Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Impartiality and democracy: an objection to political exchange.Matthew T. Jeffers - 2024 - Economics and Philosophy 40 (1):166-189.
    The philosophical debate concerning political exchange has largely been confined to debating the desirability of vote trading; where individuals can sell their votes or buy votes from others. However, I show that the vote credit systems prevalent in public choice theory entirely avoid the common objections to political exchange that afflict vote trading proposals. Namely, vote credit systems avoid equality concerns and inalienability concerns. I offer an alternative critique to formal mechanisms that encourage political exchange by drawing on the role (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What’s wrong with vote buying.Lachlan Montgomery Umbers - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (2):1-21.
    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 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Vote markets, democracy and relational egalitarianism.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2023 - Economics and Philosophy 39 (3):373-394.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Markets in votes: Alienability, strict secrecy, and political clientelism.Nicolás Maloberti - 2019 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 18 (2):193-215.
    Standard rationales for the illegality of markets in votes are based on concerns over the undue influence of wealth and the erosion of civic responsibility that would result from the commodification of votes. I present an alternative rationale based on how the mere alienability of votes alters the strategic setting faced by political actors. The inalienability of votes ensure the strict secrecy of voting, that is, the inability of voters to communicate credibly to others the content of their votes. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation