User:Mihikachoudhary/Unethical markets on the commodification of voting rights

= Commodification of voting rights = The market on the commodification of voting rights is based on buying and selling of votes that occurs in exchange for a monetary value or service exchange. It refers to the buying and selling of votes between the buyers, who pay the voter (the seller) to get them to vote in favor of their candidate.

The German philosopher, Immanual Kant's deontological view states that individuals should not be seen as a means to and end, the ethics and rationality behind the commodification of the votes, makes us question society's response to this market. It is active and predominant in some cases, in all sectors and scales. 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 buying and selling of votes diminishes the value of votes. Citizens are given this right and it gives them a voice to elect the representative of the state in which they live. Voting should be seen as a privelage, not a commodity which is why when a vote is sold on the market, it effectively strips an individuals identity and honor.

Market for voting rights
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. It takes time and effort that could be used for other valuable things, such as working for pay, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or playing video games. 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.

A market is a great place for the riches as they have the power to purchase. In 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 ” by  Michael Sandel, Sandel introduced a chapter called “How markets crowd out morals”, in which he explained the fairness objection and the corruption objection. He uses these to explain why the market for commodification of voting rigts is unethical.

Economists views
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
Historically, political parties began buying votes in exchange for money and/or favors. The voter and candidates would negotiate a price and the voter would get paid in exchange, the candidate gets their vote.

Voting should be seen as a privelage, not 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.

According to Kantian ethics this transaction is immoral.

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, its exclusive and is not given to everyone.

The mere concept of using another individual vulnerable position or inability to acess complete information, for personal gain is unethical. 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 that strips the citizen of their own honor, perosnal morals and their identity.

Fairness Objection
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, and 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 good will 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 low- income, vulnerable, disabled, marginalized sectors, who genuinely have no other resources available which corrupts 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.

Corruption Objection
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 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 misinformation 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. 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.

Cases of unethical market of voting rights
While researching the reasons behind the varying governmental systems, it was found that electoral fraud is surprisingly common in today's world. Countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America are already victims of political corruption. Lebanon is infamous for having electoral fraud in their state elections. In 2017, authorities underwent new election laws and reformed electoral laws to reduce vote-buying. The contradiction in this situation is that it was the traditional elite of Lebanon who were 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. However 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.

Another country where the market of voting rights is common is Nigeria. In November 2015, it was found that voters were bribed between N3,000 ($8) and N5,000 ($13) for voting in favor of a candidate. In poorer neighborhoods, the voters were given food and supplies in exchange for their votes. The Nigerian government recently passed an act named Article 130 that stated that any person who engaged in corruption methods by directly or indirectly gives money or goods fo the purpose of buying one vote will be fined for N100,000 and imprisonment for 12 months, to combat this electoral fraud crisis.

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, some of the earliest federal protections against discrimination were put into place which were later revised in 1957, 1960 and 1964. The Voting Rights Act in 1965 was passed to prohibit voter discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. It also required certain places to provide election materials in languages besides English.

Bureaucratic votes
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. .

Shareholder votes
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
Political votes are votes taken in order 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.

Buyers perspective
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.This gives the candidate an unfair advantage and is violating one's fundamental right to vote in change for a reward.

Vote sellers perspective
Vulnerable sectors are targeted mostly for the sale of their vote. The individuals who are discriminated against, are not the great financially, the ones who may not be physically able to vote, are swayed by constant speeches and bombardment of information other than societal pressures and alienated voters who just have just given up.

While we can understand why individuals may sell their votes due to extreme cases, 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.