Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:06:11.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vote markets, democracy and relational egalitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2022

Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen Open the ORCID record for Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen [Opens in a new window]
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
*
Email: lippert@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper expounds and defends a relational egalitarian account of the moral wrongfulness of vote markets according to which such markets are incompatible with our relating to one another as equals qua people with views on what we should collectively decide. Two features of this account are especially interesting. First, it shows why vote markets are objectionable even in cases where standard objections to them, such as the complaint that they result in inequality in opportunity for political influence across rich and poor people, are inapplicable. Second, it specifies the sense in which, politically speaking, we should relate as equals, and in doing provides a richer version of recent relational egalitarian accounts of the ideal of democracy.

Keywords

Ethics of votingpolitical legitimacyvote buyingrelational egalitarianismpolitical obligation
Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , November 2023 , pp. 373 - 394
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109, 287–337.10.1086/233897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. and Wilson, A.T. 2014. Against vote markets: a reply to Freiman. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2, 1–5.Google Scholar
Archer, A., Engelen, B. and Ivankovic, I. 2019. Effective vote markets and the tyranny of wealth. Res Publica 25, 39–54.10.1007/s11158-017-9371-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, W. 2007. Alienability: a rejoinder to Kuflik. Humanomics 23, 117–136.10.1108/08288660710779362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. 2011. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, I. 2011. Respect and the basis of equality. Ethics 121, 538–571.10.1086/658897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper Row.Google Scholar
Freiman, C. 2014. Vote markets. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92, 759–774.10.1080/00048402.2014.892147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasen, R. 2000. Vote buying. California Law Review 88, 1323–1372.10.2307/3481262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, P. 1994. Not by money but by virtue won? Virginia Law Review 80, 1455–1475.10.2307/1073512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, P. 1999. Politics by other means. Virginia Law Review 85, 1697–1724.10.2307/1073935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochin, M.S. and Kochin, L.A. 1998. When is buying votes wrong? Public Choice 97, 645–662.10.1023/A:1004935916483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2014. Rule over none II: social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42, 287–336.10.1111/papa.12037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, L.L. and Leracleous, L. 2005. Shareholder votes for sale. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2005/06/shareholder-votes-for-sale.Google Scholar
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2010. Vote buying and election promises: should democrats care about the difference? Journal of Political Philosophy 19, 125–144.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2018. Relational Egalitarianism: Living as Equals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316675847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1861 [2005]. Representative Government. Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice (Revised edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. 2012. The Social Contract. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. 2000. What money can’t buy. In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. Peterson, G., 87–122. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. 2003. What money shouldn’t buy. The Hedgehog Review 5, 77–99.Google Scholar
Satz, D. 2010. Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311594.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, S. 2015. The practice of equality. In Social Equality, ed. Fourie, C., Schuppert, F. and Walliman-Helmer, I., 21–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, S.C. 2007. Is vote buying undemocratic? In Elections for Sale, ed. Schaffer, F.C., 81–99. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.10.1515/9781626372085-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 1994. Incommensurability and valuation in law. Michigan Law Review 92, 779–861.10.2307/1289693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.S. 2017. Markets in votes and the tyranny of wealth. Res Publica 23, 313–328.10.1007/s11158-016-9327-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D.P. 1995. Ethics in Congress. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Thrasher, J. 2016. The ethics of legislative vote trading. Political Studies 64, 614–629.10.1111/1467-9248.12205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, J. 1970. On limiting the domain of inequality. Journal of Law and Economics 13, 263–277.10.1086/466693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbers, L.M. 20 20. What is wrong with vote buying? Philosophical Studies 177, 1–21.Google Scholar
Viehoff, D. 2014. Democratic equality and political authority. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42, 337–375.10.1111/papa.12036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volacu, A. 2019. Electoral quid pro quo . Journal of Applied Philosophy 36, 769–784.10.1111/japp.12353CrossRefGoogle Scholar