As a child, I had a hobby of graphology, the inexact science (to be kind to it) of analyzing handwriting. It was useful as a parlour game.

As a columnist, I took up a kindred pursuit: opiniology, the equally inexact science (to be just as kind) of analyzing the script of public life. It, too, can be useful as a parlour game at times.

As we approach Monday’s election, I was drawn to the signature by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre in this week’s campaign platform document. It’s striking, as is Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s (this column has a picture of both), and they stirred memories of how much fun it was to believe that a certain stroke of a pen at a certain angle in a certain size in a certain way could be deemed indicative of a trait.

So I thought: what else can be written about this election that hasn’t been done? Why not write about how the leaders write? In full disclosure and defence, it was not late at night when I asked myself this.

Now, like the side-effect warning of a drug advertisement, some words of caution before you swallow the pill. Graphology is closer to a Ouija board than a polygraph. It’s a pseudoscience, lacking psychological rigor or admissibility as evidence. And signatures are only a portion of what would be typically assessed—normally you’d want a written page or so on a blank sheet of paper. (Carney and Poilievre know how to find me if they want........

© Vancouver Is Awesome