3 ms·

I think there's a reasonable case that legislators should have a secret ballot so as to reduce their vulnerability to lobbyists and donors. Not sure if I agree

I think there's a reasonable case that legislators should have a secret ballot so as to reduce their vulnerability to lobbyists and donors. Not sure if I agree but it's a reasonable position. I don't think there's any major country like that though. A representative volunteered and publically campaigned as being for X, Y, and Z, so either they vote for those positions and the public gets what they asked for, or they don't and they lose their job. In practice, life is more complicated of course, but that's the idea.

rini17 6y ago
Unlike voters, legislators are expected to be individually accountable. There are reasons why secret ballot is possible in parliament, but considered exceptional (or shady) measure. Lobbyists and donors vulnerability is better alleviated by fixed salary and functional impartial criminal/justice system.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  I think the expectation of accountability is the key difference, but I’m not sure why we don’t expect individual voters to be accountable in any way for their political beliefs and votes, even to light social criticism.
  - Zuider 6y ago
    Assuming for the sake of argument that light social criticism in response to one's voting preferences being publicly known is always a good thing, can you suggest a means where someone can be exposed to this alone, excluding all the other potential abuses sketched in the comments above? I don't think it is possible. Added to that, it could lead to 'always on' political discourse, which tends to be divisive and disruptive. This is the reason that companies prohibit political discussion in the workplace, or family get-togethers can become nightmares when strongly opinionated relatives clash. It also excludes the possibility of agreeing to disagree, which is based on an acknowledgement of human fallibility, that people have intrinsic worth apart from their opinions, and that a diversity of opinions may be overall more beneficial than strict uniformity.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      I wasn’t suggesting some database of everyone’s votes to facilitate social criticism. I’m just referring to people who complain about getting criticism from friends/family/peers for certain political beliefs which were shared explicitly.

rini17 6y ago

Unlike voters, legislators are expected to be individually accountable. There are reasons why secret ballot is possible in parliament, but considered exceptional (or shady) measure. Lobbyists and donors vulnerability is better alleviated by fixed salary and functional impartial criminal/justice system.

tshaddox 6y ago
I think the expectation of accountability is the key difference, but I’m not sure why we don’t expect individual voters to be accountable in any way for their political beliefs and votes, even to light social criticism.
- Zuider 6y ago
  Assuming for the sake of argument that light social criticism in response to one's voting preferences being publicly known is always a good thing, can you suggest a means where someone can be exposed to this alone, excluding all the other potential abuses sketched in the comments above? I don't think it is possible. Added to that, it could lead to 'always on' political discourse, which tends to be divisive and disruptive. This is the reason that companies prohibit political discussion in the workplace, or family get-togethers can become nightmares when strongly opinionated relatives clash. It also excludes the possibility of agreeing to disagree, which is based on an acknowledgement of human fallibility, that people have intrinsic worth apart from their opinions, and that a diversity of opinions may be overall more beneficial than strict uniformity.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    I wasn’t suggesting some database of everyone’s votes to facilitate social criticism. I’m just referring to people who complain about getting criticism from friends/family/peers for certain political beliefs which were shared explicitly.