What’s wrong with vote buying

Abstract

Almost everyone would agree that vote buying is morally wrong, and that prohibitions on vote buying are morally justified. Yet, recently, several philosophers have argued that vote buying is morally permissible, and (in some cases) that it should be legally permitted. This paper begins by examining and criticising arguments that have been offered in defence of vote buying. I then go on to consider existing attempts to explain the wrongness of vote buying, arguing that none is wholly successful. I then advance a novel account of the wrongness of vote buying. Vote buying is objectionable, I argue, because it involves a failure of respect for one’s fellow citizens as autonomous agents. I also consider the implications of my account for a number of other controversial practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723, 726 (11th Cir. 1999).

  2. 2.

    For this reason, I do not address Freiman’s (2014, pp. 762–4) argument that voters have the right to vote as they choose, and that this entails a right to vote in accordance with others’ directions in return for some material benefit. This, if successful, would at best establish a right to sell one’s vote, rather than a right to buy others’ votes.

  3. 3.

    See Taylor (2018, pp. 4–8) for a critique of this argument.

  4. 4.

    See also Buchanan and Tullock (1962, pp. 270–81), Copp (2000, p. 87), and Tobin (1970, p. 269).

  5. 5.

    See, among others, Freiman (2014, p. 764), Levmore (2000−2001), and Philipson and Snyder (1996).

  6. 6.

    Though, on this point, see Archer et al. (Forthcoming).

  7. 7.

    Strictly, this function (and the function below) should include terms for the expressive payoffs of voting (or exercising control over some set of votes), and the costs of doing so. We can safely leave these terms out for simplicity.

  8. 8.

    See also Levmore (2000–2001, pp. 122–5).

  9. 9.

    Which, of course, is not to deny that the members of G may be wronged by I’s conduct, here, in some other way.

  10. 10.

    There is experimental evidence in support of this claim. See Feddersen et al. (2009), for example.

  11. 11.

    See also Christiano (2003, p. 55), Satz (2010, p. 102), Sunstein (1994, p. 849), and Tobin (1970, p. 269).

  12. 12.

    It may do so contingently, of course. Officials might take directions from someone able to exert substantial influence over large numbers of others.

References

  1. Archer, A., Engelen, B. & Ivankovic, V. (Forthcoming). Effective vote markets and the tyranny of wealth. Res Publica.

  2. Blais, A., & Dobrzynska, A. (1998). Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research,33, 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brennan, J. (2011). The ethics of voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. E. (1993). Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brennan, J., & Jaworski, P. (2016). Markets without limits: Moral virtues and commercial interests. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Christiano, T. (2003). An argument for democratic equality. In T. Christiano (Ed.), Philosophy and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christman, J., & Anderson, J. (2005). Introduction. In J. Christman & J. Anderson (Eds.), Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Copp, D. (2000). Capitalism versus democracy. In J. D. Bishop (Ed.), Ethics and capitalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics,88, 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Why restrain alienation? Columbia Law Review,85, 970–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feddersen, T., Gailmard, S., & Sandroni, A. (2009). Moral bias in large elections: Theory and experimental evidence. The American Political Science Review,103, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Freiman, C. (2014). Vote Markets. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,92, 759–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Why citizens should vote: A causal responsibility approach. Social Philosophy and Policy,16, 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hasen, R. L. (2000). Vote Buying. California Law Review,88, 1323–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karlan, P. S. (1994). Not by money but by virtue won? Vote trafficking and the voting rights system. Virginia Law Review,80, 1455–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kochin, M. S., & Kochin, L. A. (1998). When is buying votes wrong? Public Choice,97, 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levmore, S. (2000–2001). Voting with intensity. Stanford Law Review, 53, 111–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2011). Vote buying and election promises: Should democrats care about the difference? The Journal of Political Philosophy,19, 125–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Philipson, T. J., & Snyder, J. M. (1996). Equilibrium and efficiency in an organised vote market. Public Choice,89, 245–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Raz, J. (1975). Practical reason and norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Raz, J. (2014). Is there a reason to keep a promise? In G. Klass, G. Letsas, & P. Saprai (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1985). Inalienability and the theory of property rights. Columbia Law Review,85, 931–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Satz, D. (2010). Why some things should not be for sale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shiffrin, S. V. (2000). Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation. Philosophy & Public Affairs,29, 205–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stokes, S. C. (2007). Is vote buying undemocratic? In F. C. Schaffer (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stokes, S., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., & Brusco, V. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sunstein, C. R. (1994). Incommensurability and valuation in law. Michigan Law Review,92, 779–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor, J. S. (2017). Markets in votes and the tyranny of wealth. Res Publica,23, 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor, J. S. (2018). Two (weak) cheers for markets in votes. Philosophia,46, 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tobin, J. (1970). On limiting the domain of inequality. The Journal of Law and Economics,13, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory,29, 670–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zwolinski, M., & Wertheimer, A. (2016). Exploitation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/cgibin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=exploitation.

Download references

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this paper, not all of which I have been able to address, I thank Geoffrey Brennan, Lisa Hill, Philip Pettit, Nicholas Southwood, Laura Valentini, and Daniel Wodak, together with an anonymous reviewer for Philosophical Studies, and a seminar audience at the Australian National University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lachlan Montgomery Umbers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Umbers, L.M. What’s wrong with vote buying. Philos Stud 177, 551–571 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1194-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vote buying
  • Markets
  • Respect
  • Autonomy
  • Equality
  • Voting