In the domain of voting methodologies, what moral, ethical, and procedural distinctions arise when comparing secret ballots in congressional votes and party votes?
Why do the principles and rationales for maintaining secrecy often differ in these two contexts, leading to varying approaches in upholding transparency and accountability?
While it's clear that secret ballots in party votes are commonly accepted and justified, there appears to be a less favorable perception of secrecy in congressional votes, despite potential shared reasoning. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of these distinctions.
For example, during bipartisan votes on critical issues, like impeachment, where lives are at risk, it's notable that members of either party might be influenced by safety concerns for themselves and their families. This potential bias for safety, rather than voting based on personal beliefs, raises questions about the duty of elected officials to hold other officials accountable.
Similarly, party votes, such as those determining the Republican nominee for Speaker of the House, can be influenced by security concerns, including members receiving death threats. How do these concerns intersect with the principles and rationales for maintaining secrecy in such votes, and how do they compare to the context of congressional votes?
In such situations, how do these safety considerations intersect with the principles and rationales for maintaining secrecy in these votes, and how do they compare to the context of party votes?