Personal Responsibility Assignment
In the modern world, there exist registrations and well voting rights that every voter is familiar. Every voter is entitled to a single vote in an election system. A person is entitled to this voting right only if they have a sound mind and can make an informed decision on their own (Bexar Election Department 1). However, in of case incapacitation one can appoint a proxy to vote on his or her behalf. In this case, it is evident that there is a violation of the laws of a voting. Firstly, Margaret Martin has no permission whatsoever from Holly Martins to vote or act as her proxy voter because she is in a non-responsive state. Secondly, the choice made without her consent may not necessarily be the right one for her. I would alert my fellow board members that Holly’s ballot is likely not to be her own because this, in my understanding, qualifies as a form of election fraud.
Voting is a very critical exercise in a county and the welfare of its people in general. This is precisely the reason it is strictly governed by law. In law, there are no such provisions for allowed violations of any of its rules. When we vote, the power of making the leadership better or worse is bestowed upon us. In this scenario, Margaret Martin is assuming a dual power which is against the rule of law in voting (Langer, Gary, and Jon Cohen 5). In light to this, proper voting is morally and ethically significant. The concept of ethics is inseparable in this case. Voting is an issue that affects the life of all the people in a particular country. The accepted code of conduct in voting is where every individual exercises their full rights as a voter without any coercion or manipulation. The vote cast for Holly Martins is on a violation of law and, therefore, it fails to concur with the ethics of voting. It is clearly illustrated in the law and its ethics that every vote counts but only when it is casted justly (Bexar Election Department 2).
Controversy in this scenario presents itself by the fact that every vote in an election system counts. The difference brought about by an election affects everyone. It is her right as a citizen for her vote to effect these changes. However, the vote casted must represent her political interests in choosing a particular candidate which is not the case here. The interest represented is those for her sister Margaret Martins. Letting Margaret cast the vote on behalf of her sister ethically taints the reputation of the voting board (Langer, Gary, and Jon Cohen 5). The election result in this scenario will be unfair, since Margret’s second vote contravenes the rules of voting. The results would fail to reflect the wishes of the voters. Disallowing inclusion of holly’s absentees vote might supposedly deny her voting rights only if her sister was aware of her political inclination. In the event that Margret could give and direct on the choice of her vote, allowing her vote would be ethically right.
As a member of the election personnel, I would allow for the inclusion of Holly’s vote in the final tally. Having been adequately acquainted with the Martins, it is my belief that any of them would make a sound vote in promotion of the common good (Langer, Gary, and Jon Cohen 5). Objections on the incapacitation of the voter would arise. However, the possibility that she might have expressed her political inclination earlier during the campaigning period would address these objections.
Works Cited
Bexter Election Depertment. What are my rights as a voter? 2014. print. 15 October 2014.
Langer, Gary, and Jon Cohen. "Voters and Values in the 2004 Election." Public Opinion Quarterly 69.5 (2005): 744-759.
