User:Mihikachoudhary/Commodification of Voting Rights
Commodification of voting rights[edit]
The market on the commodification of voting rights is based on buying and selling of votes that occur in exchange for a monetary value or service. It refers to the exchange that occurs in the case of votes between the buyers, who pay the voter (the seller) to get them to vote in favour of their candidate.
The German philosopher, Immanual Kant's deontological view introduces us to the "Formula of Humanity" which explains how we ought never to treat persons merely as means. Considering Kant's' supreme principle of morality, one's personal ethics and rationality behind the commodification of the votes, make us question society's response to this market. It is active, and predominant in some cases, in all sectors and scales of civil society.
Examples include shareholders selling their votes in corporations, a citizen of a country selling their votes to a candidate, corrupting the political system, allowing powerful politicians to bribe their way into government positions with power and influence.
A vote of any kind is a civic good that is seen as privileges given to members based on their civic duties and performance. A market that permits commodification of votes diminishes the value of votes. Citizens of nations are given these rights that allow for representative democracy. Members of a corporation are given these privileges as they are the ones who are responsible in the long term for the corporation. A market that accommodates for citizens/members to alter their representative democracy, based on unfair means violates the individuals' identity and honour.
Any disruptions that are made either during, before or after the voting process, which may alter the individuals' personal virtue ethics and morality is an unethical practice. Voting should be seen as a privilege, not a commodity.
Market for voting rights[edit]
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant have found morality as a practice or code of conduct that would be accepted by society. It is based on rationality. The act of voting has an opportunity cost. The act of rationality predicts that rational people will perform an activity only if doing so maximizes expected utility. Morals may differ from society to society but for the most part, the basic fundamental morals are unified by most of the groups.[1]
A market is a great place for the riches as they have the power to purchase. In the case of votes, the rich can buy the votes in exchange for money and undermine democracy. In his book, “What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets[2]” by Michael Sandel, Sandel introduced a chapter called “How markets crowd out morals”, in which he explained the fairness objection and the corruption objection[3]. He uses these, in combination with Kant's formula of humanity[4] to explain why the market for the commodification of voting rights is unethical.
Economists views[edit]
Based on moral reasoning and values, certain things are deemed morally sound and others as immoral. Looking at the perspective of voting rights up for sale, the economists would approve of such an exchange as there is a voluntary exchange, the exchange is fair and thus it should not interfere. The free market made its way into democracy.
Deontological views[edit]
Political parties began buying votes in exchange for money and/or favours. The voter and candidates would negotiate a price and the voter would get paid in exchange, the candidate gets their vote.
By Kantian ethics this transaction is immoral. The mere concept of using another individual's vulnerable position for personal gain is unethical.
The purchase of voting rights should not be a commodity. Voting rights are special rights inherited by members, and it allows them to play their role as citizens of the country to select the leader of their choice. Citizens who have voting rights earn these rights by devoting themselves and fulfilling their duties as members of the nation. These privileges are granted upon the individual commitment of the members, it is exclusive, and makes them a citizen of the nation, as it is not given to everyone therefore when a vote is sold by a citizen, the vote buyer has, in essence, stripped the citizen of their own honour and their identity.
A vote needs to be based on the individuals' own morals, ethics and values and they should align with the political leaders' opinions. The evolution of mankind, unfortunately, has turned this privilege into an immoral tangible commodity.
Fairness Objection views[edit]
The fairness objection made by Michael Sandel asks about the inequality that market choices may reflect and points to the injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under conditions of inequality or dire economic necessity.
According to the fairness objection, it is unfair to have a market for votes. The two sides to this include the fact that not every individual has the financial resources available to purchase their votes, additionally, the sector of the population in a dire economic state, will, unfortunately, be willing to do anything for income.
Kantian Ethics introduced us to the ethical law of the concept of goodwill and duty. The only virtue that can be unqualified good is goodwill. No other virtue has this status because every other virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends
In a democratic system, it is the act of preying on the low- income, vulnerable, disabled, marginalized sectors, who genuinely have no other resources available which corrupt the transaction. Even if these sectors unite, they do not have enough influence and power to be heard or have access to any funds. Hence, an unfair advantage is created for the wealthy. The ones with financial capital can, unfortunately, make much more appealing cases to the individuals in the public and in reality, get re-elected.[5]
Corruption Objection views[edit]
The Corruption objection, made by Michael Sandel, asks about the attitudes and norms that market relations may damage or dissolve degrading the effect of market valuation and exchange on certain goods and practices.
According to the corruption objection, certain moral and civic goods are diminished or corrupted if bought and sold [6] and votes are one of them. The selling of votes is unethical as it corrupts the good the ‘voting rights’ hard work and devotion gets you.
The purchase of votes corrupts the fundamentals of democracy. It is the intent of using a certain sector of the population, objectifying them, constantly hounding them with hoards of limited information and ultimately changing their own moral and ethical values that corrupts this process of fairness and equality. Democracy fundamentally prides on giving all the voters and candidates a fair and equal opportunity for everything. A democratic system is a system in which the participants have the autonomy to vote freely and no participant has a vote has more importance than the other.
A market of votes gives an unfair advantage and corrupts democracy. It allows unfit individuals to be elected into positions with great power and responsibility, corrupting an entire system.[7][8]
Electoral Fraud[edit]
The commodification of votes is most commonly used for electoral fraud. Countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America are already victims of controvertial elections.
Lebanon[edit]
Lebanon is infamous for having electoral fraud in their state elections. The Lebanese Government allocates positions that confessionally distributed but elected by universal suffrage. Each religious community has an allotted number of seats in the Parliament. This religious link to government positions led to the process of gerrymandering and failure on the part of the government to elect a leader in 2013.
In 2017, authorities underwent new election laws and reformed electoral laws to reduce vote-buying. The contradiction in this situation was that it was the traditional elite of Lebanon who was responsible for the formation of these laws and hence instead of reforms addressing citizens’ needs and concerns, the reforms are done to keep the elite protected from lawsuits against themselves[9].
In 2018, when re-elections took place in Lebanon, the Iran-backed Shiite group Hezbollah, claimed a major victory in the Lebanese election, before official results had been announced, amid reports of voting fraud.
Nigeria[edit]
Nigerian politicians have participated in the commodification of votes historically, although, it has always been done secretly.
Naira notes were stuffed inside loaves of bread or while distributing rations to woo voters against their conscience to vote for them. This practice took place during the November 2016 gubernatorial election, when it was found that voters were bribed between N3,000 ($8) and N5,000 ($13) for voting in favour of a candidate. In poorer neighbourhoods, the voters were given food and supplies in exchange for their votes.
To combat electoral fraud, the Electoral Act of 2010 was amended to include Article 130 which stated that “A person who – (a) corruptly by himself or by any other person at any time after the date of an election has been announced, directly or indirectly gives or provides or pays money to or for any person to corruptly influence that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting at such election, or on account of such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting at such election, or (b) being a voter, corruptly accepts or takes money or any other inducement during any of the period stated in paragraph (a) of this section, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N100,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both.”
Even with the electoral regulation being constantly monitored, the commodification of votes has not reduced in Nigeria, although the rate of election-related deaths reported in Nigeria since 2015 has significantly dropped.
The February 2019 general national elections saw President Muhammadu Buhari reelected, even though the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD), a Nigerian non-government organization, published a post-mortem report on the national elections, that described the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) processes of collating vote totals as chaotic and subject to manipulation. It singled out five states where the collation process was especially bad: Lagos, Osun, Kaduna, Rivers, and Sokoto. The CDD report also included cites instances where the collation process was marred by violence and noted that security services were observed intimidating election workers and voters.
United States of America[edit]
The United States of America has also had its issues with maintaining all of its voters' rights in regards to elections. First outlined in the The Civil Rights Acts of 1870[10], some of the earliest federal protections against discrimination were put into place which was later revised in 1957, 1960 and 1964.
The Voting Rights Act in 1965 was passed to prohibit voter discrimination based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group. It also required certain places to provide election materials in languages besides English to make voting more inclusive. [11]
Examples of electoral systems[edit]
Bureaucratic votes[12][edit]
Max Weber wrote about Germany during the early 20th century, when developing capitalism was spawning more and more large businesses. Weber emphasized the importance of the bureaucracy in getting things done and believed that a well-organized, rational bureaucracy is the secret behind the successful operation of modern societies.
Bureaucratic elections are held to elect the candidates to become bureaucrats. Some examples of bureaucratic elections gone wrong include the one that occured in 2000. Florida’s elected secretary of state, Katherine Harris, who also served as co-chair of George W. Bush’s campaign in Florida was accused of tipping the election results for President Bush. . [13]
[edit]
A voting right is the right of shareholders to vote on matters of corporate policy, including decisions on the makeup of the board of directors, issuing securities, initiating corporate actions and making substantial changes in the corporation's operations.
Shareholders of listed companies have voting rights to elect the members in the board of directors.
Political votes[edit]
Political votes are votes taken to determine the leader of the state. It is vital in a democratic nation. An example of political voting gone wrong was in 2004 when Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was accused because he co-chaired President Bush’s reelection campaign and made some controversial decisions regarding voting procedures for the presidential election. [13]
Perspectives[edit]
Buyers Perspective[edit]
The individual who is trying to purchase the vote, tries to offer monetary exchanges to the other for their hassle to go to and cast the vote, or refrain from it. This exchange can be for money, services, goods, etc. The buyer will stop at nothing to ensure that they convince the voter to elect them. They have the purchasing power and the support fro such actions. They do have their own personal agendas to complete.
Sellers Perspective[edit]
Vulnerable sectors are targeted mostly for the sale of their vote. The individuals who are discriminated against, are the ones in tough financial situations, who may not be physically able to vote, marginalized, LGBTQ+, those who have limited access to information. These individuals are wooed by constant speeches, great promises, pennies as financial support and bombardment of limited information as well as societal pressures which may leave them either terribly confused or turns them into alienated voters.[14]
The commodification of votes gives the candidate an unfair advantage and hence violates one's fundamental rights.
Therefore, the market for the commodification of voting rights is an immoral practice that degrades the value of privileges that are either earned or bestowed upon. Going by Kantian Ethics and following the fairness and corruption objection, using an individual’s vulnerability or their economic situation for personal gain is an unethical practice that allows governments to be corrupted and individuals to be treated as a means to an end.
References and Citations[edit]
- ^ Gert, Bernard; Gert, Joshua (2017), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "The Definition of Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-25
- ^ "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets". The Barnes & Noble Review. 2012-05-09. Retrieved 2020-04-02.
- ^ "Chapter 3 – Fairness and Inequality: What Money Can['t] Buy, Part 3". Business 2 Community. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
- ^ Kerstein, Samuel (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Treating Persons as Means", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-04-02
- ^ Wilson, Eric Entrican; Denis, Lara (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Kant and Hume on Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-31
- ^ J., Sandel Michael (2012). What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- ^ "Chapter 3 – Fairness and Inequality: What Money Can['t] Buy, Part 3". Business 2 Community. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
- ^ "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets". The Barnes & Noble Review. 2012-05-09. Retrieved 2020-04-02.
- ^ "Lebanon's elections: More empty promises, same old corrupt system". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
- ^ "Civil Rights Act", Wikipedia, 2019-09-07, retrieved 2020-03-31
- ^ "Voting and Election Laws | USAGov". www.usa.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
- ^ "The Bureaucracy: The Real Government [ushistory.org]". www.ushistory.org. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
- ^ a b Kimball, David C.; Kropf, Martha (2006-11-11). "The Street-Level Bureaucrats of Elections: Selection Methods for Local Election Officials". Review of Policy Research. 23 (6): 1257–1268. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00258.x. ISSN 1541-132X – via JSTOR.
- ^ Charles Schaffer, Frederic. "What is Vote Buying?" (PDF). Department of Political Science: 1–26.