There's a time and place for literary nitpicking, and this probably isn't it

[devi]

I'm off out to vote shortly. Just to make sure I haven't missed anything crucial, I had another look at the manifestos of the two parties I've been vacillating between.

Is it wrong to feel more affectionate towards one party because their manifesto is snappy, specific, well-written and has nice fonts and nice graphic design, while the other is full of densely packed, long, rambly sentences of vague upper-manglement-speak that made my head swim?

Never mind foreign affairs, education or the economy! Check out the use of sans-serif!


Edit (back now): And I didn't realise UKIP's logo was a pound sign. Ew, how tacky.

Comments

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

No, not wrong at all. Have you seen the scathing literary criticism of the manifetos in the current Private Eye? Most enlightening.

[vardebedian.livejournal.com]

"And I didn't realise UKIP's logo was a pound sign. Ew, how tacky."

Ayn Rand's objectivists use the dollar sign as a logo. Maybe the UKIP are admitting something less savoury than they imagine.

[accasha.livejournal.com]

no not bad at all.... I'm a sucker for things looking nice.... I like to beleive that the people involved somehow care more (or is that just my justification for being shallow :-))

[ar-gemlad.livejournal.com]

Think of this situation:
You're applying for a credit card, and have narrowed it down to two companies. One has clear, easy to read literature, including Terms & Conditions in English you don't have to get a dictionary to read, and the other has literature with no clear fonts, no pictures, 7pt text with T&Cs at 5pts.

Which one appeals more?
Which do you trust more?
Who looks like they give a monkeys about your money and custom?

Should it be different when voting? I think not.

Oh, and I don't mean this to be a capitalist argument.

[lostcarpark.livejournal.com]

Well, come on, if a barty can't be bothered with good graphic design, how can they be fit to govern the country?

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Exactly. If something is to be read by lots of people, a lot of effort should be put into making it easy to read and understand.

Although, I haven’t seen any of the manifestos.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's wrong (though I suspect it would be a bit misguided for that to be the deciding factor) -- I think the choice of style, register, design, etc. can be indicative of the attitude, priorities, effort, enthusiasm, etc. of the people choosing them. I think it can also tell you a lot about the audience they (think they) are aiming their literature at, which may be interesting.

I try not to over-analyse the election literature for this sort of thing but I can't help noticing it, and if a party thinks people don't notice that sort of thing then I think they're missing a trick. Several tricks, probably. Yes, there's the flip side of that argument ("if they didn't spend all their money on fancy leaflets etc. etc.") but I think presentation does matter, and it doesn't have to be ostentatious and expensive shiny paper -- just readability, being easy on the eye, even just basic spelling/grammar!

[specialknives.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about voting, but I personally think it's unethical to give money to people who proliferate bad design and bad writing, if you can avoid it.

And financially endorsing the use of comic sans anywhere, anytime, is reprehensible.

[ksta.livejournal.com]

and who was the weird party id never heard of at the bottom? stear?

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Vote for the party with the worse graphic design - they're showing a commendable talent for avoiding wasting money.