His argument is that, as much as citizens vote for things that benefit their individuality, they are also voting for those that aren’t able to speak up for themselves or simply aren’t allowed to. For example, citizens that vote have an impact on all aspects of society that affect persons who cannot vote like immigrants. It reveals to individuals just how much voting is a morally charged decision. They may not be able to see a drastic change based on their vote. However, it is the idea that if people demand their candidates to follow some type of standard then it is only fair they, as voters, do the same. It should be an easy task as voters to care for the governed, they just need to follow the moral code they once demanded to be followed by their candidates.
In economics, people learn that there is a relationship between the quantity of an item that producers desire to sell at different prices and the quantity that the consumers want to buy. This is the idea behind supply and demand. When the demand increases, the supply should increase and when the demand for something decreases, the supply for that specific object also decreases. This thought process can be seen within voting as well. Benjamin Enke writes in his book how the voting decisions, for the most part, reflect the idea between the voters´ and politicians´ moral values. His argument is that there is a system behind how citizens vote and it is one that follows the idea of supply and demand. He writes that the “supply-side” means that politicians might supply different degrees of universalism. The “demand side,” on the other hand, refers to the notion that people may vote for candidates or political parties that appeal to their own moral values (Enke 1). In other words, Enke argues that a natural gap exists between voters and elected officials, but voters attempt to decrease this gap through the parties they affiliate themselves with. The party system enables voters to believe that morals do determine who citizens vote for because people want those in office to reflect what they believe.
Therefore, they are able to estimate who could win an election because the ¨supply¨ of voters and their religious background could illustrate the ¨demand¨ needed to be seen within those running for a political position. If there’s an increase in religious citizens, then that would be reflected between the party and the state’s electoral delegate. They could then also expect to see a more conservative politician. The same is true on the contrary. In the end, the type of supply people witness will more than likely mirror that of the demand witnessed as well. Finally, citizens should be able to change their vote between political parties that they do not align with because their ethical standards may change allowing them to reevaluate the choices they make in hopes to adhere to an ethical life. There has to be something more if there is to be any kind of meaningful moral order. In Understanding The Times by Meyers and Noebel Francis Schaeffer is quoted writing, “ there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions” (Meyers and Noebel 1). Schaeffer’s argument here is that when people’s opinions conflict, the winner of the conflict is the more powerful opinion, regardless of how correct they might be. When it comes to the individual and their opportunity within a vote, it should be far more than an opinion. If citizens vote with their conscience they then vote based on their opinion. Meaning if they have a conflicting opinion then they don’t vote for that candidate.
That would be voting based on their emotional toll on that person. However, it should be more than that. Having the opportunity to vote as much as it is a privilege, is a right. Therefore it should be used as such. C.S. Lewis noted himself, “those who stand outside all judgments of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse” (Meyers and Noebel 1). C.S Lewis argues that if people are only making judgments on an emotional basis, then they are guided by conscience. A lot should go into voting as citizens should be making a choice that could make a difference and have a lasting effect in the years ahead. Those choices should require more than a feeling. With starting points for moral understanding, people should make detailed thoughts when voting in hopes of voting for those that they morally align with. There are many factors that influence American voting behaviors. Some argue people vote best when they have the opportunity to choose based on their free will. While Americans do have the opportunity to choose who they vote for based on their conscience, when the voter uses the foundation of their morals to vote instead, they will increase the chances of strengthening the government. When voters use their freedom to choose, their morals and ethical standards, they will only strengthen the outcome of the vote and the effect it has on their country. Ultimately leading to a stronger central government.
