Gambling on Elections
I am mulling over the meaning of a curiosity that I see in different state constitutions–past and present. Many states say that anyone who bets on an election is ineligible to vote in that election. For example, Article Two, Section Three of the New York Constitution says:
“No person who shall receive, accept, or offer to receive, or pay, offer or promise to pay, contribute, offer or promise to contribute to another, to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at an election, or who shall make any promise to influence the giving or withholding any such vote, or who shall make or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, shall vote at such election.”
The first part of this provision is talking about vote selling or vote rigging, but what about the last part that talks about betting or wagering? Suppose I had made a bet at Labrokes (the major betting house in Great Britain) in August that Donald Trump would be elected President. Why should I not be able to vote in New York in that election? Sure, I’d have a financial stake in that outcome, but so do lots of campaign contributors in New York. It’s a pretty broad definition of corruption. Gambling on an election is similar to gambling on the sports: you’re betting on the outcome of an event. If you’re in Indonesia and looking to play odds, klik ini untuk daftar Sbobet judi casino dan bola online.
I’m wondering about this in part because these suffrage restrictions on election gamblers strike me as expressing a view that is at odds with the Supreme Court’s view of campaign contribution limits, though I’m not quite sure how or why. (This is how ideas get started though.)