Cooper Feiner

November 1, 2022

It is difficult to not notice the sudden proliferation of campaign signs on every residential street in America around election season. It is that time of year when neighbors are judged for the signs they choose to put up in front of their homes, a practice as fixed in the American election season as the “I Voted” stickers or attack-heavy campaign advertisements. Yard signs are almost as synonymous with campaigns as voting or the candidates themselves. This American tradition started with our nation’s sixth president, John Quincy Adams, and the election of 1824. Since then lawn signs are like flowers that spring up every two years on our front lawns. However, the practice is not free from critics. From housing associations and local governments banning the signs for aesthetic reasons to campaign managers looking to use finances toward more beneficial measures, many would like to see yard signs phased out as a campaign tactic. Like so many of our nation’s traditions, it is time to look critically at the practice of planting lawn signs and ask: should we still do it?

Specifically, the question transitions into whether political lawn signs help get candidates elected. The supposed benefits are that they increase voter awareness and turnout for candidates. These benefits can be attributed to two biases: frequency bias and the bandwagon effect. Frequency bias, also called frequency illusion, is that once you notice something, you will notice it more and believe it is more common than it is.[i] Take, for example, a person who notices a sign for a Democratic candidate in their neighbor’s yard. As they drive through their neighborhood, they notice more signs for the same Democratic candidate, leading them to believe that support for the Democratic candidate is quite high in their neighborhood. This may not be the case at all. For instance, it may likely have been that the Democratic candidate handed out lawn signs for free while the Republican candidate charged for them, among other possibilities. Thus, through frequency bias, the candidate’s name recognition should increase, leading to more votes.

The way in which the frequency bias can lead to more votes is the bandwagon effect. The bandwagon effect is a cognitive bias in which an individual adopts certain behaviors just because numerous others are also doing so.[ii] For example, a student goes to class and notices that everyone else is wearing a pink shirt. Due to the bandwagon effect, the student will be more likely to wear a pink shirt in future classes. This same effect works for campaign signs as well. If a person sees a sign for the Republican candidate outside of all the houses in their neighborhood, they may be inclined to view the Republican candidate more favorably. This can combine with frequency illusion to further support a candidate. For example, if another person sees Libertarian Party candidate signs in their neighbors’ yards, they will start noticing many more because of frequency illusion. Since they perceive a high level of support among the community towards the Libertarian Party candidate, the bandwagon effect will make it so they are more inclined to support that candidate. In this way, frequency illusion and the bandwagon effect can combine to theoretically increase voters for a particular candidate.

However, theory does not always correspond to reality. Columbia University professor Donald Green studied the impact of lawn signs on voter share back in 2015. They found through randomized trials in different types of elections that the use of lawn signs was associated with an increase in voter share by 1.7 percent on average.[iii] While nearly 2% of voter share is certainly no small feat, it is ultimately not the large swing you would expect from such a prevalent campaign method. Most elections are decided well outside of 2%. For example, in the notoriously close 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump in the popular vote by slightly more than 2%.[iv] This shows that lawn signs likely would not have had enough of an impact on their own to swing one our nation’s notoriously close elections. While more studies would certainly help us get a clearer picture of the efficacy of lawn signs, one would think that by these numbers alone that lawn signs would be going out of fashion.

However, this is not the case. According to one study published in the Atlantic Magazine, between the election of 1984 and the election 2012 the use of election yard signs has nearly quadrupled.[v] According to the Washington Post, campaign managers do not like using campaign signs, believing the negatives, such as expense issues and distribution, outweigh the benefits.[vi] However, campaign managers do not like bringing up these issues with their candidates for fear that they will lose out to the opposing campaign. If one campaign has yard signs while the opposition does not, it gives the appearance that the candidate does not have the same popularity as the opposition. This could potentially negatively impact the campaigns perception for donors as well as a candidate’s self-esteem. Since candidate charisma is an important factor towards voter enthusiasm, this could be devastating for a campaign. For these reasons, yard signs are unfortunately here to stay.

While they are here to stay, it would be in our best interest to get rid of yard signs. As technology improves, online campaigning is fast becoming the future of front-yard politics. Twitter and other social media giants played a large role in both of our recent presidential campaigns. Campaign managers see these technological methods as much more effective ways to sway voters, build candidate recognition, and increase voter turnout.[vii] With this shift toward technology, it might be time to become more neighborly and leave politics out of our front yards.

Edited by Sydney Wilhelmy, Rhheaa Mehta, and Andres Lopez.

[i] Rodriguez, Alicita. “What Is the Frequency Illusion?” CU Denver News. Colorado University, July 8, 2021. https://news.ucdenver.edu/what-is-the-frequency-illusion/.

[ii] Schmitt-Beck, Rudiger. “Schmitt‐Beck – – Major Reference Works – Wiley Online Library.” Wiley Online Library, 2015. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc015.

[iii]Collins, Eliza. “Lawn Signs Can Swing an Election, Study Finds.” POLITICO. POLITICO, 2015. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/campaign-lawn-signs-little-effect-217166.

[iv] “2016 Presidential Election Results.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president.

[v] Bump, Philip. “Sorry Campaign Managers: Lawn Signs Are Only 98.3 Percent Useless.” The Washington Post. WP Company, November 25, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/29/sorry-campaign-managers-lawn-signs-are-only-98-3-percent-useless/.

[vi] Bump, Philip. “Sorry Campaign Managers: Lawn Signs Are Only 98.3 Percent Useless.” The Washington Post. WP Company, November 25, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/29/sorry-campaign-managers-lawn-signs-are-only-98-3-percent-useless/.

[vii] Nott, Lata. “Political Advertising on Social Media Platforms.” Americanbar.org. American Bar Association, 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-in-2020/political-advertising-on-social-media-platforms/.