Democracy on display or a public eyesore? The case for cracking down on election corflutes

In my time researching political advertising, one common communication method that often generates complaints is the proliferation of campaign corflutes.

Politicians love them. Not so, many members of the general public. People are so fed up with candidate posters that there are numerous tales of late night vandalism, including deliberate acts of road rage aimed at destroying them.

And yet, at every single election – local, state and federal – the hated signs spring up once again to populate front gardens, streetscapes and open spaces.

Given how divisive they are, why do politicians persist with them? What are the laws around their use? And is South Australia on the right track by banning corflutes in public places?

It’s a jungle out there

To begin with, all corflutes must comply with the Australian Electoral Commission^[1] (AEC), which includes displaying a “written and authorised” statement

that enables voters to know the source of the electoral or political communication.

Posters can’t mislead voters regarding candidates’ political affiliation. In 2022, corflutes authorised by Advance Australia in the ACT were ruled misleading^[2] because they strongly implied independent Senate candidate David Pocock was running for the Greens.

But in terms of size, number, and placement – welcome to the wild west of Australian political communications.

Size varies from the standard 60cm x 90cm corflute, to much larger signs like the one promoting Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer that was stolen^[3] by the husband of Teal MP Monique Ryan in the seat of Kooyong.

Neither the number nor the placement of signs are regulated by electoral law, other than a requirement they not be placed within 6 metres of a polling place.

Corflutes are governed by local council laws and regulations relating to political signage. This leads to a wide variation around Australia. Some areas have no rules on number or placement, which is where you usually find the issues.

By contrast, corflutes are strictly regulated in South Australia. Laws passed last year banned election posters^[4] from public infrastructure, though they are still permitted on private property.

Democracy on show

Corflutes have several purposes, especially for new candidates.

Independent Jessie Price^[5], who is running for Bean in the ACT, tells me corflutes are important for her to quickly achieve name and face recognition in the campaign.

Then there is their design. Campaign corflutes have traditionally incorporated faces, colours and slogans. These days, they can also include QR codes, URLs, and social media handles. These formal elements also aid differentiation and awareness.

Next is the strategy of placement. Being an offline method, you can’t hit “skip” when you see one. And they are often used as a way of marking out turf, especially when placed in front yards.

For minor parties and independents, they are an affordable way to help level the playing field against Labor and the Coalition. In a way, they act as a basic barometer of the strength of our democracy.

Do they work?

Yes. And no.

When it comes to design, corflutes that closely follow the same principles used for road signs work the most effectively. This is because of the speed at which we process information.

Research^[7] has found that around two seconds is needed to absorb the details printed on signs. Up to five seconds’ exposure is needed to commit the information to short-term memory. Repeated exposure to the same sign helps when it comes to recall.

That is why colour, font size and word count^[8] are all important. The bigger the font, the better the chances of it being seen from further away, and hitting that two-second count. For example, on a 100km/h road, letters need to be at least 35cm in size.

The same rules apply to election posters. Ideally, an effective corflute would have a single name in 70cm white font on a red background. Two colours for contrast, large lettering and using only two or three words, would have the best chance of being remembered.

Being novel with design, such as independent candidate Kim Huynh’s^[9] striking corflute in the 2016 ACT election, can also boost awareness and differentiation.

Just an eyesore

Corflutes will only work if the voter is already predisposed to the candidate being promoted. If that’s not the case, the sign may have the opposite affect by repeatedly reminding the voter of a person they don’t like.

For some, they will hate corflutes regardless of the candidates. That is because the outdoors is the last true escape from political communications in an era of digital and online advertising that runs up until election day. Some also dislike how politicians can get away with it, while most others would be fined.

Do they actually change behaviour? Not directly, but they raise awareness and change perceptions towards candidates and parties, which is their ultimate objective.

Time for a rethink

There is a case to reform the electoral laws to regulate the size, placement, and number of corflutes.

One proposal worth considering would be a strict limit of 50 standard-sized signs per candidate, per electorate and erected in designated places. This would mean more equal opportunity for minor parties and independents, and help reduce public anger over the visual pollution we see at election time.

No matter how much people hate corflutes, they do serve a higher purpose post election. Come Sunday, they will be much sought after as tomato stakes and flooring for chook pens.

References

1. ^{^} Australian Electoral Commission (www.aec.gov.au)
2. ^{^} ruled misleading (www.abc.net.au)
3. ^{^} stolen (www.abc.net.au)
4. ^{^} banned election posters (www.legislation.sa.gov.au)
5. ^{^} Independent Jessie Price (www.jessieprice.com.au)
6. ^{^} Lucas Coch/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
7. ^{^} Research (link.springer.com)
8. ^{^} colour, font size and word count (www.sciencedirect.com)
9. ^{^} Kim Huynh’s (www.huffpost.com)