I think all the disagreement with putting ‘re-elect’ on a sign is just a tad OCD. It’s up to the public (IMO) to make an informed choice when it comes to voting, so if you (collective) haven’t done the research on who you want to vote for - which, IMO includes finding out when candidates have served in the position they are running for - then that’s the fault of the public.
While on some level I agree that it’s a little underhanded to put that word on the signs, we have to remember that these people are politicians. Some are more sneaky/slimey/used-car-salesman than others, but ultimately I still feel that we (as voters) have a responsibility to inform ourselves of each possible candidate. I have been doing that for a few days now - since we did not live here when anyone else was mayor - and I’m not about to blindly agree with those of you that were living here when either of these men were in office.
It’s like the grocery stores - how they put a big sign beside something in bright colours that says “GREAT PRICE!” or “EVERYDAY LOW PRICE!” - it’s not on sale, but the store wants people at first glance to think it is so that they will buy it. Is it illegal? No. Is it misrepresentation? No. The sign doesn’t say ‘sale’ or ‘save $4’ - so it’s not a lie. It’s the same thing for those running for mayor - it’s not a lie to put ‘re-elect’ on a sign, even if some may feel that it is ‘wrong’.