If We Voted With Our Music Tastes, Hillary Clinton Would Have Won The Election

Can a song change the world?

As English musician Sting admitted on Newstalk ZB, “Usually, no. But it can plant a seed in someone’s head.”

Indeed, politics is inseparable from culture; all art forms have the power to inspire and unite large audiences behind a particular sentiment, cause or public figure. Music in particular not only can demonstrate ideology, but to an extent can also inform and create beliefs. Over the past several decades, the likes of Sting and Bob Dylan—the latest controversial recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature—have used music as a rallying cry for issues such from global hunger and poverty to the American civil rights and antiwar movements. Spotify’s 2015 Year in Music featured playlists dedicated to historical events and movements such as Black Lives Matter and the legalization of gay marriage.

To this end, dozens of musicians voiced their opinions in the months leading up to this year’s Presidential Election, urging American citizens to exercise their right to vote. Artists such as Beyoncé, Katy Perry, Diplo and Steven Tyler shook hands and butted heads with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, expressing their unabashed political stance through benefit concerts and impassioned written statements.

Beyond the surface level of celebrity, American voters were also consuming massive volumes of music on a daily basis—more than 24 hours a week per person, according to Nielsen. Worldwide, we continue to stream more than 2.25 billion tracks per day.

In fact, streaming platforms and other digital data sources can help reveal insights into the relationship between our polarizing music tastes and our political history. Academics and tech companies are beginning to investigate this dynamic, building predictive models that treat music tastes as a variable in determining election outcomes.