Letters to the Editor

Campaign signs are a courtesy to voters | Federal Way letters

It is not possible to have an over-informed electorate.

Campaign signs are informative and also indicative of how serious the candidate intends pursuit of the position. Conscientious voters take mental note of the signs and then later, the candidate name(s) will trigger the interest to follow up with inquiries from every source by or about that person, check out their Web site, and follow throughout the season right up to the election. The earlier, the better, to watch for every comment of opinions, background, goals, endorsements, forums, etc.

To the serious voter, it's a process of elimination, not a quick pick from a voters pamphlet. After research and analysis, we're able to make an informed decision.

It was Jim Ferrell's initiative that brought consideration of an elected mayor to us to vote on, so yeah, he's been involved ever since to follow through on his conviction to this system that he initially proposed.

The anti-strong mayor campaigners insulted us (the electorate) by supposing that we might elect an incompetent in our ineptitude to cast a serious, educated vote.

That supposition having backfired. It now seems their effort is to place limits on how informed/uninformed the electorate should be.

To dictate timing of the signs via a restrictive ordinance as proposed by letter writer Kathie Curran on April 21 would limit and inhibit an informed electorate's time to pursue every consideration of the candidates (those serious enough to invite scrutiny by advertising their candidacy on signs).

I regard campaign signs as a courtesy to the voter — an announcement or invitation to check the candidate out.

Conversely, the absence of signs for a declared candidate indicates to me an arrogance — just consider to vote the ballot name only, without scrutiny of record, positions and opinions, maybe not even a serious candidate intent to stay in the race.

Thanks to letter writer Curran, I'm sending Jim Ferrell a check today for more signs to put out there. He's indicated that he is not afraid of scrutiny of his background and record, nor his position on issues. He is worthy of scrutiny and his signs invite smart voters to check that out. All candidates should promote themselves and do so timely enough to allow us to follow their every public comment for months, — or else why should we even seriously consider them?

I respect Jim Ferrell's campaign: Out front right from the start.

Campaign signs legally placed are not litter until after the election, just those that are neglected for timely removal.

Just the presence of a legally placed sign is a message about the candidate's dedication and sincerity, in my opinion. I deplore the notion that we need a new ordinance to stifle that message (that this is a serious contender for one's vote and that he gives the voter ample time to investigate and compare to enable an educated vote).

Federal Way's sign code for local retailers is already overly zealous in favor of aesthetics over consumer and business interests. In my experience, it limits visual communication of product specials, identification of buildings, businesses, etc.

Voters, consumers and retailers alike deserve good signage, not more suppression of information.

Marie Adair, Federal Way

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Aug 29 edition online now. Browse the archives.