The Ethics of Vote Trading
As I near the end of writing my local government ethics book, I am going
over local government ethics codes looking for unusual, but valuable
provisions to include in a special section that follows my discussion of the
run-of-the-mill provisions.<br>
<br>
I would like to share one of these provisions that is truly worth thinking about. It appears in the <a href="http://www.colocode.com/windsor/windsor_00b.pdf" target="”_blank”">Windsor, CO
ethics code</a>:
<br>
<blockquote><p>§5.2.M. No elected or appointed official or public body member
shall offer or promise to give his or her vote or influence in favor
of or against any proposed official action in consideration or upon
condition that any other elected or appointed official, public body
member, will promise or assent to give his or her vote or influence
in favor of or against any other proposed official action.</p></blockquote>
This provision makes it an ethics violation for an
official to trade votes, known as "logrolling," something that is
done every day without giving it much of a thought, ethicswise. So
let's give it a thought, ethicswise. More specifically, let's answer
the question, "Is vote trading a a valuable part of our democracy, or can it be a form of institutional corruption?"<br>
<br>
An official generally trades his vote on something he cares less
about for a vote on something he cares more about. It could be a
very important issue, but it's unlikely, because the more important
the issue is to one official, the more likely it will be important to other
officials (or, at least, their constituents), so no one will be likely to change their vote. Unless
something very important is offered in return, that is, something especially
important to that official. What could that be? Usually something
that is unimportant to other officials, such as a particular
contract, permit, grant, or job. In other words, the very areas
where most ethical misconduct occurs.<br>
<br>
Therefore, although vote trading can be a valuable way to break a
logjam (that logging metaphor again!), it is often done at the
expense of government ethics. And yet it is perfectly legal. In
fact, a well-done trade can allow an interested official to apparently deal responsibly with a conflict by withdrawing
from the matter, at least after victory has been assured (but no one
will know, or so he hopes). Everyone is, apparently, a winner.<br>
<br>
The truth is that vote trading can be used as a legal and common maneuver to do an end run around ethics rules. In other
words, it is a classic form of institutional corruption.<br>
<br>
There's a lot of potentially unethical conduct going on in a trade of votes. Besides not fully withdrawing (that is, participating even if not voting), at least one official is often (1) misusing his office to provide special consideration to another official, (2) being complicit in another's ethics violation, and (3) failing to be transparent regarding a vote (the public vote will not tell the whole story). And trading creates further obligations that lead to more trading, special consideration, complicity, and secrecy. Logrolling is a hard thing to do (on a log), and a hard way to keep democracy rolling along smoothly.<br>
<br>
After all, if everyone truly thought logrolling was an important and ethical way to make democracy work, wouldn't officials proudly state the deal they had made at the time they vote or recused themelves from voting?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959