Just heard an interesting piece on Studio 360 (audio) in which graphic designer Michael Bierut discusses something easily observed driving down any street in America this week: why all the campaign signs look the same, no matter what the political side of the fence the candidate is on. I have been involved in designing at least one campaign’s graphics and, yes, they were a variation of Beirut’s observation. He doesn’t mention Jimmy Carter, but Carter’s campaign for President broke the mold: instead of being red, blue and white, he used white reversed from a field of green. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Virginia Postrel, a writer who ponders (among other things) the role of design in our lives, blogged on the the role of graphic design in that campaign. Here’s how she summed it up:
“…the logos graphically express what political scientists call ‘median voter theory.’ In a two-party system like ours — mathematically, the constitutional arrangement leads to two parties, no matter how much alternatives squawk — candidates will crowd the middle, the better to attract as many votes as possible. When designing a logo to attract 50 percent plus one, the most important thing is not to alienate people, and you can’t go wrong with red, white, and blue.”
