Political campaign signs encroaching on roadside right-of-ways recently inspired a minor uproar. Current law forbids these signs within a specified distance from roadways and some signs were clearly violations.

Nevertheless, some contend that it’s a small price to pay in order to remind the electorate of imminent elections and to provide the names involved. Others lament the fact that some deteriorated signs will remain in place months later.

Allow me a few suggestions.

We could invest in mobile signs with flashing arrows. These signs would be parked so as to point to certain posters and the text on the lighted mobile sign could read "Landslide Loser!" or "Vigorously Rejected!" If not an incentive to remove posters, this approach at least reports results to a "busy" citizenry.

Someone at my office posted one of my recent columns on the bulletin board. OK, it was me----but that’s not relevant here. Some mature individual responded to the posted column not with clever rebuttal or contrary ideas but with artistic embellishments on my photo: glasses and a scar. Previous responses include gouged eyeballs. How sinister!

We could apply this same mature approach to campaign posters that include a photo of the candidate. We could dispatch public works employees with felt tip markers to add mustaches, vandyke beards, horns, glasses, scars, tobacco drool and missing teeth to these faces pocking our landscape.

In addition, we could encourage motorists to stop and add their own artistic flair. Wholesome---if somewhat dangerous---family recreation would be guaranteed even if we failed to get the posters removed.

For those posters without photos, we could add slight modifications to the text of their message. For example, prefix the word "Honest" with "Dis," the word "Experienced" with "In," and so on. You get the idea. Be creative.

Poster modification should be legal only for registered voters. For the record, I have no direct experience in this practice except with newspapers and junk mail.

For those candidates who stand by the road and wave at traffic, we could ask the Macon Clown Club to join them at roadside in full Bozo garb. They could goose the candidates and slap them on the back with joy buzzers. Of course, with only a few seconds to visually compare them, we might have difficulty distinguishing the clowns from the candidates. One candidate was recently observed holding his sign upside down. What a hoot!

No doubt some readers are thinking my ideas would diminish the dignity of elected office and the candidates who seek them. To them I suggest that if candidates stop insulting us, we’ll stop insulting them.

Political posters suggest numerous things we may not freely admit. Posters insult the citizenry by implying that we’re not informed, that we don’t even know the candidate’s names. Obviously, everyone knows their duty to be informed and no one shirks that responsibility.

Road signs imply that voting motorists are just plain gullible. What other word describes the voter who takes a political poster at face value without any skepticism? "Boy Scout" adjectives on political signs have all the credibility of "New & Improved!" and similar promises on the packages in stores.

This suggests that "packaging" with colors and font styles makes a significant difference in voting results. Neither merchandisers nor politicians would spend the money on packaging "garnish" if it were not thought effective.

My point is that name recognition means nothing unless citizens know the issues and the respective positions of the candidates. When voters cast ballots knowing neither, they perform a disservice to everyone---except, perhaps, the candidate with the best-placed most appealing sign.

In the end, we get what we deserve. If politicians win because voters act in ignorance, those actions will be rewarded with more of the same. Incumbents may come to think that the right mix of media ads and well-located posters are more important to re-election than performance in office.

 Copyright Ó1996 Steve Scroggins - All rights reserved.