Letter: Little correlation between good signs and election success
To the Editor:
Lawn signs have little to do with successful campaigns, but they do give the candidate, and their friends and relatives, a sense of pride seeing their name all over Ridgefield.
In taking a survey of the best and worst lawn signs, based on my own subjectivity, here is my list.
All lawn signs with more than one candidate I eliminated since it is difficult enough to see one name and the office they are running for, going 30 mph.
In my opinion, the best sign, graphically, was Kaitlyn Hayes, with her unique circle and good fonts, and color scheme of green and white.
Also Stephen Saloom, good graphics, but a little hard to read the office he was running for.
David Cordisco and Scott Preston probably had the most readable signs, very simple, good colors, and clearly showing the office they were running for.
The worst sign was in Wilton, red and white, the only readable part was “Stop,” after that the graphics were so poor that one had no idea what to stop.
In any case, as the election showed, there was little correlation between good, readable signs, and success.
To me, everyone seeking office is a success.
Thank you for caring enough about Ridgefield, to run.