Consequences of Legislative Actions

The video explores three cases of unintended consequences. In Edmonton, sound monitoring boards intended to reduce vehicle noise instead encouraged competitive revving, leading to more complaints. San Francisco's ban on contracts with companies in certain states resulted in increased project costs and bureaucratic expenses. Lastly, Pennsylvania's attempt to ban cartoons depicting politicians as animals backfired, leading to widespread ridicule and the eventual repeal of the law. Each case highlights how well-intentioned solutions can lead to unexpected and often counterproductive outcomes.

What was the unintended consequence of the sound monitoring display boards in Edmonton?

• They encouraged motorists to compete for higher noise levels.

• They were vandalized by local residents.

• They reduced noise levels significantly.

• They malfunctioned and stopped working.

What was the primary reason for the failure of the sound monitoring initiative in Edmonton?

• Public opposition.

• Technical issues with the displays.

• High maintenance costs.

• Lack of enforcement mechanism.

What was the goal of San Francisco's 2016 ban on city contracts?

• To reduce city expenses.

• To pressure states to align with San Francisco's values.

• To increase competition among contractors.

• To improve the quality of city projects.

What was one of the major consequences of San Francisco's ban on city contracts?

• A rise in project costs by around 20%.

• An increase in public support.

• A reduction in bureaucratic expenses.

• A decrease in project costs.

How did the list of states affected by San Francisco's ban change over time?

• It increased from 4 to 30.

• It remained constant at 4.

• It decreased from 30 to 4.

• It fluctuated between 4 and 30.

What was the main issue with the 1903 bill introduced in Pennsylvania?

• It was too lenient on cartoonists.

• It was widely supported by the public.

• It was seen as unconstitutional and self-interested.

• It was too vague and hard to enforce.

What was the reaction of cartoonists to the 1903 bill in Pennsylvania?

• They ignored the bill entirely.

• They stopped depicting politicians as animals.

• They increased their criticism and ridicule.

• They supported the bill.

What was the outcome of the anti-cartoon bill after the backlash?

• It was enforced strictly.

• It was repealed after the governor left office.

• It was expanded to include more restrictions.

• It was modified to be more lenient.

What did the press do in response to the new broader bill replacing the anti-cartoon bill?

• They stopped publishing cartoons.

• They ramped up their ridicule.

• They ignored the new bill.

• They supported the new bill.

What was the ultimate fate of the law introduced by Samuel Pennypacker?

• It was never enforced and eventually repealed.

• It was upheld by the courts.

• It was enforced and led to several lawsuits.

• It was expanded to include more media.