett at the 2002 election; possibly even the 2007.

If posters are left up and undamaged they'll get reused basically; unless the candidate retires/gives up (or dies) before the next election.

brightspark

I can understand the need for some posters, but there should be a limit on the amount of posters per candidate in a given area. A local councillor had about 10 posters, one on every lamppost on a short bridge in Thurles last year!

Also if posters really do benefit new candidates why haven't the existing TDs banned them?

I have more of an issue with the plastic cable ties used to secure them as, by and large, those tasked with removing them just rip off the poster and leave the cable ties behind. Plenty of lamposts around our area still festooned with them from the recent referenda posters etc.

I'll be taking photos of the ones at the end of our road and emailing the candidates after the posters have been taken down to ask them about removal of the cable ties.

L1011

brightspark wrote: »

Also if posters really do benefit new candidates why haven't the existing TDs banned them?

Because their parties will be running new candidates all the time.

Where are these posters made?