I want to explore a large hypothetical.
Let's imagine a scenario. There's a state called Statington, USA. In Statington, a tradition has developed around polling places. That tradition is having a live band play at polling stations. By Tradition, the bands play only instrumental classical music, and no political messages, overt or subtle are ever given. The live bands are 100% entirely non-political, song choices are random, band outfits are mixed and bland solid colors that are never chosen to match a particular party or candidate, the band members never make any statements or gestures.
It has been discovered that having a live band playing increases voter turnout, but the impact is far stronger for members of Party A as opposed to Party B. Party B, now holds the power in Statington, USA. They have introduced legislation to bar live bands from polling places. Party A objects, stating that the intention is to suppress the votes of Party A. Party B points out that there is no right to live music at the polling place, and that no person from Party A has had their ability to vote changed in any way. They point out that a member of Part A is just as free to go to the polls as they've always been.
Where would you side on this question?
Let's imagine a scenario. There's a state called Statington, USA. In Statington, a tradition has developed around polling places. That tradition is having a live band play at polling stations. By Tradition, the bands play only instrumental classical music, and no political messages, overt or subtle are ever given. The live bands are 100% entirely non-political, song choices are random, band outfits are mixed and bland solid colors that are never chosen to match a particular party or candidate, the band members never make any statements or gestures.
It has been discovered that having a live band playing increases voter turnout, but the impact is far stronger for members of Party A as opposed to Party B. Party B, now holds the power in Statington, USA. They have introduced legislation to bar live bands from polling places. Party A objects, stating that the intention is to suppress the votes of Party A. Party B points out that there is no right to live music at the polling place, and that no person from Party A has had their ability to vote changed in any way. They point out that a member of Part A is just as free to go to the polls as they've always been.
Where would you side on this question?
Comment