A member of a club is really, what the
elector falsely believes himself to be, under no obligation to
consider the wishes or interests of any one else. He declares
nothing by his vote but that he is or is not willing to associate,
in a manner more or less close, with a particular person. This is a
matter on which, by universal admission, his own pleasure or
inclination is entitled to decide: and that he should be able so to
decide it without risking a quarrel is best for everybody, the
rejected person included. An additional reason rendering the ballot
unobjectionable in these cases is that it does not necessarily or
naturally lead to lying. The persons concerned are of the same class
or rank, and it would be considered improper in one of them to press
another with questions as to how he had voted. It is far otherwise
in parliamentary elections, and is likely to remain so, as long as the
social relations exist which produce the demand for the ballot; as
long as one person is sufficiently the superior of another to think
himself entitled to dictate his vote. And while this is the case,
silence or an evasive answer is certain to be construed as proof
that the vote given has not been that which was desired.
In any political election, even by universal suffrage (and still
more obviously in the case of a restricted suffrage), the voter is
under an absolute moral obligation to consider the interest of the
public, not his private advantage, and give his vote, to the best of
his judgment, exactly as he would be bound to do if he were the sole
voter, and the election depended upon him alone.
Pages:
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231