It's hard to get five people to agree on where to eat lunch, much less anything else. But I think I've found a topic on which most everyone can agree in perfect harmony.

Campaign signs.

If you've left the house at any point during the past month, you've noticed the glut of political signs littering the county. Every person I've talked to about these signs doesn't like them because they're a continuous eyesore.

Most candidates like the signs even less because they are a tremendous expense and responsibility. The small signs which are in so many yards cost in the $6 to $7 range. The larger signs start around $30 and can climb to over $100 for the very big, two-sided signs.

Outside of the expense, the signs are a hassle for candidates to set up and take down. They get stolen and they get vandalized.

Candidates don't like the signs, but put them up because there's a sense of obligation. An integral part of our elections, strangely, have become the sign wars.

The perception, right or wrong, is that whoever has the most signs is trying the hardest. There is the notion that whoever has the most signs wants to win the most. So candidates feel forced to buy more signs, to buy elephant-sized signs, in an effort to broadcast their commitment to the voters.

Another drawback is the time these signs are out. Some campaign signs went up in February. The General Election is not until August, giving these signs a political shelf life of a full six months. Ugh.

But alas, I'm not here to point out a problem without providing a solution. It's been mentioned that some other communities have enacted political sign restrictions and I've heard of one that sounds completely appropriate.

It would prevent candidates from placing political signs until 60 days before the election in which they appear on the ballot. This restriction is a thing of beauty and seems to benefit everyone involved.

The community wins because that's less time for the signs to be scattered around town. The candidates win because they have a much shorter time to have to worry about their signs and their overall condition.

Perhaps best of all, the electorate wins because it will be easier to determine whose name will be on the ballot. As it stands now here in McMinnville, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of signs around town for people whose name will not be on the ballot for the primaries May 1.

This leads to voter confusion because the voter knows their candidate is running for office. The voter has seen signs for their candidate around town. But then at the polls, their candidate is nowhere to be found on the ballot.

If our community adopts a 60-day rule when it comes to political signs, it would provide relief for everyone involved. Signs should be prohibited until 60 days before that candidate appears on the ballot.

Standard editor James Clark can be reached at 473-2191.