A pseudoscientific look at how leadership styles show up in the strokes and slants of the federal leaders' signatures 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 something more thorough.) Consider this the equivalent of a small poll with a large margin of error. And, look, not to offend graphologists, because there are traits (and even some emotional or medical challenges) you can see in one’s handwriting, but it’s way less trustworthy than, say, journalists—or even columnists. In politics, a signature is more than a functional scrawl; it can be a visual representation of the self. In graphology terms, it can project authority, temperament and worldview. From studying the leaders, I think I know some of their characteristics, and I was startled how congruent their signatures were with what graphology would suggest about them. I didn’t have to exaggerate any of this. Pierre Poilievre Signature of Pierre Poilievre. | Wikimedia Commons Poilievre’s large, flowing initials, particularly the oversized and bold capital P, suggest confidence, ambition and assertiveness. Large initials, in case you weren’t aware, can imply a desire to lead and be recognized. His connected letters in a continuous stroke are signals of logical thinking and decisiveness. It suggests he processes information quickly in thought and action, and that he prefers continuity (seemingly not for four terms, though). The signature’s sharp angles are deemed often to reflect a critical mind, strong willpower and a combative or strategic mindset. The rightward slant (to be clear: of the signature) usually conveys extroversion and forward motion, someone sociable and proactive. Now, the signature’s legibility is abstract in places, which suggests a combination of public clarity and private reservation. Graphology literature would say that often indicates people who share a public persona but keep inner thoughts and strategies to themselves. The confident line or flourish at the end symbolizes determination, self-reliance and a desire to underscore in delivering a message. It’s a signature designed to impress, projecting confidence and ambition. (As political branding, it’s on point.) Mark Carney Signature of Mark Carney. | Wikimedia Commons ​Carney's signature, widely seen over the years on banknotes, is notably legible, with each letter discernible. This clarity suggests a person who values transparency and straightforwardness. In professional contexts, the legibility may reflect a commitment to clear communication and accountability.​ (It, too, is good branding.) Carney’s signature maintains moderate size and balanced proportions. This balance can indicate a well-adjusted self-perception and a pragmatic approach to responsibilities. It suggests neither overconfidence nor undue modesty, aligning with a measured leadership style.​ Carney's signature, like Poilievre’s, has a slight rightward slant, a feature often associated with an outgoing and sociable nature. This inclination may reflect his ability to engage with others and adapt to various social and professional settings.​ The strokes in the signature are consistent and firm, indicating determination and reliability. Such pressure can be associated with strong convictions and a steady approach to challenges.​ While the signature is clear, it also exhibits a degree of simplification, avoiding unnecessary embellishments. This efficiency may point to a focus on functionality and effectiveness. The signature reflects qualities of clarity, balance, sociability, determination and efficiency. What it lacks are any loops, curls or dramatic stylistic flourishes (haven’t seen any of the latter in the campaign, for sure). In graphology, that is inferred as belonging to someone who is direct and rational—a technocrat, engineer or scientist. What graphology would tell us is that signatures reveal not only stylistic differences but underlying attitudes toward leadership, identity and communication. Poilievre’s signature is a projection of power, Carney’s one of precision and professionalism. Each projects control, Poilievre through a more dominant signature and Carney through calibration. There now, minds have been changed. Apologies to the 7.3 million who have already voted. Didn’t get to this soon enough. Kirk LaPointe is a Glacier Media columnist with an extensive background in journalism. He is vice-president in the office of the chairman at Fulmer and Company.