User:Mihikachoudhary/sandbox

= Unethical markets on the 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.

Purchasing and selling voting rights is an immoral practice and it diminishes the value of the votes that a member is entitled to. Even though the philosopher, Emmanual 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. Shareholders selling their votes in corporations, a citizen of a country selling their votes to a candidate, corrupting the political system and is allowing powerful politicians to bribe their way into the government positions: position with power and influence. Throughout history, politicians have been accused of bribing their way into power.

A vote of any kind is a civic good, and civic goods are 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. Selling of votes is stripping one’s honor, their identity, because voting is inherited and shouldn’t be a commodity.

Market for voting rights is an immoral practice
Philosophers such as Emmanuel 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.

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.

Political parties have started buying votes in exchange for money. The voter and candidates would negotiate a price and the voter would get paid in exchange, the candidate gets their vote. However, from a philosophical point of view, this transaction is immoral. The selling of voting rights should not be a commodity. Voting rights are special rights inherited by members, it allows them to play their role as citizens of the country to select the leader of their choice. Members 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 commitment of the members, its exclusive as it is not given to everyone. Having the voting rights being sold on the market diminishes the value, it is stripping one’s honor, their identity as voting is ishould not be a tangible commodity.

A market is a great place for the riches as they can buy anything just with an exchange of money.In this case, 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 corruption objection and the fairness objection .The fairness objection points to the injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under conditions of inequality or dire economic necessity and the corruption objection points to the degrading 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 .The selling of votes is unethical because it corrupts the good the ‘voting rights’ hard work and devotion gets you.Corruption objection deals with the fact that the purchase of votes also corrupts democracy; 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 particular participant vote has more importance than another voter. 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.

The fairness objection points to the ‘injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under conditions of inequality or dire economic necessity’ and the corruption objection points to the degrading effect of market valuation and exchange on certain goods and practices. It points out the unfairness instigated by having the votes being sold on the market. Not everyone can have the financial capacity to purchase the votes of the market. Emmanuel Kant in his work discussed the very subject of ethics.In his work called Kantian ethics, he introduced us to the ethical law of the concept of 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  If we take democratic systems as an example, after being mistreated by a government that had been elected through corruption, if the citizens unite to form a body that would like to oppose the central body, they would not have the funds, resources or support to do that. Thus, it has created an unfair advantage to those who have financial capital. The ones with financial capital can, unfortunately, make much more appealing cases to the individuals in the public and in reality, get re-elected.

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.