A survey of New York University students confirms what I argued more than four (!) years ago: people will sell their power to vote if the price is right.
Two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do.That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found.
Only 20 percent said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch.
But 66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.
I bet most of those students would sell their power to vote for a lot less than $1 million if they actually found a guy willing to write checks.
Four years ago I raised this economic perspective on voting to wonder whether or not even fundamental elements of our society, such as suffrage for women, would be up for sale.
Costs and benefits often aren't monetary -- generally economists refer to "utility" to describe how valuable something is to a person. Love and affection, the power to vote, $1000, clean air -- all of these items have utility to people, and different people will value them differently. When it comes to the power to vote, I hypothesized that if you were to walk up to a random guy on the street and offer him a 20% permanent raise in exchange for his power to vote, he'd probably sell it to you. Most people don't vote, and many who do don't take it very seriously. If Joe Shmoe won't sell his vote for a 20% raise, maybe he will for 50%, or 100%, or 1000%. There's a price, you just have to find it and be willing to pay it. Some people may place infinite value on their power to vote, but I doubt there are many such people -- especially if you separate the power to vote from the natural rights we hold so dear.With all that understanding, it's quite reasonable to wonder whether or not giving women the power to vote was a wise idea. I agree that it has moral value, and we gain some utility as a society from that good morality, but does that moral utility out-weigh the utility of every effect that has arisen because women can vote? It's possible that that moral utility is more valuable to you than anything else, but I doubt that's the case.
If we could all see a permanent 20% increase in our standard of living by disenfranchising women (or men?), would you vote for it? 50%? 100%? It's a hypothetical, so name your price.
500 puppies!
On the other side of the coin, I was interested in whether I could buy a vote in the last American presidential election. I found plenty of votes for sale on ebay, but they were all removed before sale, I assume by ebay staff.
But it got me wondering how much I would pay for a vote. While I don't think it's ethical to put something like a vote up for sale, it would be interesting to let the market find a price.
jez: Why do you think it's unethical? Unethical in what sense? If a citizen is entitled by "right" (which I'm not sure I believe) to one vote, why is it unethical to cast that vote in a certain way in exchange for money? The whole point of the vote is to serve the citizen's interest, right?
Is it ethical to sell your body? Or to sell yourself as a slave?
But specifically with the vote: there are enough ways for a rich person to exercise his relative power already, the whole point of democracy is that that there be at least one avenue where all citizens' voices are equal. Any distortion of that is a corruption of democracy.
The citizen's interest is served, yes, but the constitutional safeguards in America have been very nicely worked out in the most part.
jez: Are those questions supposed to be rhetorical?
Is it ethical to sell your body? Depends what you mean. I think it's ethical to sell your organs if you want. I think it's unethical to sell yourself for sex, but that's because I think sex outside of marriage is wrong, not because I think sex is some special sort of work that should only be provided for free and not for money.
Is it ethical to sell yourself as a slave? I'd say it's ethically neutral. If you want to do that, then go ahead. As long as it's of your own volition, who can object?
As for votes, a "right" to vote doesn't mean anything if that vote can't be cast based on whatever reasons the citizen desires. Why not have a law prohibiting people from voting based on religion or economic interests? Why not prohibit voting based on familial connect to a candidate? Etc.
If a poor person wants to sell their vote, who are you to say that he isn't competent to make that choice?
This is an example of me arguing against an individual freedom in the hope that it will protect a collective one. It's not a matter of competence.
The existence of a market is what I object to, I think. If there is a market for votes or kidneys,
for one thing the very poor may be compelled to sell them (the option to sell may contribute to inflation for instance), in an analogue of the anti-euthanasia argument that the existence of the option might lead some to feel compelled to take it.
The effect would be for political systems to protect the rich more obviously. The rich would be even more powerful, and they will strive to stay rich and to stop other people becoming rich. If we care about social mobility and equality of opportunity, we must surely want to safeguard the democratic system, not have it be just another market.