In Defence of Open Voting

ABSTRACT

This paper argues against the secret ballot on the basis of a view of democracy where voters are mutually accountable to one another for their electoral choices. In contrast to Mill's and more recent arguments for opening up the ballot which have a broadly consequentialist nature, this paper offers an principle argument. First it suggests that the egalitarian defence of democracy could be supplemented by augmenting what the egalitarian relationship between citizens consists in. It argues for a ‘substantive egalitarian’ view of democracy where citizens cast their vote on the basis of the values and ideals they support, delegating the role of legislating on their bases to representatives. Each citizen is both an agent, qua co‐author of the ideals underlying state action, and a subject, qua her status as an individual affected by legislation grounded in those ideals. On that basis I argue that citizens' egalitarian political relationship is one of mutual horizontally accountability. The ideal of accountability implies that voters have a legal obligation to publicise their identities and a civic obligation to respond to one another's requests for the reasons for their votes. Only through presenting themselves to each other in this way can citizens as co‐authors properly assume responsibility for their role in providing the normative bases of law. The paper concludes by addressing objections to open voting, specifically that it is unfeasible because it would encourage corruption, and depress turnout and lead to civic shame.