We used to be astonished every year when we were compelled to write an editorial lamenting that politicians or their supporters were stealing or mutilating each others' campaign signs. Who would stoop to the level of doing that? It must be kids, or vandals. Self-respecting or moderately bright candidates or political operatives wouldn't wreck an opponent's signs and think this was a useful tactic. Would they?

But every year, we get wind of reports that sign vandalism is again afoot.

So we write another editorial decrying the practice and marveling at how low these people are, or how irrational they must be to think they are actually enhancing their chances by sign chicanery.

Apparently, somebody — maybe a sign maker — has sold these people on the preposterous notion that elections are won and lost on roadsides. They must buy into the idea that passersby, at sea over which candidate to entrust with the responsibility of running their government, have their epiphany upon glancing at a sign as they whiz past.

One political veteran observed years ago that it isn't necessarily the appearance of your sign that wins a vote, but the absence of somebody else's. If one candidate has lots and lots of signs and the opponent has none, it might look to the shrewd observer that the former cares more about being elected than the latter.

But that is only speculation. In truth if a campaign sign ever won a vote, the voter was desperately lacking in information.

So it confounds us again this year that we've heard such widespread reports of sign vandalism. Unless it's petty one-upmanship or simply pranks, it's an utter waste of time. That time would be put to so much better use if it were devoted to real campaigning, appealing to genuine intellect. Perhaps the discussion of issues could be a productive pursuit.

One candidate told us he knows of at least 24 signs of his that were removed or destroyed during the course of 24 hours. The signs cost $10 each. Many had been placed 30 to 50 feet back from the boundary of the private property line. Whoever did the damage also trespassed.

Is the result of those incursions really worth the risk of being caught and the loss of money to the opponent? Even if anyone could make a reasonable argument that this kind of vandalism actually wins elections, is that the way to win them?

It's childish, thoughtless, futile — and downright stupid. It's a shame anyone who wants to win the public's trust would condone this kind of behavior.

If this is the sort of people with whom a candidate is consorting, that candidate may not be the best choice for the sacred office that's at stake.