My grandmother has relatively advanced Alzheimer’s disease and hearing loss. At 97, she is still present enough to recognize her loved ones and enjoy our company, but communicating with her is becoming almost impossible.
In the 2020 general election, she received an absentee ballot, and her immediate family members, including me, helped fill it. (Her intellect was declining four years ago, but not as degenerate as it is now.) As I recall, she held the pen while we did our best to explain each office and point. If there is any confusion, we will tell her how we voted, and she will do the same.
Is it unethical to help her vote again this November? I foresee things similar to the last general election, with her doing the mechanics of voting while we advise her. Although it is not an ideology at all, my grandmother has always been a voter. Before her illness, we were so familiar with her political views that we were reasonably confident as to whom and for whom she would vote. But I am also conscious of the fact that the line between assistance and coercion in this situation is blurred. – Name withheld
From the Ethicist:
Anyone can get – and act on – advice about how to vote. It involves asking others how they voted and choosing to do the same. If your grandmother is still able to check a box and sign a ballot as an expression of her choice, she is just doing what anyone else does. In that case, he is entitled to vote with your help. If she doesn’t understand what she’s doing, however, she’s not really voting; Voting is an expression of political choice, and it would be wrong to record a vote that does not reflect her actual preferences.
What to do when it’s just unclear whether she’s expressing an opinion? Various states exclude citizens from voting when they are under guardianship or have been deemed incompetent, but this will not serve to exclude those with mild cognitive impairments. After all, there is a big gap between the ideal of civic responsibility (in which you carefully reflect on how the outcome of an election will affect the district, the state, the country, the world) and what you are entitled to do when you vote. Political scientists may wonder what so-called low-information voters don’t know without thinking that such people should be disenfranchised.
When the situation is foggy, my inclination would be to err on the side of helping someone vote, because voting is a central form of civic participation. I would also note that in our polarized politics, many people who belong to one of the two major parties think that the choice of those who belong to the other party is not only considered bad but makes no rational sense. From their perspective, your grandmother, however disabled, would be far from an outlier. The fact remains that universal suffrage and regular elections are better for social peace than any available alternative. And for your grandmother, as for many people around the world, the simple act of voting matters more than any preferences it represents.
Readers respond
The previous question was from a reader who was torn about how to vote in this year’s presidential election. She wrote: “I’m caught in a bind between two parties, the Democratic Party and the Green Party. I believe in the message and values of the Green Party candidate; However, he does not seem to have ever been elected, so many suggest that voting for him is confusing. … But with the upcoming presidential election, my colleagues suggest that voting for a third party ensures a Republican victory, which is tantamount to supporting the opposition. Increasingly, my beliefs and values are not reflected on either side of the two-party, one-coin system in our country. Do I know that voting for a party that will lose is more or less foolish than voting for a party that I don’t fully believe in?”
In his response, the ethicist noted: “There are many possible systems for democratic voting, and although some are better than others, all have flaws. But one choice you won’t be able to make this November is what kind of electoral system you’re voting under. And our current electoral system routinely forces people to choose between expressing their values and contributing to what they consider the lesser of two evils. If you believe that, of the two major-party candidates, one would be worse for the country than the other, expressing your party preference may contribute to an outcome you least want on your conscience.” (Read the full Q&A here again.)
⬥
It seems to me That by voting we are expressing which candidate we think is best for the country at this time. Voting for a symbolic candidate with zero real chance of winning is essentially voting for an anti-candidate. There are other ways to support new ideas presented by a Green candidate. Every election is an opportunity to make a difference and vote for the good of the country as a whole. We should vote for the good of all. – Helen
⬥
I agree that when A voter is struggling with his two options, he must consider the lesser of two evils. I wasted a vote on Jon Anderson for president in 1980 and actually felt worse about my “statement of conscience” than if I had voted for a legitimate potential winner. This is especially important in the swing state; A personal vote doesn’t mean that much in California, where I live. – Dennis
⬥
Nothing is wrong With third-party polling, if that’s where the letter writer’s conscience leads her. In addition to voting for that third-party presidential candidate, I suggest the letter writer get involved locally with that party to encourage people to vote for the candidates on the ballot and help push local change as well. – Laura
⬥
confusion between Choosing the lesser of two evils and voting for a third party we actually like is driving many of us crazy right now! There’s another option: If you live in a swing state, you can vote for the lesser of two major candidates, but make a friendly swap with a friend who lives in a hard red or blue state who promises to vote for your third-party candidate. (Yes, vote swapping is legal.) That way you can help keep someone you can’t stand out of office, and make a statement about the values you really want to vote for — and the need for more than two parties. . If you live in a hard red or blue state, make this contract with a friend in a purple state. Next, we still need to fix the Electoral College; Stop making politics a contest of PACs, black money and fundraising and implement ranked choice voting, as suggested by ethicists. – Wiki
⬥
I think I agree With where the ethicist ended. I have been as confused as the letter writer, but my final choice has always been guided by whether or not my opinion might make a difference. Now living in an overwhelmingly blue state like Massachusetts, I know the state will pick my second choice anyway so I feel free to vote green. But if I still lived in my former home in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, as the letter writer does, I would ignore my own desires and vote for whichever of the two major parties I sided with the most. – David
Post My grandmother has dementia. Should I help her vote? appeared first New York Times.