Ethics of Representative
The other night I saw two delegates from Florida interviewed. Both were elected to vote for Trump at the convention. The two were Cruz supporters and freely admitted on national television they ran as Trump delegates only so they could switch their vote to Cruz on the second ballot if there was one. I gather is part of the Cruz “ground team” procedure. The rules allow this. The two were asked if they thought they were doing anything unethical by being elected to vote for Trump with an agenda to vote for Cruz. Both answered it was not unethical. What is the opinion in the Gulch?
It's like asking whether it is ethical for a group of thieves to give some members less of the loot than they had promised them. Any answer is wrong.
Obviously if the first ballot doesn't select someone then somebody is going to have to be persuaded to change -- but they shouldn't be actually an advocate for a different candidate.
It isn't just the vote, it's also voting on rules and other procedural things. If you are actually voting against the interest of the person you are supposedly representing you are acting unethically.
Then is it ethical to vote for a candidate in the general election if you do not truly support that candidate's views, that is, if your "hidden agenda" is really to advance a cause contrary to the one that candidate supports? If not, then your only ethical choices are to vote Libertarian, cast a write-in ballot or stay home.
Like Treebeard in "Lord of the RIngs", since no one is entirely on my side, I'm not entirely on anyone else's side. But that doesn't mean I stay in the forest and don't fight in the battle for Middle Earth.
This whole delegate mess makes me very happy that I’m not a Republican.
If that were the case, I could only legitimately vote for myself -- and I'm not running.
"a candidate which doesn't completely agree with your views." --WilliamShpley
I don't think candidates have strong views. They're generally not philosophers or policy wonks. They're popular people who enjoy being popular. To get to that level of popularity requires careful strategizing and saying/doing things that make people feel like the candidate represents them.
Most politicians probably don't understand policy at the level of most people on this message board. The average politician would blow us away at walking into an event, meeting ten strangers, and committing to memory all their names and a funny anecdote from each of their work or family lives.
A far better question might have been: 'You ran for the position of delegate for the convention based on support for Trump, yet you've admitted publicly that you are actually supporters of Cruz or another nominee and will do whatever you can to support other than Trump? How can anyone in the community ever believe in or trust that anything that you ever say in business or personally, you will stand behind? What makes you 'so special' that you know better than the people that voted for you, even if they believed your lies.?
I'm with CBJ -- the whole political process is so deeply illegitimate on so many levels that just about any action that may slow down or stop any of its many invasions of liberty becomes justifiable. Disobeying the law will only be wrong per se if we first get a completely rightful set of laws.
Ends: "Secure your liberty against those who use the political process to destroy it."
Means: "Any defensive action that does not violate the rights of others not involved in the dispute."
How is self-defense inconsistent with Objectivist ethics?
Should he evasively start to talk rules, I'd tell Ted that Trump was right about him after all.
As for the two delegates, I'd like to send them rat costumes for Christmas.
The entire political class does not accept responsibility for their unethical behavior.
We who laud ethics often get most upset with the ethics of those we would like to respect. Let's have a shout out for the vile "ethics" of the utterly corrupt Clinton. Or the jovially perceived monster in the Bernie suit, selling the poison of socialism to unwitting children.
Delegates who will actually vote for what they promised by law fall a lot closer to the ethics tree than most of what transpires in presidential campaigns.
We've got the armed robbery level of mal-ethics when a candidate says, "I'll do this when I'm elected," but never even trying to observe the promise later. Then we have the relative jaywalking level of mal-ethics in "I'll vote for him" and honoring at least the first portion of that commitment, possibly the entirety of the commitment if a first-round vote establishes a win for the promised candidate. I’ll tolerate that level.
Let's muddy the ethical waters further. Suppose I were a delegate who considers my "officially" supported candidate to be a nation-crushing mini-Mussolini. I reason (you might say rationalize) that misrepresenting my second round vote (but not the first round) serves the positive good of protecting the citizenry from impending evil. Here in post-constitutional America, I might consider that non-destructive measure as my only acceptable alternative to the carnage of an attempted assassination.
[Note for the record: I currently am not a candidate or delegate, nor am I involved in any assassination plans. My affirmatively physical acts to attempt to displace a politician from office have consisted only of my lawful candidacy for the US House of Representatives some eight years ago. Rather than write my congressman, I attempted to become my congressman.]
Let’s take the above hypothetical scenario a step further. It’s the second ballot and you’re the deciding vote. By the convention rules, you’re now free to vote for any candidate. Do you vote for the “nation-crushing mini-Mussolini” that you were pledged to on the first vote, thus securing his nomination, or do you betray the “expectations” of those who elected you and vote for another candidate, thus blocking his nomination?
Is it ethical to deal in secret in politics? I do not think so. However I have always liked this ethical question.
FDR poked and prodded Japan to attack us. Even ordered the admiral that was over Hawaii to ignore his instincts that said they were about to be attacked and sent all the newer ships away so we would only loose the old ones.
FDR recognized that if the US did not get into the war Germany would become to powerful to stop. He asked for and got a plan to get Japan to attack us, then let it happen. It was the only way he saw to get the Americans to get away from isolation.
I think there were likely other ways to deal with this problem that did not involve 3k Americans dying and multiple ships lost. Lets assume for the argument that there was not.
If true what FDR did was not ethical, but required for the future freedom of the US and world citizens.
When the Sons of Liberty took tax collectors, stripped them down and left them tarred and feathered on the lamp post in front of the tax collection office in Boston it was certifiably not ethical to do so. As the "Join or Die" changed to "Don't tread on me" the organization changed from a non ethical terrorist organization to a natural law and reason driven group. Without the unethical start to the sons of liberty I am not sure that America would exist.
It is something I am very devided on. I would greately prefer all actions to be ethical, but the truth is without some breaches of ethics for the right reasons the world would be a much worse place. It is also true that without the breach of ethics for the wrong reasons those breaches that were done in response would not have been needed.
I think perhaps when a system exists that is completely unethical and void of reason the only remaining course of action is also going to be unethical, but full of reason as to why it must be done. That however is a very slippery slope and it is rare that the first steps down it are taken and then the person or organization is able to pull back to an ethical position.
The sons of liberty did so, the US government has never pulled back from the manipulations used to get us into world war II.
I do not think the question is if its ethical or not, as its obviously not. The question is are there cases where a breach of ethics is needed, and if so is this such a situation?
I personally still have these two questions and am not sure of my answers on either at this time.
expected as much, and known it in advance. . these folks
are playing games with money and power, at the expense
of us taxpayers, and this kind of maneuvering should be
anticipated. . IMHO. -- j
.
signal controversy, but instead to criticize the mis-led
innocent people -- the voting public -- who have for decades
continued to expect more from "the best politicians
money can buy" here in the u.s. . Yes, I am glad that
this reporter brought this out felicitously. . it's just that
the games being played with our votes dismay me to tears. -- j
.
helpful, we need this kind of thing posted on billboards
and shouted from the rooftops! . people are numb. -- j
.
The answer is as some stated it's allowed under the rules. the rules also allow voting for the same individual or some third individual.
Depending on the State. I can find no evidence of any elector being fined or jailed for doing otherwise ...how ever Why? Probably it would violate the federal rules. Has anyone made a serious move to make a change? No. They have not. It's not of enough importance except for a few. The couch potato vote doesn't matter.
They are all talk and no walk just channel clickers which no doubt tires them out.
Only one instance of of popular being overturned in the entire history of the country and no it wasn't Gore.
Back to the topic. Is it ethical. Yes because they folowed the rules. Do I personally approve of it? No? Has nothing to do with anything it isn't important enough. So I don't whine every five seconds
Even so if you want the opinion of the members of the Gulch assuming you you mean objectivists the answer will be be as many as their are members. Each individually responsible for their own morals, values and ethics and upholding them . If today we have 100 reading and 50 members there will be 50 valid objectivist opinions.
If you have any facts to present to sway those opinions by all means present them. And their sources When that happens we will have 51.
Not our job to change diapers. Your (whoever presented this example) charge your responsibility. Judging without some proof the charge is valid and then on the merits of the charge is pre judging before facts are in evidence another way of saying prejudicial. Any chance it will be presented and if not this should have been presented in tht manner as a made up example and presented in that manner. I cannot accept 'memory' without confirmation and the rest of the requirements of at the least that required to establish probable cause.
They are unethical. I have little time, or regard for those that tolerate or commit fraud. At its base is deceit and duplicity. The system is corrupt and they not only give sanction, but use its corruption as intended and manipulate it at will. Most are not so bold as to admit it publicly... trusting Joe Public not to look beneath the hood. Even if enough people see the problem it will not matter, as long as it is legal, they will feel impotent. That is why it is set up as is. The establishment machine created it and counts on it.
Respectfully,
O.A.
If the system allows switching between ballots, then there is something afoul in the system itself. It's the wolf sneaking in in sheep's clothing. It's a chameleon masquerading as an elephant. It's raising deceit to a legitimate tool of statecraft (oh, wait, that's already enshrined).
What sickens me is that the deceivers congratulate themselves on their cleverness as though succeeding through deception were a virtue. Hah, another case of the ends justifying the means. For them, A equals any letter of the alphabet except A.
Such a philosophy will turn all of us into liars or paranoids. It is said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The concept of honor is vanishing from our value system.
Even Rand said that we don't owe honesty to a hold-up man (or any enemy). How far do we want to extend this justification of deception? To any rival or competitor, to any but our closest and trusted allies, and for only as long as they remain trustworthy?
Let's check that premise. If honor and honesty are so negotiable, so provisional even within a rational philosophy, we will never build a rational free society. The biggest liars and the biggest guns will always win, and there will be honor only among thieves.
Objective ethics? What a quaint idea.
Most people opt for short-term gain, range-of-the-moment benefits, and don't think through to the very long-range goal of the larger self-interest. They don't see adhering to ethical choices as an investment towards that rational society in which they can actualize their own happiness, freedom and purpose of their life.
To consider only one's own short-range benefit, say within one's own lifetime, and ignore long-range consequences for humanity, such as the survival of billions of individuals in a closed eco-system, is like sacrificing all those others to oneself.
Genuine self-interest needs to take into account not only one's immediate and exclusively self-serving interests but an entire society in which all individuals can act to conduct their lives to attain their purposes and happiness.
A smidgen of rational ethics applied long-range would better serve everyone's self-interest. That would be a truly virtuous self-serving code of values.
It's ironic that even in this motherlode of Objectivist ethics people still can't agree on what they are. I see the cause as an evolutionary process, with humanity still having one foot in the predatory animal state and the other foot not yet firmly planted on the volitional-consciousness level. We have our work cut out for us.
As I said here before: "The issue here was not the rules, but the ethics of misleading voters by W saying he is a supporter of X when in truth W is a supporter of Y and will turn on X at the first opportunity." This is not a matter changing one's mind later, it is a matter of deceit from the start.
Under the framework of Objectivist ethics, is this ethical?
1. Is there an issue here or is an issue being created (including giving false or misleading information)?
2. If there is an issue, are reality and reason going to prevail or are lies going to win the day?
3. Is the issue at hand an attempt to overtake reality and reason and replace them with a counterfeit reality?
Deception is always an indicator of ethical misconduct. Look for deception and you will find ethics are under assault.
As I said here before: "The issue here was not the rules, but the ethics of misleading voters by W saying he is a supporter of X when in truth W is a supporter of Y and will turn on X at the first opportunity." This is not a matter changing one's mind later, it is a matter of deceit from the start.
Under the framework of Objectivist ethics, is this ethical?
From your comment, I judge you are saying the conduct by W is not ethical.
There is an anthology written by Dr. Leonard Peikoff about an early encounter with Ayn where he presents a scenario where dishonesty is involved to deceive and Ayn carefully picks it apart so that Leonard saw that the lies would come back to haunt the deceiver.
Rational self-interest is for the long-term and must be part of global thinking.
A quick victory through cheating will come to harm later.
Without that information go back one step and the charge itself is baseless and unethical. Until facts have been presented no determination can be made.and to attempt to do so is unethical and immoral.
And your only answer is accept what I say at face value with nothing to back it up? Get real. I noted Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Lbrty didn't mind adding to his/her or their comment.
Objectivism of which you are a stranger demands facts and background and does not judge in a prejudicial manner for that you want Socialism and the philosophy of Plato.
Does that answer your question?
And you want me to accept t.
However, you are correct and completely on the same path to truth that I am.
False accusation is the first aggressive step of people with evil intentions.
However, what one must recognize is that this very style of election was first used to select our President of the United States. If the votes are distributed in such a manner in which no candidate achieves the critical number necessary to secure that seat (or in this case nomination) than some votes must necessarily change to break the impasse. So to say that changing one's vote after the first/obligated vote is unethical is ridiculous. It would result only in perpetual stalemate of the system. Voters must be able to be swayed to break such an impasse. Otherwise, you would have no delegate at all from that Party.
Hmmmm... Maybe I inadvertently hit on something there...
Anyway, going back to the mention about the original elections for President, I think the original election between Adams and Jefferson to be highly instructive as to the ramifications of such a system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_.... As a result, we got the Twelfth Amendment, which also instituted political parties and neutered the threat of Presidential veto.
You are arguing "fairness" - not ethics at all! It is not unlike Donald Trump's continual whining about how "unfair" the process is despite the fact that the rules were the rules before the campaigning began, but because the outcome wasn't in his favor that somehow it is an ethical dilemma.
Ethical dilemmas arise when there is a conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You are implying that there is a spirit of the law with respect to delegate voting that delegates must continue to vote for the same candidate no matter what. I do not see that implication anywhere in our current voting system, which is what I pointed out with Jefferson v Adams. It is an argument concocted by Trump supporters merely to gin up emotional outrage and manipulate public opinion. I reject such attempts as the resort of the immature: a temper tantrum of a spoiled brat.
(I will readily grant that the history of a contested convention is one of an abnormality, however, rather than the norm.)
As I said here before: "The issue here was not the rules, but the ethics of misleading voters by W saying he is a supporter of X when in truth W is a supporter of Y and will turn on X at the first opportunity." This is not a matter changing one's mind later, it is a matter of deceit from the start.
Under the framework of Objectivist ethics, is this ethical?
Since neither appears to be the case, I would first point out that Rand would first object to running for office in the first place, so from that standpoint, I find it very difficult to humor the notion that somehow an Objectivist point-of-view can even be used to evaluate this situation.
Your entire argument is the claim that "it is a matter of deceit from the start." I understand what you are saying, it just appears to me that you aren't interested in anything but acclaim for your rather visceral evocation.
Rules are a means to an end. What one says when they imply ethical violations in any matter is that there is an end in mind but that the means used to achieve that end are inconsistent with the spirit or letter of that end. The entire Primary process is a matter of selecting a representative for a specific political party to act as a candidate in the General Election. The rules - and goal - are to select a Nominee which is supported by a majority of the delegates (not the People) - in this case at the Republican National Convention. The fallacy that you refuse to admit for yourself is that there is some requirement - either written or unwritten - of those Delegates to continue to vote for the same Candidate over and over and over again - regardless if that person has secured the necessary 51% to actually earn the Nomination. What you are saying is that those Delegates who already declared for Marco Rubio have the same responsibility to continue to vote for Marco Rubio that a Kasich delegate would have to vote for Kasich and so on. It is an absurd proposition that would result in perpetual stalemate (and which actually happened in the election for President of 1800).
Delegates are committed to vote for a particular candidate only on the first round. That's it. That is ethics, it is history, it is the rules. To argue otherwise is to argue for gridlock - not ethics. Now I know you are going to come back and say that people should only switch their votes if there is another candidate which is more "viable". But even that is entirely the point: how does one determine who is the "viable" candidate? If none of the current crop have mustered the necessary majority count, should we simply toss them all out and select someone one else entirely (Paul Ryan)? Should we re-do all the Primary contests and vote on only those who have secured some arbitrary vote threshold?
Several items I think are of import:
1. That Cruz' campaign understands how the delegation process works (for good or evil) with bound and unbound delegates. They have been educating delegates on that process and getting involved to make sure delegates favorable to that campaign are in place as much as possible. Cruz is working - and working hard - to secure the nomination.
2. That Trump's campaign doesn't understand how the delegation process works. Article after article of talking to party leaders of any level indicate that Trump has done nothing at a grass-roots level in many states to obtain delegates. He has been relying solely on popular opinion. Trump has done little to nothing to secure the nomination.
=> That Trump's campaign is probably going to lose in a contested convention because it has not spent the time or resources necessary to win over other candidates' delegates to himself.
I remain open to more information if you have more to provide or a separate context you feel it appropriate to add.
Perhaps its the end of the two party ram-it-down-our-throats system. I hope so. The whole delegate system is VERY unethical and crooked, as is the electoral college.
Our entire nation would be very different sans the Twelfth Amendment because third party runs for President would be the norm - not the exception. A repeal of the Twelfth Amendment (IMO) would go a long ways towards eliminating much of the power of the current two-party political system we have had for the last two centuries.
However, a second ballot requires a rethink because the first one didn't work out the way it was expected to.
I can see voting for a different candidate on second vote if you have not pledged to vote for Trump. But where you pledge to vote for Trump do not disclose you are a Trump supporter and actually want to undermine Trump, is that conduct ethical?
My answer again is Yes...as long as they stick to the job they were elected for...second votes...all bets are off.
I am also going to look at it your way, Yes, because their intention is to honor their agreement even though they would rather support TC...I am not sure I would take that chance.
Like I said, I wouldn't take that chance.
The Supreme Court has never made a judgement on natural born citizen and refused to overturn the one made in Pennsylvania.
Congress refused to comment any further on the subject and backed up the Pennsylvania decision on the matter.
No one else has bothered to push the issue in the court system
The Department of Immigration and Naturalization now counts as native born and natural born those born outside the country of at least one US Citizen parent.
This is the last time I'm offering diaper service on the matter.
Here is the beginning of the resources any competent individual would have checked prior to commenting
Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and ...
https://winteryknight.com/.../harvard......
Jan 14, 2016 - Donald Trump has been questioning whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for ... Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and is eligible to become President ... A legal opinion from the Harvard Law Review.
Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president
www.theguardian.com › US News › Ted Cruz
Jan 10, 2016 - Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president 'unsettled' ... Cruz has since cited a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article by two former ..... ever have an opinion that was helpful to a rightwing nutter like Trump.
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio......
Jan 12, 2016 - Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener ... [Opinion: Yes, Ted Cruz is a “natural-born citizen”] ... This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by ...
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” - Harvard Law ...
harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-m...
Mar 11, 2015 - Harvard Law Review Forum ... See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born ... candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. ... See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L.
Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is
www.rawstory.com/.../harvard-law-prof......
Jan 11, 2016 - Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is 'murky ... Cruz has since cited a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article by two ...
Constitutional Scholars Explain Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible to ...
abcnews.go.com/Politics/constitutiona......
Jan 6, 2016 - Legal scholars say Ted Cruz is eligible to occupy the Oval Office. ... as President,” the bipartisan duo wrote in a Harvard Law Review article in March 2015. ... Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, told ABC News ...
Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled
www.salon.com/.../ted_cruz_has_a_very......
Jan 22, 2016 - The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. ... over the eligibility of Canadian-born Ted Cruz to serve as president awakened ... to the Harvard Law Review to argue the opposite side from Harvard's Lawrence ... In 1774, Thomas Jefferson published “Summary View of the Rights of British ...
The debate over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be ... - Vox
www.vox.com/explainers/2016/1/14/1077...
Jan 15, 2016 - Is Ted Cruz constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States? ... And court opinions that have mentioned the term in passing while ruling ... But it's a stretch to say, as Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe did earlier .... It's not like this dilemma was unforeseeable: A law review article about ...
Is Cruz Eligible to Run for President? A Primer -- NYMag
nymag.com/daily/.../01/cruz-eligible-...
Jan 22, 2016 - Cruz is clearly a citizen under the second qualification, so what's the problem? ... in an often-cited March 2015 op-ed in the Harvard Law Review. ... in a CNN opinion piece that Cruz might not have been eligible if he were born in 1790. ... When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the ...
Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Texas. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Cruz graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and from Harvard Law .... While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, ...
If a 25 year old ran for office, who would demand to see his birth certificate to determine that he was at least 35? Would anyone who brought the issue up be called a "birther"?
I must now do a Sherman having found out I could have run for President all those years ago as I was born in UK of one US Citizen parent.
If nominated I shall not run.
If elected i shall not serve.
I'm having too much fun Objectively
Tilting at Subjective wind mills philosophically.
Sourcing your comments is always a good idea as it helps the rest of us follow your thinking to a conclusion. With thanks for those who are at that level.
Republican National Committee
1854-2016
Load more comments...