URBANA, IL—Sociologists and political scientists at the university here have just released the results of a year-long survey to determine what most determines the choices voters make when going to the polls. The results may be surprising to the average citizen, but they confirm what politicians and would-be politicians have known for many years: the most effective campaign tactic is the small signs posted along streets and sidewalks during the campaign. "We always thought it was the television ads that had the most 'oomph'," said Dr. Alice Broomhead, who engineered the survey. "It caught us all by surprise." Broomhead shared with The Colon some typical responses to the survey's question, "Why did you decide to vote for that particular candidate?" (All names are redacted, to protect voter privacy.) J.D. of Sioux Falls, SD, explained, "He had much nicer signs than the other guy. They were bigger, and they had bigger lettering in my favorite font." A.R. of Springfield, IL, said, "His signs included an American flag. The other candidate's didn't. I didn't think he was patriotic enough." D.C. of Paducah, KY, commented, "He had a picture of himself on his posters, not smiling. His opponent was smiling in his picture, and it made me wonder what he was up to." Mrs. L.M. of Savannah, GA, made a face as she said, "His opponent's signs had a horrible tan background! Why would anyone want somebody with such poor taste to be in government?" C.G. of Denver, CO, said, "The guy I voted for had a lot more yard signs out than his opponent. That was good enough for me—he obviously was more confident." The second-highest influence on voter choice, after the yard signs, was the robotic phone calls. Voter reaction to those calls was very positive, and they were clearly the most efffective for those who were not influenced by yard signs. M.L.T. of Spanish Fork, UT, explained, "It was so nice to get a phone call from that candidate. He obviously cares about me and my family. We had never voted for anyone from his party before, but that phone call did the trick. The other guy just ignored us." C.M. of Sandpoint, ID, said, "After we got seven calls from the same candidate, we realized how hard he was trying. That's the kind of representative we want in the state house!" J.M. of Pahrump, NV, said, "I voted for him because his phone message was only three minutes long. When his opponent called, it went on for twice as long. We don't want such gasbags running things!" Ms. O.C. of Atlanta, GA, said, "He had such a nice voice. It reminded me of Robert Redford's voice. With kind of a Southern hint to it. When the other candidate called, I could tell he wasn't from around here. And he talked in a monotone." The third most influential campaign device was the bumper sticker. The surveyers were surprised at how many voters made their electoral choice after seeing a bumper sticker. One voter (Ms. D.V. of Kansas City, MO) said, "I hadn't made up my mind who to vote for, but when I parked my car in the grocery store parking lot there was this car next to me with a bumper sticker saying, 'Vote for Johnson!' So I decided to do just that!" F.G. of Ocala, FL, said that he had been praying for divine guidance about how to vote, "And the next thing I saw was a station wagon with a bumper sticker that said 'Vote No on Prop. 7.' I took that as a sign from God." The message seems to be clear to politicians and campaign managers: keep those calls coming, and heed the signs!