Businesses and elections
2024 will be a big year for global elections – and with elections, come campaigns that try to convince people about how to vote. In many countries there are laws that prevent businesses and brands from directly supporting one candidate over another.
However, businesses can still encourage their staff and customers to go to the polls – and many will.
For example, in the last presidential election in America, Nike created a campaign reminding people to have their say, and a fashion brand, Banana Republic, printed clothes with reminders to vote.
Businesses can also share an opinion about particular policies.
For example, in 2020 clothing brand Patagonia sewed a tag into its clothes that told people to vote out any politician or party that was not doing enough to fight climate change.
This got us thinking…
- Should businesses be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election?
- Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
- Should businesses be allowed to share opinions about policies?
Over to you!
Comments (174)
I think that businesses are allowed to encourage people to vote in an election Business has a political responsibility to encourage employees to vote. Despite the fact that the United States is the largest, most powerful and longest continuously existing democracy in the world, many Americans do not vote. And no one can blame them for that because that‘s they‘re opinion. Also i think that businesses are allowed to share opinions about policies because it‘s everyone‘s right to share they‘re opinion even if its business.
Hello, rational_salak.
I concede with your comment because voting is an important civic right and duty, businesses have a political culpability and obligation to ensure that employees participate in elections.
So, I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people in participating in elections because it can promote civic engagement and help employees value social and civic responsibilities.
Also, businesses should be allowed to openly participate/support one candidate over another and also should be allowed to share their opinions about policies relating to politics because I believe that everyone has their opinions on who they want to give the mandate to, but they shouldn't openly spend politically because it could encourage corruption.
Thank you!!!
Hello!!! @wondrous_mode,
I am in agreement with all your points you have stated, except the point you have stated about businesses voting for a specific person, this may be seen by people who don't want to vote for that candidate to see it as partiality and may protest against this action, many may take it deep and even be enemies with those who work with the business and the supporters of that specific party, this may lead to wars within the borders of a country, which causes chaos even before the election. Also if people vote for a specific candidate because a company they like is in support of that candidate, they may make the wrong decision on that leader, the people may regret their decision and that business will be hated because the citizens will see that business as the source of their problem which makes the business to wither and die off. This entails that businesses should be careful with their actions in politics.
In conclusion, in as much as businesses can perform other actions such as, dealing with poverty and peace making, they should be careful to say opinions during an election.
THANK YOU.
Every individual has the right to franchise and freedom to expression, right? Is this different or meant to be different with businesses as a whole? Businesses are a group of individuals meaning they can still vote, be voted for and express their selves. If celebrities can be the face of a business, why not candidates in an election? I mean, they are celebrities of the election, aren't they? Businesses have a right to vote and support whom soever they wish to.
Businesses encourage voting as a sign of patriotism and a way to attract the attention of more consumers. They remind us of good utilization of our rights and civic duties. If we as citizens do not vote and a government we dislike comes into power, who is to blame?
In conclusion, being part of a business doesn't restrict your right to franchise.
Thank you.
At first glance, I didn't think businesses should be allowed to vote. But after reading your comment I realized businesses are a bunch bad their people who are allowed to have their own opinion. So I agree with you! Behind businesses are people it's not just their company's logo which means they have a right to vote and support one person over another.
I can relate to what you are saying. As employees should be allowed to vote in elections, employers have the right to as well. They are citizens too. But i believe it is wrong to influence another persons decision so that it can turn out in your favor. Influential businesses can easily manipulate the masses to take actions that will benefit them in the end. Some politician might even make deals with the owners of the businesses to make use of their influence without being noticed by the masses. I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote individually on their own accord and not under the influence of others whether employers or employees alike.
I disagree because... I f
think businesses should not join politics as they are support can sway people's votes based on popularity not the candidate ability. People might vote for a well-known brand not the right person. These affects choices as individuals might pick the brand they like not the best candidate. This interference is risky as it can lead to the wrong choice for the people. Therefore, businesses should focus on their products and services rather than influencing political decisions.
I agree because...
Yes if businesses were involved in politics people will be forced to favour their favourite brand or a vert well known brand.
And this can lead to a lot of damages like if the right candidates were not chosen it can lead to favourability, racism, and can even get to the point of damaging the country economy.
So i also feel that businesses should not join the politics.
Thank you.
I agree with this point because brands have been known to influence consumers opinions as people are influenced when big brands. They love promote things like if some big brand started to promote the idea of maybe a game and they have themed products everywhere then the consumer will unknowingly learn to like this game and be influenced it to buy it. Now imagine this if a brand was bribed in a political way then the person would be voted for unfairly with public influence over normal day to day people. In concloution companies should not have any say in political views due to widespread propaganda shown through many cases over the years.
Can you give some examples of the cases you mention where companies have spread propaganda? What sources did you use to find these examples?
I have an awesome example.
Disney.
During World War II (1941-1945), Disney engaged in the production of propaganda films for the U.S. gouvernement.
Disney had already gained popularity from the production of other films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, therefore when Disney produced propaganda films it helped the U.S. government gain support for the war.
As you can see a company/brand that has a huge influence and viewer/consumer demographic are prone to impact the decisions of their customers/consumers.
P.S. I got this info from a YouTube and Wikipedia.
precious swan
I agree because... You have made good points and I will like to add to it, businesses should not be allowed to support any candidate in election or to convince costumers to vote for any candidate because this can cause a big problem in the society. Let me take Nigeria for example, if businesses should be allowed to support a candidate it can result in costumer reduction for the business and again it can cause riot between the citizens and the business workers and owners. It can also cause the close down of the business if the candidate that is supported did not make it to the office and the other one gets there.
In conclusion, if businesses are to be allowed to support a candidate it should be done secretly between the company and the electoral commission.
I disagree because...they can only encourage the citizens to vote for someone, because it's the responsibility of the citizen to decide on who to vote for.
I agree with you because it is the business's duty to encourage while the people choose whether to vote or not, therefore the business should not be certain if the people will vote
Thanks for giving this interesting example from your own country, cherished_dragonfruit. What disadvantages do you think there might be in a system where businesses can exercise political influence in secret?
I don't think there will be any disadvantage for the business owners if they exercise their influence in secret.
I do not really agree with your argument because every one has their freedom of choice so if that person decides to vote for someone that a brand is supporting do you think you the company should be blamed, because the electorate was not compelled, let’s say I decided to vote for that company because Gucci is speaking in favor of that person it’s my choice because I love Gucci so the electorates choice is not forced on the person but it done out of free will and in a case where the candidate they are supporting is speaking in favor of their company for example a the candidate in question is speaking for introduction of solar energy and your a solar panel producing company and knowing fully well that if you support that person your business is likely to expand at a large pace if that candidate win then obviously you would speak in favor of that person. Don’t you think businesses should have a say in what will be beneficial for them company.
If the company have a say it will cause expansion of their business so I don’t think there should be silenced because of other factors
Hi there, thanks for sharing and interesting arguments.
If business were allowed to endorse political candidates how do you think these business would select who they support? And conversely, how would politicians pick who they want to be endorsed by?
I’d love to hear your thought?
In my opinion, businesses would endorse political candidates based on their political experience and capability to improve the economy. They would want to choose candidates who are likely to make positive changes and support their business interests.
Politicians, on the other hand, would want to choose people who will give them positive reviews to the public. For example, a politician with a dark secret would avoid choosing someone who knows about the secret and is trying to expose it.
They would choose a candidate based on those that person would promote their company if they come to power
I agree with you and I concur that people tend to vote for and follow their favorite brands, which is not and cannot be the correct thing to do. Instead, we should follow the right leaders and act morally because bringing businesses into politics runs the risk of endangering society and swaying people's opinions.
I concur because companies should concentrate on providing their services rather than getting involved in politics, which could lead to a great deal of anxiety during an election. For instance, Nike developed a campaign encouraging people to vote and to wear clothes with voting reminders. This is an effective strategy for motivating people who enjoy or support a specific brand to cast their ballots, but when a brand enters the political sphere, it may lead some consumers to choose to support that brand's candidate of choice over another. Consequently, I believe that companies should not be permitted to meddle in political affairs.
AWARENESS FOR CORRECTIONS
Regards
Very good points you have there precious_swan. But i have a question. Is it possible that a business can influence other peoples decisions unknowingly? For example, if you are the owner of a really well known and successful business and you go out to vote for a particular candidate, won't your fans or admirers decide to vote for that same candidate? They might not even know much about the candidate, they just feel like you know best because you are successful and your products are spot on. Influence can make a person noticeable even when they don't even want to be. It can attract unwanted attention and everything you do will be all over the internet before the end of the day. A celebrity is still a citizen and so has the right to vote and to an extent participate in political activities such as voting in their country. I agree that businesses shouldn't influence others but businesses are made up of individuals who still have rights and duties and sometimes the reputation of the business can rub off on these individuals. Is it possible for a celebrity to do something that is related to politics without influencing the decisions of other people?
I disagree because... Everyone has the right to vote air out their views in an election because we are all citizens of a country who are of age to vote for a particular person. And also business are not trying to influence citizens to vote for are particular party or person, they only encourage them to vote for someone, it's left for the citizens to decide on who they would like to vote for.
I'm not sure about this because...
Do you know that for encouraging people to vote it's also a source of income for businesses?
Interesting ideas. Can you tell us where you found your evidence? How do businesses make money from encouraging people to vote?
Actually, all what you have said can be true but I still disagree because why you might ask? my reason is because the sole aim of brands telling the people to vote is to give them the awareness to remember to vote so as during they could be a new leader, so actually the wrong selection of a leader depends on the fault of the people not the brand because there main aim is to keep them aware so as they can vote like for instance Nike (brand) told the Americans or rather gave them the awareness to vote during election not to vote for a particular person but for them to remember to vote because some people who buys from them (the business brands) seeing that they are not interested in the election so why should I (customers) vote.
So in conclusion, what I am trying to say is that the aim of a business brand is to give the people the awareness to vote during not technically to vote for a particular person during the election. Thanks.
I completely disagree with you because...
Business brands can encourage its customers to vote for them because it is their duty but the customers has the right whether to agree or disagree to vote for the brand. Forcing the customers to vote for their brands when they do not want to is just like violating their rights. And the brands can be punished by the law for this because everyone has a freedom to vote for any brand he or she priorities. Therefore I do not agree with you. Thanks.
I agree because business involvement in politics can indeed lead to unexpected consequences. While businesses aim to earn profits, it's crucial to separate business interests from political affairs. Decisions in politics should prioritize experience and competence rather than popularity or financial incentives. A fair and unbiased approach is essential for societal development and avoiding conflicts. It's important to maintain a balance where the merit of individuals is considered over external influences in political processes or not .Thank you!
I understand how u feel about your comment or decision precious swan but here is what I want to know, do you really think it's the right thing to stop business from voting? Do you think it my be a deprivation of right?
I agree because... The brand affects the choice of an individual. And also, they can end up choosing the wrong candidate or party. The brand has it reason for requesting people to vote for the party or candidate. You have your own reasons for thinking that the person is not the best choice. So, we have to stand and decide for yourself and don't allow others to make a decision for you.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.IF THERE IS CORRECTION I CAN'T WAIT TO BE CORRECTED!
Thank you for sharing your perspectives on the influence of endorsements and the importance of making independent decisions. Both essays highlight the significance of critically evaluating options and not allowing external influences to dictate choices.
Celebrity endorsements play a substantial role in modern marketing strategies, often leading to increased profits for companies due to the association of celebrities with their endorsed products. These endorsements can evoke emotional responses from consumers and influence their attitudes and purchase intentions, particularly among younger demographics like Millennials.
However, while celebrity endorsements can impact initial buying behavior and brand awareness, consumers need to conduct their own research and base decisions on personal values rather than solely relying on endorsements. Taking ownership of decisions and not being swayed by external influences is key to making informed choices.
In conclusion, your contributions underscore the importance of individual agency and critical thinking in navigating the influence of endorsements and brands. Thank you for your insightful input into the discussion. If you have any further inquiries or require feedback, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Why I think so is because for instance a business is walking together with a particular person on Contesting for a particular position in the government, and if the business encourage the people to vote for the person and if he or she eventually wins the election later on, because of the effort and risk the business had put to encourage people to vote for the person, the person would reward the business with money or popularity.
Thanks
I totally disagree with you because everyone has an equal saying to what the politicians might do after winning the elections in that case everyone should know what is good for them and to vote who they think might contribute to the development of
their country and.
In my opinion no business should support one candidate or the other because its not like you know them personally you know what the do and what they don't so you shouldn't praise someone over the other because you might actually not know their habits if they are two sided or something else.
Lastly everyone should be allowed to share their opinions not only businesses because we all are the citizens and we live there and we all want the best for our countries and everyone has a different point of view so everyone needs to say something that will improve their countries security, change their problem and also climate crisis and everyone wants the best for the country.
I agree with you and I also believe business should have the freedom to openly support candidates. However, they should also consider potential impact on. Their employees and customers. Openly supporting one candidates over the other can have a potential impact on their employees and customers, Potentially leading to conflict. It might also create a perception of bias and affect, the company’s reputation. It is important for Businesses to navigate this with transparency and fairness. Ultimately is a balancing act. Between freedom of expression and maintaining a neutral business environment. They should also be mindful of how their support might affect their reputation and customer base. Some customers may appreciate knowing where a business stands, while others may prefer neutrality. Striking a balance between expressing opinions and maintaining a welcoming environment is key. Though there might be contrasting opinions about this but this is what I this. What do you guys think 🤔😁.
I vehemently agree with you rational salak because when people are encouraged to vote during election they will see the importance of voting for a leader. But in the case where there is individual differences the company should be able to analyze and finalize their decisions to become one. As a citizen citizens are also allowed to discuss about policies.
I must say that your point is good polite pomegranate but my question is could you please throw more light on the fact that citizens are allowed to discuss about politics? How do you mean?
I agree because... I believe businesses should be able to encourage people to vote because they have the same right to vote. There's no rule against it, and it's their opinion. No one should blame them for expressing it. Thank you for bringing up this point.
I agree with you on the matter of voting itself, but I feel even with this they should not be allowed to openly show which candidate to vote, either to their employees or stakeholders.
Thanks for sharing this, highspirited_concept. What about political debate in general? Do you think businesses should be allowed to say publicly what they think of a government's or candidate's actions or ideas?
In all honesty I feel sharing the actions of a candidate is good, aslong as it's not blackmailing, because if they share the actions of that candidate it would help the general population to properly analyse their decision of whether or not that person deserves their vote.
What if the owner of the business is only encouraging people to vote because of the gain they would get, and in the process a bad president has been elected and that would affect the country or state.
dear rational_salak, you said that businesses should be allowed to tell people to vote for a particular person....
Don't you think that some of the companies customers dislike the candidate that the company choses as their candidate?
I agree with your views. Since companies boost voter turnout, provide additional reasons to support candidates and highlight qualities that a president should possess, I think they should be permitted to encourage people to cast ballots in elections. I believe that the first way they can raise the number of voters is by encouraging their clients and employees to cast their ballots for the candidates they support. Additionally, they can also inscribe vote on a product bearing their brand. In addition, businesses may include factors such as the candidate's speech to persuade voters to choose the appropriate candidate.
Finally, as most businesses are typically more credible than individuals, this will help to increase the voting populace.
I'm not sure about this because... if you say that businesses are allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. what if the business is encouraging the people to vote for a particular candidate, now my question is what will the other candidate do to earn their favor and their vote?
I agree with your very precise and valid perspective. People should be entitled to vote in elections as responsible and compliant citizens and of course businesses have every right to encourage them or even a specific candidate into taking part in elections, stating their view freely and go after their political privileges.
I strongly agree as businesses should be allowed to express themselves politically. Sharing your political views as a business is a way to encourage your costumers to vote; this also helps younger people get involved politically or be interested in knowing what's going on in the political world. It also can bring in more customers as they might agree with your perspective.
I understand this point but i disagree with it because yes businesses can encorouge people vote which is a good opinion spreader but the company could manipulate the consumers opinion. For example is a company like lets say starbucks was doing a promotion for voting for a president then had it everywhere from cups to paper then the consumer might be convinced vote for that person not for their opinion but for companys morals. This would manipulate thousands to vote companys behalf making it a bit unfair under the goodness presented.
I can't realy agree eith you. If businesses encourage people to vote won't the people think that the business is voting just to make money? because if the business encourage people vote the business will already be advertised
I agree but i want to add on.If business say that you should vote for that person some people who support them that don't vote might start voting because they are following their favorite brand or company
I thoughtfully concur with you rational salak. Businesses can encourage their customers to vote for them as far as they don't force them to do so because there is no law against it. And it is now left for the individuals to decide whether to vote for the business or not. In addition, I would say that businesses should respect the rights of the customers when doing this.
Thanks
I agree because... Everyone has a right to vote,and you must not force anyone to vote for hm/her because we all have the right to vote for anyone we like,no one should force us because we might feel pressurised and no one wants to feel uncomfortable in their own country.
Even though your points are great , I have a question to pose , If businesses share opinions on different candidates and end up supporting a specific candidate will that not be unfair to the other possible candidates because of the influence the business has?
Eg. If Nike or McDonalds supports a specific candidate for an election will this be fair to other candidate?
I disagree, As a business,they dedicated to achieving there strategic goals and contributing positively to society.
So what i'am trying to say is that bussiness should fucos on business and people should be free to .
Our employees have the right to exercise their democratic rights, including voting, without any interference from the company.
We commit to promoting a healthy work culture that respects individual choices and encourages employee engagement
Much appreciated 👍 Hope you understand.
I completely agree with you that businesses should have the ability to provide a platform for people to express their views and opinions, but they must maintain neutrality when it comes to supporting a particular candidate. As you rightly pointed out, businesses have a significant influence on people's lives, and their decisions can impact a large number of individuals. If a business openly supports a particular candidate, it can sway the opinions of its customers and employees, which is not fair to those who have different views.
One example is McDonalds supporting a particular candidate over another because of its influence.
I disagree with you , because it is not fair for the other candidates that the company are not supporting . The company should not be supporting one candidate ,especially companies or brands with a huge amount of employees .Rather, they should just encourage them to vote but not for a particular candidate. Voting is a civil right, that means everyone should be able to vote without force. It's good that they made a law to stop huge companies voting.
Your comment was an educating one because it is not only the media that has the responsibility of educating the people or citizens to go and vote during elections, it is said that every body have a say in anything that has to do with the well being of the country, so the work of educating the citizens to vote during elections is not only meant for the media and the government I equally think the businesses are also allowed to encourage people to vote in an election in as much as everyone have they opinion to share so the businesses also have their opinion to share.
According to me, businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote because we have no idea if that's the company's actual choice or if someone is paying them to do so. I believe that many candidates would find it easier to pay these companies because they have a great influence on society.
I think that businesses can give some hints about supporting a candidate but should not openly reveal it. As it might discourage the opposition candidate.
Indeed businesses can share their opinion about policies as they are also citizen of the same country so they have the whole right to share their opinion but their opinion should not be way too negative
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, @comtemplative_fly. If you saw a business supporting a candidate, what would you do to make sure it doesn't have a negative effect on you?
I would want the candidate not to use the products of the rival company. I would want the candidate not to comment anything negative about the company on social media. and if they have any problem then confront it to me first. I know there are many more things but the above-mentioned actions would be my priority.
A good strategy to handle this scenario is to steer clear of political conversations with the business or its staff. You can respectfully say that you prefer not to discuss their opinions or choices, and concentrate on the work-related aspects of your interaction. You can also seek to broaden your perspectives and sources of information and views, and not depend on the business for any political direction or support. This way, you can preserve your own autonomy and reasoning, and avoid being swayed by their prejudice or motive.
In the contract deal, there could be some conditions that the candidate gives to the business to follow.
Yes, I think that there should be restrictions and boundaries that businesses adhere to when pushing individuals to cast their ballots, as it does have an impact on the public's opinion. Thus, suggestions should not be too critical. If it's negative, the company should clarify why voting is important and abstain from slandering politics. Furthermore, I believe that there is a need to be a law governing the process of manipulating people's decisions regarding which candidate to support.
I agree with this point as companies have been known to manipulate people to agree with an idea. For example, if a company like mcdonalds started doing a voting campain for coke and they had coke products this would drive people to perfering coke and choosing it alot more so if a political member bribed someone then it would cause more votes for person. Building on this the idea of companys promoting people more than the idea that it would cause people want listen to them more than others as people trusty people more than others in positive lights. Voting would be ideal for that person.
I think I am going to disagree with you, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote. I believe that it is important for as many people to vote and have a say as possible. So as a business it should be partly their responsibility to make sure that their employees cast their vote in general elections.
However, it is also important that a business doesn't tell people who to vote for. They can share their view on who they believe should be in government but they shouldn't be allowed to directly say vote for this specific person.
I think any way you can get as many people to vote as possible is important. Having people see the importance of voting should be both the government and businesses top priority.
Great points accurate_outcome. Why do you think it is important to vote?
I think it is important to vote because whatever you are voting for will have an impact on you, your family and your country. In the past people have fought for the right to vote as women or lower class citizens, so it is important that you make sure that their fight was worth something.
Having the opportunity to vote is part of our freedom that some people take for granted. Those who have always had the chance to have a say don't know any different, so voting isn't as big of a deal for them. Whereas the older generations may remember life without having a say.
I think that people don't see how important voting is until it is taken away. Having a say in what goes on in your country is vital to hear all of the voices and opinions to help make the most fair and just decision with what is going on in parliament.
great response accurate_outcome. Clear and well reasoned. Well done!
I exceedingly agree with you comtemplative_fly, the reason being is that you are right that businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote.
The business might have cooperation with the candidate, as you stated, since the business might have great influence, it will be easy to persuade society. For example: if a brand is in cooperation with a party, the party can use products from the brand to persuade society, and the brand can also say good things about the brand or place it into their products in order to persuade the society in to voting for that party.
I think that you are right about businesses supporting candidate can discourage the opposition candidate. This is because the opposition candidate might have negative thoughts like "with a big brand by their side, we can never prevail", or "I will never been enough without a big brand". Due to such thoughts, it reduces the candidates self- esteem; and maybe the candidate might never ever campaign again.
In conclusion, I agree with you about businesses giving hints about the candidate they prefer, but it shouldn't be so open.
Although I agree with the idea that businesses should remain, at least on the face of it, neutral to elections, is this actually achieved in practice? How would you view that political campaigns may be sponsored by major enterprises? Should this be prohibited legally?
Hello comtemplative_fly
I agree with you because the fact that you stated the point about businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote. I agree with your reason because most companies are like that. Many companies convince their workers to vote for that person but they don't know that they are making wrong decisions. And its mostly because that person is paying them more money and they are promising something that they are not even going to fulfill
I feel that while businesses can play a role in promoting civic engagements by encouraging customers to vote. The have a broader impact beyond profits. When business encourage voting , the foster a sense of community and employee determination. Businesses that actively promote voting can easily enhance their reputation and build trust with their fellow customers. I'm in full support of businesses encouraging people to vote, thereby placing emphasis on the importance of civic involvement .
Interesting points? What about businesses going beyond just encouraging people to vote but also suggesting who they should vote for? The article above references Patagonia encouraging their supporters to vote for candidates that support the environmental concerns.
I find it hard to agree with you fierce parrot, Businesses encouraging customers to vote can sometimes be invalid because most citizens especially at the United States of America do not really like voting, coming to the civic engagements most individuals do not have so much time to seat and do all that , in some underdeveloped countries you see individuals going to work and coming back very late in the night because of the countries economy, only the road traffic would even take up to 2hours of their time. Businesses should only make rallies or and enlighten the people on importance of voting for a leader during election and the decisions will be theirs to make.
I disagree with you polite pomegranate about what you said that, some business that encourage customers to vote are not invalid during the election but maybe invalid to a person individually. So actually for me all business that encourage customers to vote during the election is during a great deed for the people so as to give them the hope to vote more during more elections to come like for instance in Nigeria if Nike brand comes to Nigeria to tell the people to vote during an election the people there will surely vote because of the person the Brand is supporting. Thanks.
Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
This question got me thinking. A business openly supporting a particular candidate can negatively affect the business, my reason is people that ordinarily like a particular brand most at times may stop patronizing that brand because the brand is openly supporting or campaigning for a candidate other than the one the customer is supporting, in cases like this the customer may feel the brand is against them and then the brand would lose the patronage of that customer. Having in mind that there is no possible way a business is going to thrive without the patronage of customers.
So, in my opinion businesses should not be allowed to openly support candidates, because they would be at the receiving end and not the candidate they are supporting.
Hi tenacious_robin, you have an interesting perspective looking at the business side rather than the politics side.
Should companies have the right to do things even if they know it will damage their business? Getting involved in elections is just one thing that companies could do that makes them unpopular.
Well whether they decide to do things that will hurt their reputation is their decision to make. If it is a private business then the owner can make their own decisions. But it will be in their best interest to safeguard their reputation instead of putting it on the line. Even if they have a particular candidate that they really love, they should keep in mind that influencing other peoples decisions for their own personal gain is wrong and it will have a negative effect on them. I believe that they can do whatever they want, but it is advisable to focus on running their business and not the political affairs of the nation.
Well, yes I think companies should be allowed to do things that can damage their businesses, this is as long as it does not have any adverse effects on society. For example, a company can decide to store a lot of capital in their stock, which can kill their profit economy, but it doesn't have any adverse effect on the environment, I believe they should be allowed to do things like this.
But when they start allowing the machines, they use to emit fumes that have a very high magnitude of negative impact on society and nation at large, if this is the kind of thing they are doing, they should not be allowed. The reason is that they are causing lifelong problems for innocent people who are working tirelessly to move this aspect of climate change out of human reasoning, just to gain their profit.
Getting involved in elections is just one thing that companies could do that makes them unpopular.
on this aspect,
Some people start businesses with the wrong mindset, that is why some of them do not make profit and end up as failed businessmen or women,
One of the main purposes of running a business is to provide the needs of people at a price, right? Now if a business should take part in campaigning and then the party that that business supports wins, the other party would want to support or be part of the reason why that business is thriving. This is one reason why some businesses do not work out; my advice is that entrepreneurs should ''play their cards wisely.''
to ensure the making of maximum profit and a successful business
THANK YOU
Hello!
I think businesses have the right to be engaged in politics as major brands could enlighten and give a new perspective on how issues should be solved and handled in the political sphere of things as we should not forget politics also affects how a business runs. For instance, the produces outdoor clothing (Patagonia), and the change in climate conditions directly affects the business so I do think it has a right to say political leaders should be voted out if they do not take practical steps against combating climate change a topic we have discussed on this platform meaning it is big news and is something that needs to be addressed seeing the fact that a business felt the need to step in.
So I think that businesses like Patagonia among a variety of others feel the need to enlighten the world and advocators of their brand do have a say and their say should be respected as they are just doing their part to try and address global issues of huge concern.
Thank You!!!
Do you think businesses expressing their political opinions could influence your purchasing decisions?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, @gregarious_bee. Would you feel the same way if the business was commenting against climate change, for instance if they were arguing that more polluting factories should be built because it helps development?
I don't think i feel the same. in as much as we need more factories to enable our developments, it will make more sense to build those factories to run on renewable energy. With renewable energy we can cut down on climate change and promote development. New technological innovation must focus on developing renewable energy systems that sustainable. I want disagree with the idea that we should build factories that end up attacking the earth atmosphere resulting in global warming. I believe that we can achieve new factories with environmental friendly systems.
Of course NO, building more factories that will be polluting the air of the city will cause so many hazardous diseases to the body and the environment at large. Coming to noise pollution so many people might build houses close to factories when the noise is too much the individuals living close by will not be able to do things that require critical thinking.
In air pollution the air will be polluted with smokes that affects the breathing of people living in the society.
In land pollution oil spillages affects agricultural resources like the land will no longer be fertile for planting and growing of crops.
All these are already affecting the climate the spillages, smokes and all that are very dangerous for humans.
Well, let's dig into the debate over whether businesses should be involved in politics as a whole - you know, whether they should be telling people to go to the polls, choose to support a candidate, or throw shade at policies. It's a mixed bag. John Stuart Mill dropped the microphone and said, "In the long run, the value of a nation is the value of the individuals who compose it." Some believe that large corporations can act like cheerleaders for democracy, spreading good vibes and values. . Take Patagonia, for example. Not only do they provide outdoor gear, but they also encourage people to demonstrate their ability to vote. But then came the skeptics, whose inner righteous Louis Brandeis warned, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” They worry that big business could disrupt the dance of our democracy and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. Striking a balance here means paying close attention to legal matters and staying true to our democratic roots, giving companies a voice without derailing fairness and equality. Therefor This question is always going to stir up a variety of opinions, and as a nation, we've got to figure out which approach is not only effective but also better for everyone. It's a bit of a balancing act, with some folks leaning towards the positive side of things, you know? Ultimately, we need to make choices that will benefit our nation in the long run.
What do you think is the answer?
Hello Ollie,
My answer to the question of whether corporations should be allowed to participate in politics is neutral. There are good points on both sides of this debate, and they are both powerful. Corporate involvement in political events is important and can bring about significant change, but it can also backfire and create social injustice. So there are compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. On the one hand, businesses can bring about positive changes and contribute to social progress by participating in political activities. They often have resources, expertise, and influence that can be leveraged for the greater good. On the other hand, when businesses engage in politics, there is a risk of unfair and undue influence that can distort decision-making processes and perpetuate inequalities within society. Therefore, it is important to understand whether businesses should be allowed to participate in these political activities and whether this will help our environment and society positively or negatively, as the influence of large corporations and people may change the way people think and behave .
It is indeed true that there are some good arguments to support both points of view. However, would it also depend on the objective which is pursued by a business when deciding to support or not to support a political campaign? There may be a pure commercial incentive but also an intention to benefit a local community or promote specific trend. Should in your view objective criteria be established to be observed by businesses when participating in elections campaigns?
Yes I think that business ventures should be allowed to participate in political activities. I think they have different opinions on who to vote for so I do support the fact that businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about business.
But on the other hand I do not think Business Ventures should be allowed to vote for one person because everybody has different opinions and reasons why they should vote for the candidates of their choice.
I do not think people should be encouraged by Business Ventures because those Business Ventures could be hired to illegally pay those people or convince them to vote for the opposite candidates or that business ventures proffered candidate.
Hi, I think that businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies, businesses have great roles in the way most people think, for instance when the play station 5 came out, many people rushed to buy it because of the popularity of the play station4, now businesses have the right to share their opinions about policies because the policies affect both them and others around them. Then again, most businesses should not bad mouth a candidate for an election because that is a sign of evil, instead businesses should show people their opinions about policies in a polite way that is just and right, then again businesses should be careful of what they say because they are great influencers to the people who buy their products, many people again should not misinterpret a business's opinion as an excuse to act outrageously in their society.
Thank you.
What about if companies encourage people to vote for politicians that serve their best interests? For example a Tobacco company may encourage people to vote for politicians that support libertarian views on the right to smoke cigarettes even though the science shows the huge damage and cost of smoking to health and the economy.
Why should companies that produce harmful goods still be allowed to operate? This is a complex topic that involves considerations of personal freedom, public health, and the role of government. Some argue that individuals should have the right to make their own choices, even if those choices are harmful to themselves. Others believe that the government should step in to protect public health and regulate industries that produce harmful goods. It's a thought-provoking discussion that raises important ethical and societal questions.
I completely agree, because I now understand, just how much a business could either positively or negatively persuade people on matters concerning politics, it's very good that a business should give public opinions on voting and other things, but badmouthing a politician is just wrong and a business should be held accountable for that and can even be charged for it. Even if they are to point out the negatives this should be done in a polite and decent manner.
I disagree with you because we as individuals we have our own differences generally referred to as individual differences. Companies encouraging individuals to vote may bring about quarrels and conflicts because every one has chosen his or her own taste . Consumers might misinterpret the brands option and stop patronizing them.
HELLO!
I agree because if businesses bad-mouth a candidate and the number of their loyal followers is thirty million, the business will be able to ruin the candidate's career in the blink of an eye. But if the business supports a candidate, the loyal fans will support the candidate and he will have thirty million votes already.
THANK You!
I do think that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote. Voting is a duty of every citizen of a country. Any citizen that demands better government and leadership should vote. All the business does is encourage people to exercise their rights and perform their duties. I feel this is very good.
But I feel that businesses shouldn't be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. First of all, a business consists of a lot of people working to make profit, but all those people can have contrasting opinions. When a business to openly supports a candidate, some people may tag those working for the business as supporters for that particular candidate, even if they aren't.
Politics can sometimes be prone to violence. When a business involves itself too deeply into politics, it could be disastrous for the business itself, by exposing its employees as well as the business itself to danger.
By supporting a candidate, it could also lose customers that normally patronize them but support the opposing candidate. Politics is and has always been a sensitive topic. So I feel a business shouldn't publicly support a politician, because of how it could affect those associated with it.
This isn't about cowardice or keeping quiet to be a crowd pleaser. It's about making decisions for the good of its associates. If any member of the business wants to support a candidate, they can do it individually. But I feel that they shouldn't drag others into it.
I don't exactly know about the third question, though. But I strongly feel that businesses shouldn't speak on behalf of all its workers when it comes to sensitive matters or matters involving decisions that one has to make personally. Generalizing matters doesn't always work and once a business sparks too much controversy, it could seriously affect them.
Hello!
I think that businesses do have the right to air their opinions about politics and it is actually a good thing as it shows that they do care about their society.
I think that the only problem of businesses airing their opinions is that they are businesses. Businesses are aimed solely at making profit. This means that the opinions given by this business could be at the businesses own personal interest and these opinions could influence the public into making harmful decisions and acts which could actually lead to the detriment of the society all because a business because of its personal interests badly influenced the public.
So, I think that definitely a business should have a right to air its opinions and, but these opinions should be properly scrutinized as a selfish opinion or view could badly influence the public and take a turn for the worst against the government.
Hi @gregarious_bee, interesting ideas. Why might a business be concerned about more than just making profit?
What makes you think that the businesses that are encouraging people to vote are not making profit?
Businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because businesses are affected by politics and the election. If they feel they want to suggest that someone votes for someone/something then that is their right. It's like asking if your office friend should be allowed to give you an opinion and try to get you on board. Also, it has no harm because if someone feels like they want to do or not do what they are being suggested to do then that's up to the person.
Do you think there could be negative impacts as well? Should legislatures do anything to protect their citizens from negative influences of businesses in elections?
I do not totally agree to that because if customers are Persuaded to vote for someone and the person does not fit for the position or the person is not good for the position , it will be a loss to to the people because they will be the one to suffer for it
Personally,
I feel like business should be able to encourage people to vote in an election
Businesses tend to have youths as their consumers which enables them to reach a wide range of audience
Which also enables them to vote the person they think is right for their country
Cause at the end of the day it creating awareness to the public about elections
I agree with you because in my opinion,businesses should be allowed to give advice to their clients on who they feel is best for their country,but they should not force their clients to vote for who they feel is best for their country.
According to me businesses can be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because voting is one of great privileges of living in a democracy. It provides recognition of their opinions and choices. It is important to vote and that their opinion matters, and believe that change is possible. So, business can be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election.
By the way businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another because every individual has their own opinion to vote. So, business should not openly support one candidate.
I think businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. This is because as individual people we can share to people who we believe should be in parliament over another, so businesses should be allowed to as well. As long as the business isn't directly telling people who to vote for then there is no problem with them sharing their view on a political matter such as an election. It does no harm to share your standpoint on any situation so why would we try and prevent businesses from publicly stating their point of view.
This leads on to businesses being allowed to share opinions on policies, which I once again believe should be permitted. We are constantly being taught that if we think that something is wrong we need to say something about it, so businesses should be allowed to do the same thing. Everyone has an opinion on something whether it be small or larger like a political standpoint we should still be allowed to share our opinion. Lets take a thing such as climate change, some businesses openly support policies the government made to try and prevent the problems surrounding it. So why is it any different when speaking about elections and how they view what is going on in their country.
For businesses being alowed to encourage people to vote in an election, I think it should be made mandatory for employers to encourage thier employees to have a say and vote because in the end it will effect evry person, not just the ones that vote.
Through my evaluations of the three questions I would like to answer yes to all of them. Yes to encouraging people to have a say. Yes to people sharing their thoughts and opinions. And most importantly yes to people voting in their elections.
Well done for sharing your reasons, in your own words. It's great to hear what you have to think and see that your reasoning has led to a conclusion!
I think businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because people especially in the company may want to vote for another company but could be threatened to be fired. Everyone deserves a chance to vote for who they prefer- who they think would be the first. If this is allowed the company with the most members is most likely to win.
Great point, I had not considered the employees of the business!
HI !, businesses being unbiased in my opinion is crucial to keep elections balanced because people need to be able to vote for who THEY think best fits the role and not who their favorite brand thinks. and like you said if a brand has a big following, that can lead to the win of a candidate who might not be able to provide what the community needed.
I sincerely disagree with you; people have opinions and companies are filled with people so they should be allowed to have their opinions. You said: people especially in the company may want to vote for another company but could be threatened to be fired". But if you are in a company, why would you want to vote for another company, yet you have to support your own company. If the company with the most members win that is their luck, it is not their fault other companies do not have as much as members, so how is that a problem?
I think businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another , because businesses are highly impactful on the minds of the public of a country . A business plays psychologically with their customers and thus they are able to build a strong customer base.so if a company / business is involved in campaigning for a particular candidate, it will turn out to be highly partial , for example usually if a player leaves his game for long his recognition as great player demolishes quickly it when a great golfer like tiger woods has a setback in his game leaves his game for a period no one forgets him but adapt him with more love why because a strong brand / business like nike was standing behind tiger .
But business should be allowed to encourage people to vote and to express their thoughts on particular policies. If they feel so due to the people of a country, I'll become more aware and this all will lead to gradual growth of the company.
In my opinion, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections. For example, I was amazed by Patagonia's initiative to sew a tag into their clothes, urging people to vote out politicians or parties that aren't doing enough to fight climate change. This is a positive step, as it raises awareness about important issues.
However, businesses should not openly support one candidate over another. It's possible that the candidate they endorse may turn out to be unsuitable, leading to regrets. It's important to maintain neutrality to avoid potential negative consequences.
Lastly, businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about policies. Sometimes, people may not be fully informed about the candidates and their positions. In such cases, businesses can provide valuable insights, helping voters make more informed decisions.
Overall, businesses can play a role in promoting civic engagement and sharing information, but they should be cautious about openly supporting specific candidates to avoid potential regrets and maintain a fair and balanced approach.
I do not believe businesses should be allowed to show active support for one politician or party over another as it is simply not a business place. I do not believe it is what a business should do unless they are based upon a religious or political affiliation or collaboration. I do not think companies can make statements on policies unless it concerns human rights, in that case, it is right to speak up for the greater good of humanity and societal progress. I do believe that brands and companies can promote voting, as long as it is not in specific favour of any party, person, or group.
Some interesting points, why only human rights? Why not climate change for example as that impacts society?
In my opinion I think that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because if that person doesn't get elected something bad would happen to their business. I say this because most of the businesses are affected by politics and are mainly controlled by the government.
I do think that businesses are allowed to openly support one candidate over another because probably that candidate will be giving more opportunities to that company. And probably that candidate will give the company more money so that they could create an international business.
Yes, businesses should be allowed to share their opinions because they have the right to speak.The thing is that if they share their opinion and the people don't agree with it the business probably will be in a bad condition which will affect the business.
Hii, I think business are allowed to encourage people to vote in election. Business palys an important role in encouraging the voters.Another way that companies can support voting is to provide transportation to the polls at reduced rates or for free. Lyft announced half-price discounts to voters on Election Day, and free rides to voters who need help through partnerships with several nonprofit organizations. Uber has also joined partnerships to drive turnout (pun intended) by providing free transportation to the polls through partnerships with #Vote Together.
Thank you,
In my opinion, businesses encouraging people to vote I believe is an act of patriotism and can help in shaping the opinions of voters towards better decision.
Can you say why it's related to patriotism?
In my perspective of business it is an organization that is set for meeting people needs. If an organization those not love he's or her country he would not have success because an businesses are started up to improve the country and and in doing that they have to make themselves know to people encouraging people to vote means that organization is trusting the country that it can make a change for new governance also that it can grow tobe sincere businesses really depend on politics.
I think the best option is the one that says businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies, most of the thing's businesses say are relatively true, like the example given, Patagonia told people to vote out any politicians who did not care about climate change.
In conclusion businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies.
I do not think that businesses should be allowed to openly support a certain candidate over another because, businesses are highly influential enterprises. I think this way because I feel most businesses or companies who gets highly involved in politics in there for what they stand to gain after the election. And so if they recommend a particular candidate into office then we can be sure that he or she will dance to the tune and make policies that will favour the company or business not the people. They are more likely to make the people that like their brand vote for who they want them to vote for. They can also bribe people with clothes, shoes, money. some people may just vote for someone because they know the company likes that certain party. It will be difficult to get someone to vote for the party of their choice over the party that their company likes. If people actually vote for the candidate of their choice the elections will be a lot fairer to the other parties. That is why I think that businesses should not be able to choose a certain candidate over another.
In my opinion businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote as in India almost 1/3 of the electorate still not vote and if a business can influence people and change their mindset by making them realize the value of their vote they should definitely do it but at the same time it should be remembered that they should promote people to vote in general instead of influencing them to vote for a particular candidate as every person should be able to choose by himself the candidate that he/she thinks would be the perfect representative for their country. However it is acceptable if a business openly shares it's views on the suggested policies as these policies will directly or indirectly affect them as well giving them the right to have a say on the same.
I think businesses should not be allowed to support one candidate over another.
Businesses are run by many people. Many people work together to run a business. In a democratic country, everyone has the rights of speech, expression. As citizens of a democratic country, businesses should also have their rights. But, they should not support one candidate over another rather they should support the election. Because on a business there are a lot of workers, they can have their different opinions. If few people support one candidate and other people support another candidate, it may create a uncomfortable workplace for all. It may hampers the development of the business.
Also,the businesses should focus on their works. They should not be involved in political activities rather than they should focus on delivering goods to their customers.
Again, someone can also give money to the company and tell them to support the candidate and it's against the law.
Even, businesses may tell their employees to vote for one specific candidates and they may threat their employees. If they don't do this they can even loose their job.
That's why,I think businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another.
Hello, fearless_mandarin .
I agree because... as individuals, we all possess the right to vote who we want to. We should not let our positive choices get influenced by others because majority are for a particular say. We should all go for what we feel is right individually.
Companies should not influence the choice of a worker's candidate in any way; because it is recognized as a form of luring someone, which is wrong according to the law. A company can only aid an election financially and also encourage people to vote for an election and pass a message to individuals on how important their vote is and how it can make a difference in the society.
THANK YOU.
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people in an election. The government airs commercials on TV encouraging people to vote, so why shouldn't a business? Voting is a big thing and will determine a country's future relating to politics and any encouragement is a good thing. However, I don't think that businesses should openly support one candidate over another. If a large, majorly known business like McDonald's supports one candidate over another, more people will vote for that candidate. Every candidate deserves a fair chance for a fair election. Supporting one candidate over another would most likely make that candidate win. Businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies. If someone thinks that something is a bad idea, they should speak up about it, businesses included. That way, if a policy that would restrict the rights of some people was about to be passed, more people would vote against that policy.
Hi there comfortable_conclusion, you say businesses should not openly support one candidate over another. Do you think that by sharing opinions about policies, businesses could be encouraging folk to support the candidate who agrees with their opinions?
Hello Rebecca, I did not think about it that way. You're right about how sharing opinions about policies, a business could be supporting a candidate. I changed my thinking. A company should be able to openly support a candidate only if they have a good reason, like a policy they're trying to pass.
I think that businesses should be allowed to encourage citizens of a nation to vote for a candidate during an election.
Reason because, there are some businesses that have a specific political role and responsibility in a nation. For example, some organizations like Channels TV, CNN News, TVC News Broadcast all rely on what happens around them to push themselves forward including elections meaning that they might encourage their employees to vote during elections so that they might be capable of getting some news about what happened there.
I don't think that a business should ever be allowed to openly support one candidate. That's because too many people would be influenced by it, leading them to choose someone just because they like a business or a brand. I strongly believe that it is the people's choice to decide who is fit to run their country, without being influenced by so many factors. Having some knowledge about them is ideal, but for example, the quality of a dress has nothing to do with the future president's skills. Just because a business supports one candidate, doesn't prove any of his skills. Another important thing is that I don't think that the employees should have the same vote as the business owner, unless they have similar beliefs. It is totally alright to have different opinions. We need diversity. By doing this, we avoid businesses being paid to support a candidate. That is very dangerous, because it would mean that the candidate wouldn't be voted for their abilities. They would be voted for the money that they paid. This kind of corruption is being avoided, by not letting business publicly support one candidate or another.
A task that remains to the civilians is to decide whether or not they let themselves be influenced by what others say and how influenced they let themselves get. I think that more people should be taught how to select information and how to spot a lie. It would be very helpful if people would decide for themselves more often. I believe that we should be more aware of the power that we give to people. I think that whenever we hold the chance to choose something that is going to impact our lives so much, we should choose wisely.
I believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections, after all it will benefit them. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to have a say, therefore it is good for citizens to vote. Some brands like Nike, Chanel and Prada are really influential. If they turn their clothes into some sort of reminder to the people that they have a right to choose who they want to lead them, then they will surely increase popular participation. They will actually be putting their influence to good use without being bias to anyone.
But i am strongly against businesses picking sides. If a really influential brand like Nike supports a particular politician then a lot of people will too. This will be quite unfair to the other candidates because that particular candidate will have an upper hand. Sometimes it's better to let people think for themselves and let them choose who they want to lead them. Businesses should not be allowed to influence their decisions. They should be left to decide on their own.
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because some people have stopped voting during elections due to previous disappointment while others are just passive citizens they do not really care about what happens in the country, since some businesses have an influence on the decisions people make, I think they would be able to convince people to vote.
Yes to all of those questions. Businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. What if that candidate is better than the other one and seems more trustworthy. Then people who buy those brands will most likely vote for that same candidate and it will probably do more good than harm. Also overall nothing is really wrong with a company expressing their opinion, I mean...that's them. However, there's a chance that the company's choice might not be the best and encourage the wrong type of person to vote for.
Businesses should be allowed to partake in political problems 'cause those same problems might affect their business in the future. Everyone should have an opinion about political problems despite being a business.
And I also believe that it's the company's duty to make sure it's employees vote.
Companies have certain rights just like everyone else and should, of course, be free to express their thoughts regarding policies. After all, they are members of society.All parties, individuals or groups, should have the freedom to express their opinions and be afforded an equal opportunity to do so without limitations.
Yes, I agree that businesses should be allowed to do those three things. My reason for agreeing that businesses should be allowed to do these things is that it's the business' decision if they want to just say that they support this person over the other person and that they have this opinion about the policies or not. And despite the fact there are people who might not support what the business' opinion is and the person they support, that shouldn't keep the business from stating their opinion anyway.
Hello,everyone.
I strongly believe businesses should be allowed to encourage citizens to vote in elections. Citizens of many democratic countries around the world do not participate in elections. But it is the moral duty of every citizen to participate in elections. In this case, businesses must encourage citizens to vote.
Businesses should not be allowed to publicly endorse one candidate over another. First of all, the candidate should be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the citizens or whether he can play a role in the development of the country. Also businesses should not directly support one candidate because the other candidate may lose interest in the election.
I think citizens should be allowed to share their views on business policy. Because every citizen has the right to express his opinion. But in this case, citizens should take care that their speech or opinion contributes to the economic development of the country and solving various complex problems.
Businesses are part of economic growth. They aim to promote a product and ultimately sell it. Profit is their priority and that's not bad as long as people work and live from this.
But politics is a different issue especially when we are talking about supporting a candidate.
A candidate needs to be clear, play fair and not depend on business to promote the political ideas he/she may have.
Politicians are not products to advertise but rather to represent society impartially and neutrally.
It is not fair to associate political with a brand name especially when we are talking before elections. For me this is a manipulation for just winning the political game.
No. Business should not be allowed to openly support a single candidate. Often, business support can widely, and often incorrectly influence common public opinion about policies. Business interact with people more closely than politicians. Thus, they can better manipulate the public, taking away a free choice of will from the people.
However, they should encourage people to vote. Many people abstain from voting during the elections, which is a critical problem in most democratic nations. Businesses encouraging people to vote will actually motivate them to do so.
While many business activities are linked to politics behind the stage, this should not actually affect the common pubic in any way. Thus, businesses have no right to manipulate public opinion. Sharing opinion about politics will do exactly that.
People who are partial to the business will become partial to the part as well, in a good way or a bad. Thus, businesses should only encourage people to vote, do better for the society, and not actually indulge in politics.
Businessmen, however, can share their opinions as "people", since, as citizens, they have every right to form political opinions.
As a business however, they must abstain from manipulating public opinion.
Hi there!
I think that, businesses should refrain from openly supporting one candidate over another. This is because such overt endorsements can potentially alienate a portion of their customer base who may have differing political affiliations or beliefs. Additionally, it could be seen as using corporate influence to sway political outcomes, which may undermine the democratic process. Instead, businesses should focus on providing a neutral and inclusive environment for their customers and employees, allowing individuals to make their own informed decisions without feeling pressured or influenced by corporate entities. Moreover, maintaining neutrality in political matters helps preserve the integrity and reputation of the business, ensuring that it remains a trusted and respected entity within the community
In my Opinions.....
The involvement of businesses in political activities raises complex questions about the intersection of commerce and democracy. Here are some considerations for each scenario:
Encouraging People to Vote:
Encouraging voter participation aligns with civic responsibility and can contribute to a more engaged and informed electorate.Businesses must ensure they are non-partisan and focus on promoting civic engagement rather than favoring specific candidates or parties.
Openly Supporting One Candidate:
Businesses, like individuals, have freedom of speech rights and can express their political preferences.
Openly supporting one candidate might alienate a portion of their customer base, leading to potential backlash.
Sharing Opinions about Policies:
Engaging in policy discussions is a way for businesses to contribute to public discourse and advocate for positions that align with their values.
Expressing strong political opinions may polarize the customer base and lead to controversy.
At last I think In democratic societies, businesses often navigate a fine line between participating in civic activities and avoiding actions that might be perceived as inappropriate or overly partisan. Striking a balance between civic engagement. transparency.
Thank you.
I think, business should not be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because it is not a fair way to gain votes. The votes should be based on the people's like they shouldn't be encouraged to vote anyone without their will and like. Also business should never be allowed to openly support one candidate over other day because it is even more worse than encouraging people. Those people who have gain support from the business may not have enough skills and those people who havenot gain any support from the might business might be more skillful to run the country. Getting support from the business creates diabalnce in the politics. I think they should be allowed to share polices because it is human right. Business should be allowed to share their polices because even though it is business but they might good polices that can be helpful for the country.
Don't you think that brands promoting voting itself can be good, i mean it encourages people to have a say in their community and in things that could affect their lives. but, i do agree that businesses should not be able to support one candidate over another because everyone should vote based on their beliefs over a candidate instead of a business's beliefs. and like you said this leads to disbalance in politics which can affect the elections and could affect communities.
I believe businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because many people in the U.S choose not to vote so with a little push like advertising in stores much more people would be motivated to vote. However, I do not believe businesses should openly support one candidate over another because everyone should keep their opinion to themselves. Businesses shouldn't give opinions about policies either because everyone has different opinions about it and could cause controversial problems.
Politics is business, but business is not politics, I don't think this should be. Businesses can encourage people to vote in an election, businesses are run by people and these people are allowed to vote but I don't think it should be bias against another candidate; because it can change the mindset of the people who adore the brand. For example, it is the elections, and I am supporting candidate A but my favorite brand supports candidate B and it advices its customers not to vote for candidate A, so due to that I start to dislike candidate A. It can cause drama and offend many people whiles doing so.
In my opinion business and politics should not be mixed. They are 2 different worlds. One is owned from a big investor who wants to gain profits and the other is a person that needs to be sincere in order to gain people's trust, the ones he represents. So if a company tells us who to vote, then a politician can tell us where to buy a product?
The only thing that needs to happen is that humans need to be informed rightfully what politics mean and why they should be actively involved. They give the power to politicians and this is for the common wealth.
Yes businesses can encourage because , they can make posters, fliers, shirts, make phone calls to remind people to vote. Businesses can also help teach people how to use the polling booths. But businesses should stay out of counting the ballots.
In some countries the people will enjoy having a new shirt to wear on the day of voting. Because in some countries they declare that there will be no movement with vehicles on the day of the election but with the voting shirt people would know the reason that they are walking.
That is my opinion on if businesses should be able to encourage people to vote in an election.
Many times the policies affect the businesses in workers rights, advertising-Some of the commercials were canceled because of targeting people. Tax laws-If they are passed on the ballot there can be a increase in workers and salary. Workers rights policies for extended time in health issues. Workers rights for working conditions-Because the policies always affect the workers and the employer. Also this helps the citizens to hear if the business is liberal or conservative.
Thank you.
I feel that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. The act of encouraging people is not against any laws or rules and is completely different from telling people who to vote for. Businesses encouraging people would increase the rates of voting, benefitting the country. The more people vote, the more likely there will be a good president for the country. I also believe businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate more than another. The act of doing that may convince some others to follow the businesses' beliefs, instead of theirs, creating a sense that they are breaking a law as they said there are laws to prevent businesses from directly supporting one candidate more than the other candidate. I also believe businesses can share some opinions but not many. The act of spreading and letting people aware of several opinions on politics may convince people to follow the business, not their own beliefs as stated.
In my opinion, I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election.
Businesses are closer to the masses and the more than the politicians.
Moreso, if a political aspirant has a good intention over masses , businesses can campaign unbehalf of such aspirant and if it's on the other hand, if the aspirant is only lobbying to get the power by making false promises, businesses will always support his/ her customers by declaring candidate intention .
However, it's also a win - win situation
where businesses like graphics designers profit significantly during election campaign as politicians patronize them to create billboard displaying political aspirant faces allowing voters know whom they are voting for.
While on the other hand, it serves as a medium for campaigning and creating everyday seeing of each party slogan with mastery.
I think that it is ok for businesses to promote voting because the more votes that are made show who the community thinks is good for the position and it encourages people to have a voice. But i don't think its right for brands/businesses to put down one candidate over the other because that can influence people to vote for someone who actually might not be the best only because this brand they like said they think this person is better then another. And this is unfair to the candidates but also the citizens because then we aren't getting honest votes and so that can ruin elections. In my opinion brands should keep objectivity in subjects like politics because in general it can lead to influencing their customers to say a candidate is worse than another which is wrong because everyone should have their own opinion.
You make a very balanced argument by considering both sides. What are some of the reasons why businesses might choose to favour a political candidate?
Hello ! thank you for replying to my comment, I think that some one big reason why businesses might chose to side with one political candidate over another could be because what the candidate is trying to achieve might potentially benefit the business. But i also believe they might side with a candidate for the community because the political candidate may be fighting for a good cause or might want to make positive change and the business wants to have a say and encourage their customers not only to vote but to also see why the business chooses one side over the other and why said candidate might be the better choice.
Thank you!
I think businesses aren't allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. Because who knows whether the business' choice will be beneficial for the whole country or not, may be the business was paid to do that and their choice wouldn't be good. Thus if they encouraged people to choose their choice this may lead to undesired results in the future. However, they have the rights to share their opinions about policies and support one candidate over the other. because any one have the rights to share his opinion and his point of views. In addition their opinions must be clear and focus on the impact of the policies on the business or society.
You make a good point about businesses being paid to support a political candidate. This is called 'lobbying'.
I believe that it is a businesses right to either sway or speak out about the political landscape of the area it finds itself in. The business should have a say in what laws govern it. Although, a business should be restricted in the ability to talk out politically if there is going to be incentives for those to vote with them, or prejudice against those who do not; e.g. Nike not selling shoes to republicans. If the people who can make up a business can talk and sway the opinion of the people around them. Why can't the business do the same?
I really like the way you pose a question in your comment and introduce the idea of prejudice towards consumers. What do you think is the difference between a business endorsing a political candidate and being prejudice towards people who hold certain political views?
Most times during election periods, enfranchised citizens rather sit back in the comfort of their homes than go out to vote yet, they complain when the government in power does not perform it's duties efficiently. This attitude is predominant in my country Nigeria and needs to stop. Businessess have a alot of shareholders, patrons, sponsors and most of all customers. This gives them a wider outreach to citizens therefore making their influence massively impactful and crucial. If these businesses are given the right to either ''sway or speak out about the political landscape of the area they find theirself in'' as fun_region stated, there will be an incredible change and rapid increase in the rate of popular participation in the country. I feel the business should in one way or the other have a say in what laws govern within the jurisdiction of the company. They should encourage and motivate bonified citizens to vote and in voting, to vote in the right leader that will foster positive change as Patagonia did. However, I don't think they should openly support a certain candidate as it may result in various issues, let alone pose threats to those who don't vote with them. In my opinion, citizens should be motivated and encouraged to vote and also to vote the right candidate but the ''CHOICE OF WHOM'' to vote should be left solely to them, as Graham Brown said ''We are what we choose.''
Hi!
Businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election but when it comes to supporting a candidate it can create a problem like people might vote a popular brand and not the right one. Which can cause problems in the society.Regarding the policy, everyone have the right to share there opinion. So, businesses should be allowed to share there thoughts regarding policies.
I agree because sole proprietors can be able to share what they feel through their products. there is right to freedom of expression. If an entrepreneur wants to campaign on behalf of the politician, he should be allowed to because there are only a few restrictions and in my country, using businesses to advertise is not against those rules. Politicians sometimes consult businessmen to ask if their merchandise can be used for campaign. During the last election, candidates printed their names on shirts that were to be handed out in order to spread awareness about themselves.
Thank you.
I think that buisnesses should be able to encourage people to vote as it is part of being part of a country. However I don't think that they should be able to force someone or even gently pressure them into voting for a certain canditate as this could start by the canditates bribing the companys in there certain way. Also think that each canditate as enough control about how much publicity they have.
I think that buisnesses should be able to encourage people to vote as it is part of being part of a country. However I don't think that they should be able to force someone or even gently pressure them into voting for a certain canditate as this could start by the canditates bribing the companys in there certain way. Also think that each canditate as enough control about how much publicity they have.
I strongly believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. This is because if more and more businesses encourage something like this, it's likely that more and more people would participate in it. In the long run, this could lead to better elections as more people are voting for the candidate in which they think should win, making it a more fair and just election. In addition to this, encouraging somebody to vote in an election isn't telling them who to vote for. Through saying this, I am suggesting that simply reminding people of what they can participate in isn't shaping their views in any way, which would affect who they vote for.
Next, I believe that businesses should be partly allowed to openly support one candidate over another. I am not suggesting that companies should just criticise one candidate and only talk positives about the other. On the contrary, I believe that if businesses slightly show their support for one candidate, without saying anything that may dramatically change the public's opinions, they should be allowed to mention it a few times. This is because the businesses's view may bring things to the table that other people haven't thought about before, which could lead to a more in depth thought about which candidate really suits them best.
Finally, I believe that businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about policies. This is because people deserve to know what companies stand for, leading to a more thorough decision of what businesses to be a customer to. For example, if there was a company that were not doing anything about climate change, their customers or consumers deserve to know as they may take their business elsewhere if they don't have the same or similar views.
If a candidate pays the business to encourage people to vote for them then it should be allowed. If the businesses encourage people to vote for a candidate without being paid or asked the business would face a lot of hate from other candidates and their supporters.
The business can vouch for a specific candidate, but that should be kept within the business (if all the workers are in support of that candidate), unless they have been paid to do so because as stated before the company would face a lot of hate and discrimination from other candidates and their supporters.
People that run for a position normally have (in my opinion) some money so they can sometimes stop the business or spread rumors about the business that can put it in ruins, unless the business has more money than the candidate, then they can't end the business.
I think businesses can share their opinions about politics as long as they are not offending candidates. I think businesses can talk about the candidates but not in an insulting way or anyway that will offend a candidate. They can warn people about the pros and cons of voting for each candidate but not totally throwing people off about them.
It is not really the business talking about the candidate in general, there will certainly be a worker of the business (or CEO) selected to talk about the candidate, maybe even the face of the business.
Hi topical talkers!
My answer for first question,Should businesses be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election?:
I think It's good for businesses to tell people to vote because it helps everyone get involved in making decisions.
My answer for second question,Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?:
Businesses should be careful about openly supporting one candidate because it might not be fair to everyone else. Laws often control how much businesses can help candidates.
My answer for the third question,Should businesses be allowed to share opinions about policies?:
Businesses can share their thoughts on rules and laws, but they need to be clear and think about how it affects everyone. They should also follow any rules or laws about what they say.
Thank you!!
I believe you are correct when businesses assist individuals in voting because they are involved in decision-making. Whether an individual chooses to participate in the business or not, they have every right to do so, and informing all those impacted by the decision can aid in reaching a final decision. Additionally, when businesses support more individuals, we will have access to a greater variety of options. This can occur when businesses assist individuals in voting in an election.
I agree with your answer to the first question. Companies and brands, in my opinion, have an easier time persuading individuals, so they should be allowed to influence people to cast ballots. Companies have thrived without government support, as everyone knows, which is why I'm thinking about it. In my opinion, people have had enough. In Nigeria, some argue that politicians are to blame for the suffering of the average citizen. They cite examples such as inflation, which drives up prices for goods and services and hurts people, leading to a loss of both lives and property.
That made me wonder: given their extensive expertise in expanding and enhancing their business operations, firms might provide suggestions about improving things in the future. As a result, companies and brands are responsible for advising the public on selecting the best kind of government.
I think businesses can play a significant role in elections and politics, but the extent of their involvement raises questions about their influence and responsibilities. Encouraging people to vote is generally seen as positive, promoting civic engagement and participation. However, openly supporting one candidate over another can potentially create divisions among customers and employees. While businesses have the right to support candidates and share their opinions on policies, they must do so thoughtfully and consider the potential impact on stakeholders. Finding a balance between exercising their rights and respecting diverse perspectives is essential for businesses to navigate political involvement constructively and responsibly.
Businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote because sometimes, there are reasons why people don’t want to engage in political activities.So if businesses encourage the masses, it may lead to increased political participation of the public in the political system as they will want to engage in political activities.
I agree with tolerant_hummingbird, that is because businesses that encourage people to vote will help elect officials who will rule responsibly and safeguard our nation, such as a president or governor who can build schools for those whose children are not enrolled in school or provide food to those who lack a place to live. As an example, the Dangote Company in Nigeria can encourage people to help elect a credible president in Nigeria.
Businesses shouldn't vote as their influence can manipulate public opinion, compromosing democracy. politicans' dealings with businesses further exerbate the issue. businesses further exerbate the issue. Allowing businesses to openly endorse candidate risk underming individual choice, conflicting individual choice, conflict whith democratic principles. While I oppose voting rights for businesses, i recognize thier right to express opinions, promoting a diverce political environment whithout comprising the integrity of the electoral process.
Thank you.
I disagree with what you said because in a company you need money to advance the level of your business and in a good and nice company also need popularity to get money company's like apple company that is very popular doring an election apple company can chose to make an apple laptop with the logo of a political party and it will go viral and it will increase the popularity of the company . When a cloth company like Gucci company makes a t-shirt of a political party doring an election pirod many people will like to buy from them because the know that Gucci is a popular company and the will make more money.
In my opinion i think businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote for a particular candidate because elections are to be free and fair your decision to vote for any candidate should not be influenced by anyone even friends and family your decision should soley on the candidate you see is right for your country and with the economical power and influence businesses have over people it would give candidate and unfair advantage over others whoch is not right this just ridicule the law of free and fair election i firmly support the law which forbids buisnesses from influencing election campaign.
I think it is wrong for businesses to openly support a candidate it is not fair in anyway just like ads that support a candidate the only business that should be allowed to openly intervean are there political campaign and because when buisnesses help there will always be some sort ofgain for the businesses it is not on pure trust of the candidate there is always a scheme or gain in return from the buisness and the candidate
No they should not they only be allowed to share personal opinions individualy and not even share it to there staff as the general public on election it should be true free and fair influence in election campaign is bad in anyway making it unfair for other who do not use there influence in election those that are true leaders
Thank You.
I agree with you. Businesses should urge customers to cast their ballots, but they shouldn't tell them who to cast their ballots for because each person is entitled to their viewpoint. Although I believe that people should choose leaders for themselves, businesses could support and motivate others. In my opinion, voting is a duty that belongs to everyone, not just companies. We all know that big business has its ideal candidate or the person they believe should be in charge, but they have no right to tell the public that just because they appear to be succeeding or have a high profit margin.
I agree because... I completely agree with your point you your vote on a candidate should be by what you see is right from that candidate because they have no right to tell you who to vote for they can only share their opinion to vote for a candidate who they think you should vote but they shouldn't use their influence and should have nothing to gain from it should be their pure intrest to vote to no 50 50 split between the business and the candidate you said it well that they vote on simply their best interest for their country i realy agree with this statement voting is a true duty for everyone businesses should have no upper hand over the masses for a gain
I think businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another.
Because openly voting for a candidate in businesses is a delicate matter. If the businesses prefer candidate loses the election, the winner may introduce policies that adversely affect the business .My country is a perfect example of this, our famous businesses rarely openly reveal their voting preferences, despite having favoured candidates.
According to Investopedia.com , The term business refers to an organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities. The purpose of a business is to organize some sort of economic production of goods or services.
According to leadershipnowproject.org ,This are the actions guide for business to support successful election, Business encourages employees, clients and consumers to make voting plans, Give all employees paid time to vote on or before election day, Encourage employees to register as poll workers, Contribute funds to support the election operations, and Publicly support a safe and secure election.
In my school of thought businesses can help election to go successful ,like if business owners go to rural areas they can do a little campaigns for election , maybe a bag of rice or tomatoes and the things that are more requested for or the basic needs of the people.
I personally think that brands can totally support the idea of voting in general because everyone needs a reminder and motivation to do anything, but I fully disagree when it comes to a successful designer brand supporting or trying to persuade people to choose a president over the other, “WHY?” You may ask, it’s because humans are easily manipulated and persuaded by loved, well-known higher authorities (which is unfortunate for sure).
So let’s suppose that Nike, Adidas and Lululemon were all paid to post ads on all social media platforms encouraging people to vote for president A instead of president B, and people who are obsessed with those brands will try to find a reason or more ( delusionally) to choose President A not B which isn’t fair and I think is fraud, besides following a paid brand’s opinion doesn’t even sound right, not because that designer brand sells good products means that they’re right about the future of the country (education, prices, economy, politics, laws… etc) so choosing the right president is a very big and important deal and by this I mean there should be more reasonable reasons not because your favourite brand said so .
My opinion shows that I disagree on brands sharing their opinion about anything related to policies not only elections and the reasons are the same why I disagree on brands choosing a president over the other.
Thank you!!
Hi! In my point of view The political landscape can be a hot-button topic for many businesses. Whether it's climate change, voting rights, or social justice issues like Black Lives Matter sparked by the tragic death of George Floyd, companies today face increased pressure to take a public stand.
A company's stance on these controversial issues doesn't just impact its brand identity. It also affects its customer base and business owner’s relationships with employees, board members, and even competitors.
Personally, I would say yes, no and no. First I would say yes because if businesses encouraged people to vote in elections, more people would vote. I believe that they will want to vote if a brand they like encourages voting. Next I would say no, I would say no because if businesses openly support one candidate over another it would seem unfair to others. The business would also lose a lot of clients and lastly I would say no, I would say no because if they shared their opinion about policies. It would seem like the business is choosing a side which will be bad for the business.
Businesses can play a role in encouraging civic engagement, including voting in elections. Encouraging people to vote, regardless of their political affiliation, can contribute to a more participatory democracy. However, it's important for businesses to do so in a non-partisan manner, without favoring any particular candidate or party.
When it comes to openly supporting one candidate over another, or sharing opinions about policies, businesses must navigate ethical and legal considerations. In many jurisdictions, there are regulations governing political activities and campaign finance, which may restrict businesses from directly endorsing candidates or engaging in certain forms of political advocacy.
Businesses should also consider the potential impact on their reputation and customer base. Taking partisan stances can alienate segments of their customer base and may lead to backlash or boycotts. It's essential for businesses to carefully weigh the implications of their actions and consider how they align with their values, corporate social responsibility initiatives, and broader community interests.
Yes, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections because we all own this country, it should be our collective decision to choose our leaders. Businesses should promote voting if they can increase the number of individuals who do so. In Nigeria, for instance, the people would have a greater influence on the politicians if they told them that they want a leader who can guide us towards a better Nigeria and that our voices must be heard.
Finally, since we must select the leader of our country, I believe we should act wisely to guarantee that Nigeria is in capable hands. I believe it is a good idea for businesses to promote voting in elections.
I believe that businesses should not openly endorse political candidates or parties. While businesses are made up of people with personal political beliefs, they are separate entities with their own interests and agendas. Endorsing a candidate in the company's name could unfairly influence employees, and could create a hostile environment for those who hold different beliefs. Instead, businesses should encourage employees to vote based on their own values and research. Companies can also use their products and services to raise awareness about political issues, as Patagonia did with climate change. I think this would be a more effective way for businesses to engage with the political process without creating bias. In summary, businesses should encourage voting and civic engagement, but they should not use their power to sway votes in favor of specific candidates or parties.
I totally agree with you! It's important for businesses to remain neutral when it comes to endorsing political candidates or parties. By doing so, they can avoid creating a biased environment and respect the diverse beliefs of their employees. Encouraging employees to vote based on their own values and research is a great approach. Businesses can still make a positive impact by raising awareness about political issues through their products and services, just like Patagonia did with climate change. This way, they can engage with the political process without showing favoritism.
Voting for president is what people do in elections, businesses or other endeavours have profit and financial gain as the goals. Businesses shouldn't, in my opinion, advise staff, and customers on who to vote for because if they did, they wouldn't be following their intuition. We all know that elections are not life-or-death affairs, but some are founded on violence, and some of those who are supposed to vote don't even bother to show up. Therefore, employers should urge their staff members to cast ballots.
Should businesses be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election? Absolutely! In my opinion, many people may hold differing opinions regarding the ideal candidate for president of the nation, so to choose leaders who will lead them in the correct direction, businesses need to also engage with their employees and clients. Businesses encourage people to vote, as a president would have complete authority over the populace and the nation if elected. This could be achieved by having banners or posters encouraging people to vote for the appropriate candidate, which would be preferable.
Hi mirthful_flight! Good points about encouraging people to vote! But do you think there might be some concerns if businesses encourage their employees to vote for a particular candidate?
I think business should be to encourage people to vote in an election, because in my country most people were planning to leave the country but radio, news, music, etc, advertised on the need to vote and change the economy. .with just adverting 509,511 people changed their mindset about Nigeria.
I think businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate or the other because, if an electorate is being brought to power the business partially needs the help of the government for their business to grow. the increase\decrease of foreign currency can affects the growth of a business. For example over 6,,000 jobs have been lost due to foreign exchange.
I believe that businesses can tell people it's good to vote because it helps make decisions in our country. But they shouldn't say they like one candidate more than another because it might make people not trust them. It's okay for businesses to talk about policies, but they need to be careful. They should think about how it could make their customers feel and what it might do to their reputation. It's like when you're talking to your friends about something important. You want to be fair and think about how your words might make them feel. Businesses should do the same thing when they talk about voting and policies.
I think that businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another in the election because we live in a world where many businesses have significant influence. Although businesses are made to provide goods or services, receive profits, and contribute to the economy of a country, we can't be sure of what's truly happening deep inside, plus there is no law stating otherwise. Which can allow businesses to openly support one candidate and give a large influence on those with more money or influence. Large businesses have the means to impact elections and literally overshadow the voices of individuals.
Businesses supporting candidates may also tell candidates to align their policies if they succeed of course. Which may literally crash the market, give greater resources to the business, make their power projection high and mighty and all other things in between, like corrupt more and gain more. This could lead to underdevelopment of other companies, which will cause inflation, less jobs, less income, hamper the conditions of other businesses and so much more. Furthermore, employees and customers may feel pressured to support the political stance of a business they are associated with. This creates a conflict of interest and destroys individual freedom of choice, both in the work and in the market. Openly supporting candidates may destroy public trust in businesses, as consumers may become angry. Trust is a vital component of a healthy business-consumer relation and to leave it behind would mean doom of the business.
Suppose for example a company like Amazon or Nike or any other large company supports a candidate, millions would follow in their footsteps and the consequences would be disastrous. After the event public support and trust would decay and an economic crisis will be imminent.
Businesses of all sizes, including Dangote Cement, Adidas, and even the neighbourhood hair salon, should promote voting because if enough people fail to cast their ballots and some people are unable to vote primarily because information was not properly distributed, then a small number of people will have the final say in the matter. Thus, it is imperative that every corporation in every country encourage voting before, during, and after elections. So, if individuals can encourage voting, why couldn't businesses do the same?
Should there be a financial incentive (not just reputational) to encourage the private sector to promote voting? If not, why not?
Hello,
Well, when it comes to business and elections, I think that brands should be allowed to mingle, but I think that their mingling should be moderate, this will enable them to avoid issues with government and individuals. I personally think that they should be allowed to encourage people to vote because... this will improve democracy in the countries who support these brands and the overall promotion of free and fair elections.
In addition, in person I am not really sure whether or not they should be allowed to openly support a candidate over another but to my best understanding I think that they shouldn't, the reason being that they as brands, especially the more popular ones have a very huge influential power, their say as a brand can cause many things both positive and negative to happen hence I suggest it is best to keep it within the borders of the brand.
Then finally I think that businesses should be able to share their own opinion on the politics around them based on the fact that the politics also affects them to. They have to say what they think and also consider the people around them.
To me I think that brand campaigning, especially in politics is very good and should be very accurate as every action and word they say are being read/watched by others.
THANKYOU.
When businesses encourage people to vote, it can have a significant impact on voter turnout. In the 2020 US election, companies like Patagonia, Levi's, and Ben & Jerry's incentivized their employees to vote and helped them register to vote. As a result, voter turnout in the US reached a 120-year high, with around 160 million people voting.
Moreover, businesses can support candidates through donations. In the 2020 election cycle, business donations to political campaigns reached $6.5 billion, with the majority of the money going to the presidential race. This shows that businesses do have a significant role to play in supporting candidates they believe in.
I strongly believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. This is because if more businesses encourage this, it's likely that more people will participate, leading to better and fairer elections. Encouraging someone to vote does not mean telling them who to vote for. It is simply reminding them of their right to participate in the democratic process.
However, businesses must be careful in how they support a candidate. For example, in the 2016 US presidential election, some businesses were criticized for openly endorsing one candidate over the other. This led to boycotts and negative publicity, which could harm the business's reputation.
Moreover, businesses should be partly allowed to support one candidate over another. However, they should not criticize one candidate and only talk positively about the other. Instead, businesses could show their support for a candidate without trying to change the public's opinion dramatically. This could bring new ideas to the table and lead to a more informed decision-making process.
Finally, businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about policies. This is because customers deserve to know what businesses stand for, and this can influence their purchasing decisions. For example, if a company is not taking any action against climate change, its customers or consumers have the right to know. This can help them make more informed choices about the businesses they support.
When it comes to sharing their opinions about policies, businesses must also be transparent and honest. In a survey conducted by Edelman in 2020, 64% of consumers said that they want businesses to take a stand on current and broadly relevant issues like sustainability, transparency, and fair employment practices. This shows that customers are increasingly interested in the values and ethics of the businesses they support.
Interesting points! Can you provide some sources for your evidence?
When business and politics mix, it can be a recipe for trouble. Imagine a situation where decisions that should be based on what's best for people or the economy get conquered by political agendas or personal interests. This can lead to corruption, unfair advantages for certain companies or individuals, and policies that benefit a select few rather than the broader population. Additionally, businesses might feel pressured to support certain political candidates or parties to gain favors or protection, which can undermine democratic principles and the fairness of the market. Overall, when business and politics twist too closely, it can erode trust, create conflicts of interest, and ultimately harm both the economy and society as a whole.
Interesting comment about agendas. Could you expand on the point you made about businesses and gaining political favours?
I disagree because... in a business we're the is politics the most make money if you were to be the owner of Nike company ,and a political party want to buy a pair of shoes from the company you like to make friends the political party and during election time if the want to by canvas the will come to you company and if your company sells cloth the also buy cloths from your company and the will pay extra money for your company to put their political name on it that a company needs to get close to political parties to make money and when a policy party buys from your company you will get more popular and when you are popular you will get more customers , when you have many customers you get more money.
In my opinion business should not mix with politics ,let alone to support one candidate over another. This would be very suspicious as it would mean that maybe the brand was even bribed from the candidate. If this is true, it would be even worst to mean that both of them care most about profits.
Politicians and their views should be open to public and they should be an embodiment of honesty and fairness. Business should focus on their products and how can promote them also on a sincere way.
We do not need to mess.up 2 different notions.
I personally love the topic on businesses because of the fact that I aspire to become a founder of an enterprise myself, I think that businesses should not campaign for a certain person as a whole but rather encourage their employees to vote in an election because their vote counts.
Thanks for sharing! What type of business would you like to run and how would you ensure you are a good boss?
Hi,
I do not think businesses should not show their support one candidate over another . I think this because a business should be neutral and for everyone . Especially if they are public city or a crowded space where there is a lot of people and different opinions . If they do this it also may affect their business . This is because if a non supporter of their chosen candidate sees you doing this they may not want to shop there again.
I do not believe that businesses should have a say at all in the politics of a country. We mustn't forget that corruption is still a thing. A specific party may compensate a popular business to promote thag party. Let us keep in mind that the owners of business do not really care for the well-being of the people as much as the political parties do. Letting business openly support a specific candidate or party will discouraged honesty in the election system and may eventually cause the wrong person to be given power.
Yes, I believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because that could help with stocks and profits they can get off of it. They could also help the people who are running get a better chance at winning. Yes, businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another because they have there own opinions onto who they believe should be able to run them and what they do. Businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies because they are human beings who are able to give their thoughts onto what should happen and what they think is best for the place that they are in.
HELLO!
Encouraging people to vote in an election is not only important but also a civic responsibility. Businesses can play a positive role in promoting voter engagement. For example, they can organize voter registration drives, provide information on polling locations, or even incentives like discounts or rewards for does who show proof of voting. By doing so, businesses can contribute to a more informed and participatory democracy. Research has shown that when businesses actively promote civic engagement. It can lead to increased voter turnout and a stronger sense of community. So, allowing businesses to encourage people to vote can have a positive impact on our democratic process.
In the context of a democratical society, businesses have the right to express their opinion and support candidates, just like any individual. However, openly supporting one candidate over another can have both positive and negative consequences. On one hand, it can help businesses align with their values and attract like-minded customers. On the other hand, it may aliniete customers who hold different political views. Ultimately, the decision to openly support a candidate is a strategic one that businesses must carefully consider, weighing the benefits and risks. It's important for businesses to be aware of the potential impact on their brand reputation and customer base.
Yes I think there should be allowed to share policies.
THANK YOU!
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people vote in elections because if people do not choose or vote for the right leader, his decisions as a leader can affect the people and they will start complaining. Most leader are selfish and greedy but when they are campaigning they say things that people want the government to do. Most people know their true colors but will not want to vote or may have forgotten that it is voting day. Only few people do not know about the government they are voting for except if they were being forced to vote for a particular candidate which makes few people to vote. But businesses can persuade people successfully to vote. Especially business owners like NIKE that normally have a lot of fans depending on how popular they are, they can also bring development and will make people to stop complaining about the government.
Title: The Meeting Point of Elections and Business
First of all,
A country's political and economic environment is greatly influenced by the dynamic and intricate interaction between business and elections. Election results can have a significant impact on companies, industries, and the economy as a whole. They are an essential tool for determining the direction of government policy. This essay delves into the complex relationships that exist between business and elections, looking at how political decisions affect economic policy and how corporate interests affect democratic processes in turn.
Body:
1. Policy Impact on Enterprise:
Elections have an impact on policy decisions by determining the makeup of governing bodies. Elected officials' policies can have a significant impact on businesses by determining labor laws, trade restrictions, taxes, and environmental standards. 2. Economic Platforms and Business Interests:
Political parties often develop economic platforms that articulate their stance on issues such as fiscal policy, deregulation, and economic stimulus. These platforms directly affect businesses by signaling the likely trajectory of economic conditions. Companies, in turn, align themselves with parties or candidates whose economic policies align with their interests, contributing to a symbiotic relationship between business entities and political actors.
3. Corporate Influence on Elections:
Businesses, particularly large corporations, wield significant influence in electoral processes through financial contributions, lobbying, and endorsements. The financial resources of corporations can impact the outcome of elections by supporting candidates who align with their interests. This influence raises concerns about the potential distortion of democratic processes and the prioritization of corporate agendas over the broader public interest.
4. Public Perception and Corporate Responsibility:
Elections also play a crucial role in shaping public opinion about businesses and their social responsibility. In an era of heightened awareness, consumers are increasingly scrutinizing corporate behavior. Businesses, therefore, engage in strategic efforts to align themselves with values that resonate with the electorate, recognizing that public perception can influence consumer behavior and, consequently, corporate success.
5. Global Trade and International Relations:
Elections can have implications beyond national borders, particularly in the context of global trade and international relations. Political leaders' positions on trade agreements, tariffs, and diplomatic relations can significantly impact businesses engaged in cross-border activities. The interconnected nature of the global economy underscores the importance of considering international dimensions in the intersection of business and elections.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the relationship between business and elections is intricate and multifaceted. Elections shape policies that directly impact businesses, while corporate interests, in turn, exert influence on electoral processes. The symbiosis between business and politics underscores the need for a balanced and transparent system that prioritizes the public interest. As societies navigate the complexities of this relationship, fostering accountability, ethical business practices, and a fair electoral process becomes imperative for the sustainable and equitable development of nations.
I think that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote some reasons I say these are because,
Some businesses are not allowed to vote, because some businesses are not allowed to vote in any political campaign, and they do not want a leader that will destroy the nation they may encourage people to vote for the right leader to rule the nation, they may say these things because maybe they had experiences about a bad leader that almost destroyed the state,
I believe businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections because it could be beneficial for more people to participate in their communities, resulting in more votes. I personally do not think businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another because maybe the supporters of the other candidate get angry and might protest the businesses. Again, I do not think businesses should be allowed to share their own opinions about policies because people may have arguments about that specific policy and might result in consequences.
I think that businesses should encourage people to vote, I say this because of some reasons like:
Businesses are not allowed to vote, because some businesses are not allowed to vote in any political campaign, they might try to encourage the people to vote for the right leader that may liberate the rule saying businesses should not be allowed to vote or one that will help the nation they may say these things because maybe they have experienced a bad leader who almost destroyed the nation, maybe they do not want to experience that again and since they can't vote they may try to encourage people to vote for the right leader that will help the nation in the best way. Another reason why businesses encourage people to vote for the right leader is because some political leaders may not care about some businesses and it may result into things like strikes, riots, protest or even destruction of the nation. And this may result to people getting hurt or killed and what some businesses do to encourage people to choose a leader that might help their business is by giving the people merchandise to remind them of how that particular business have helped them, and they may choose a leader that would improve those businesses. And in my own words I call this a win-win because the business owners will still have their business running or maybe to even get improved while the customers may still have that particular business to buy things from.
Another reason businesses encourage people to vote for a right leader is because:
Some business owners may be worried about their businesses, I think this because some businesses that are not allowed to vote may be worried about what the new leader would do about their business whether they would try and improve it or shut it down. Because some businesses may be worried if the new leader would try to improve it or just close it down. I think this should be one of the main things that make businesses want to encourage people to vote because, if some businesses don't feel comfortable or safe with their business with the new government they may withdraw and then their regular and daily customers may find it a little hard for them to find new business that hey can go to regularly and daily. But the businesses may find a way to prevent that because some businesses may have some special connection with their customers so maybe if the businesses are worried about if one of the leader will try to close it down the customers may try their best to choose the right leader that will improve the business.
So that is why I think that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections.
THANK YOU
Businesses have the potential to make significant changes in society by adopting responsible practices and promoting sustainable initiatives. Here are some ways in which businesses can create positive change:
1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Businesses can integrate CSR into their operations, considering their impact on social, economic, and environmental aspects. This can involve initiatives such as philanthropy, volunteering programs, ethical sourcing, and reducing their carbon footprint.
2. Sustainable Practices: Businesses can adopt environmentally friendly practices, such as reducing waste, conserving energy, embracing renewable energy sources, and implementing recycling programs. They can also use sustainable materials, promote sustainable agriculture, and support fair trade practices.
3. Ethical Supply Chain: Businesses can ensure that their supply chains adhere to ethical standards, such as fair labor practices, safe working conditions, and respecting human rights. This includes regularly auditing suppliers and implementing measures to address any issues discovered.
4. Diversity and Inclusion: Promoting diversity and inclusion within the workplace is crucial for fostering a positive and inclusive culture. This involves implementing policies that promote equal opportunities, diverse hiring practices, and creating an inclusive work environment that values and respects individuals from different backgrounds.
5. Advocacy and Collaboration: Businesses can use their influence and resources to advocate for social and environmental issues. This can involve partnering with nonprofit organizations, participating in policy discussions, and supporting initiatives that align with their values and goals.
6. Education and Awareness: Businesses can play a role in educating their employees, customers, and communities about responsible practices and sustainable choices. Providing information, resources, and incentives to encourage individuals to make more sustainable choices can help drive positive change at a broader level.
7. Innovation and Technology: Embracing innovation and leveraging technology can lead to more sustainable solutions and practices. Businesses can invest in research and development to develop sustainable products, processes, and technologies that minimize their environmental impact. THANK YOU
I don’t think that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote nor should they be allowed to support one candidate over another. This is for many different reasons but here are a few examples. First off, many people may value a reputable company’s opinion over their own ethical beliefs. This means that company’s may try to persuade their customers to vote for the “right” candidate. Another reason companies should not be allowed to encourage people to vote is because the business could also start to lose customers who do not agree with its the company’s voting opinion. I don’t think it would be a good idea.
Hello courteous_honeyberry,
As much as I respect your point of view, I disagree because in my opinion, as much as individuals have their own respective political parties that they support, so also do these businesses. If an individual decides to value a reputable company's opinion over their own ethical beliefs and customs, it is to the advantage of the political party of which the company is supporting. Also yes, as much as I agree about the fact that the business may loose customers, on the other hand the business may also gain many more. this is because if the supporters of that political party here that the company is supporting a particular political party they may be very intrigued and even start to patronize the business. So in conclusion businesses should be able to openly show support to a particular political party
Thank you
Correct, aside from the media, famous people, and people in high places, companies also play a pivotal role on the way the world thinks, a company's product has a big role in the way people around the world think, so if a company campaigns for a certain candidate, the people living in that area of election will be confused, many will vote for a particular candidate before looking at his attributes, some will be angry because of their own choices and might go agianst the company's wishes. This will not look good for the company and that election might go afainst the laws, many companies and businesses should understand that their say has a large impact on the minds of the people.
Thank You.
I disagree because the first point you make contradicts the right of freedom of expression in my country. Of course businesses should not be allowed to vote because voting is a personal choice. But entrepreneurs should be able to share their opinion with the resources at their disposal. The second point you made does not affect you and I who only patronize the business. The businessman has the right to choose what he does with what he has and the after consequences will affect only him. By the way, you did not put into consideration the fact that after supporting a candidate, the business may be widely known for standing out and this can attract more customers to that business. Here in my country, a small kiosk owner supported the Labour Party's candidate and was given millions of naira to help her boost her business. From this, I got that we should learn to focus more on the positive aspects of things rather than in the negative. This way we will improve on ourselves.
I agree that businesses can encourage people to vote in an election
If a business maintains a positive relationship with his /her customers, I believe it's not detrimental for that business to encourage people to vote in an election. Businesses have equal rights as citizens, and such encouragement can also foster unity among the masses.
Hi,
In my opinion, businesses should not be able to influence voters' decisions to support or oppose candidates.
The reason I say this is because anyone can be bought off with an offer. For example, a politician could approach the CEO of a company and try to convince them to support their candidacy. This is quite likely since there are a ton of corrupt politicians—I mean, tons of them—and they frequently use money to persuade, which is ultimately what businesses want, according to the quiz. There are some businesses that actually have good intentions for the public, but even the kindest people can be drawn into darkness by others.
Thank you
I agree because... Allowing businesses to influence voters' decisions can lead to a skewed and unfair electoral process. When politicians seek financial support from corporations, it can create a sense of indebtedness and bias towards the interests of those businesses rather than the needs and concerns of the electorate. Moreover, the potential for corruption and undue influence undermines the integrity of democratic institutions. When money becomes the driving force behind political decisions, it erodes public trust and confidence in the electoral process. For example, numerous studies have highlighted the significant impact of corporate campaign donations on political outcomes. In the United States, the influence of money in politics has been a longstanding issue, with large corporations and wealthy individuals wielding disproportionate power in shaping policy agendas. Furthermore, even everyday examples abound of businesses leveraging their financial resources to gain political favor. Lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, and corporate PACs are just some of the mechanisms through which businesses seek to influence electoral outcomes. In conclusion, what strategies do you think society can implement to hold businesses accountable for their influence on political decisions without stifling their ability to engage in the democratic process?
Hello!
I would like to discuss on "Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?". I believe that when you're living in a democratic, the competition should be fair. If a business is supporting any ONE candidate, they why are elections there in the first place? Also, if the business is supporting any one candidate, what's there the that very candidate that's not there in everyone else running? I mean, that a few selected people stand for the elections because they have that capability, common men are not allowed to stand for the elections if they fancy! Businesses supporting the candidate they like leads to, as I state, Unfairness and Demotivation of all the other candidates.
Thank You!
I believe it isn't bad for companies to vote, because the people are the ones who can use their vote to bring change to their government or country. It's imporant to vote for that reason, yet let's say a company is saying to vote for Canidate A and spreading misinformation about them to make them look good, or bad for that matter, then that's where it could become a problem. Especially if they're being paid from the sidelines to do so. Because it should be for the person to decide and decipher how good or bad a politician is to them, as that's democracy. So to conclude, as long as it's not boosting or decreasing anyone's reputation, companies should have the ability to encourage their buyers to vote in an election.
In my own opinion,I believe that if a well-known business, such as Coca-Cola or other companies, endorses a political candidate in a country, it can sway the public's opinion toward that candidate. Therefore, I think everyone, including businesses, should have the freedom to express their political views. Thanks .
I believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections for a fair few reasons:
1: People want their voices heard and businesses encouraging people to vote will motivate them to spread this opinion.
2: This will 99% of the time ensure we have someone who deserves to be in power due to their positive actions on the country.
3: Businesses would look better encouraging people to vote as they are pushing for good intentions to occur, which may escalate to their business benefitting from the votes.
4: Even if the business is only caring for their own motives, this could still benefit the customers and the company at the same time.
Brands increasingly take a stance on political issues, whereas consumers increasingly choose to either support a brand by buying their products
I don't think that businesses should be able to encourage groups to support one candidate over another because by doing this it can effect the other candidate's self confidence and affecting their mental health by getting the community to overrule their opinion.
I think that a business should not be allowed to push or encourage political ideologies. I believe this because of the influence that these businesses have being juxtaposed with how businesses will do anything if it makes them more money. while I'll concede that the influence can be used for pushing good agendas such as Patagonia's stance on climate change, if I was, to use an extreme example, a billionaire entrepreneur that wanted to lobby for laws that advantaged me while disadvantaging the lower class factory workers that were building my merchandise, then I may use my product to influence the views of the general public to vote for laws that lower the minimum wage for factory workers. this is a fantastical and extreme example but an example nonetheless of how an influential brand almost never has the general publics interests at heart.
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. The reason why I think this is because a lot of Americans don't vote and allowing businesses to encourage people to can make a big difference. I also think businesses should be able to share opinions about policies. This can increase consumer perception, brand reputation and ultimately sales figures. This can also attract people to your businesses.
I think that buisness should not be able to influence us to vote for a specific candidate. They should however encourage us to vote in the whole run as this is a human right that many thought to get such as the black community and women before the war.
After all their hard work why should we just throw this away and let someone else decide who will run the society that we live in, wouldn't you want to have in a say on who gets to make the decision for your country?
However as soon as a brand is trying to influence your choice and using hidden propaganda this should not be allowed to continue.
This is a direct infringment of the law as brands have to stay non biased through out the election time as,
Their opinions can and will damage the image of a certain candidate.
Which will without a doubt cause bias and an unfair election.
Would you like to be the candidate receiving negative opinions from a globe known brand?
Businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another and here is why. You may work for one candidate to support their ideas and more. But maybe one day your candidate does something you don't feel right about or don't agree with and the other candidate feels the same as you.So now you should be able to support that other candidate for that one thing since you both agree on something. Then your candidate should think back on their decision and revise it. I feel this reason should give more than enough reason for you to support another candidate.
Greeting to all,
A business can encourage their customers and clients to vote to a particular party. They can also encourage their staff to vote to a party But it is risky, because the other party or the enemy of the particular party for which the business encourage the people ,during elections the other party harm the showroom of the business brand who support the party . So I thought that it would be risky to support a party in elections.
I disagree because... As we all know that everyone has his or her point of view, in terms of political issues.
And also, it is not good for business to encourage their customer or client to cast their vote for a particular party because we see things from different angles, i might decide to vote for political party A because him or her is young while another person will want to vote for political party B because he is rich.
so, the best thing to do is for business to encourage their client to vote but to vote for a particular political party, and remember that every citizen has his his or her right vote for whom he or she likes and also to be voted for, and if businesses start to encourage their client to vote for a particular candidate that means that they been deprived of their human right idirectly
Actually for this your comment I adore but I have a question for you If the old ones are to be the leaders or rulers in the politics will that mean that for one to become a certain leader he or she must reach a certain stage of there life? and also in the system of government I have never had or seen that the young ones are not to talk or decide in the aspect of politics so, all I just want to say is that in all activities of leadership the of them all depends on the future of the young ones. Thanks.
Business refers to the activities involved in producing, buying, or selling goods for profit. On the other hand,Elections are an democratic process of allowing citizens to choose their representatives.Encouraging people to vote is an important part of democracy. Businesses can play a positive role by promoting city's participation and providing information about the voting process. However, it's imp for businesses to remain neutral and respect individuals' right to make their own choices. It's up to each person to decide whom to vote in elections and choose right juries !!
Hello guys
In my honest opinion,encouraging people to vote is an important aspect of civic engagement. Businesses can play a role in promoting voter participation by providing information, resources, and even incentives to encourage their employees and customers to exercise their right to vote. However, it's crucial for businesses to maintain a non-partisan stance and ensure that their efforts are focused on promoting democratic participation rather than influencing specific political outcomes. It's all about empowering individuals to make informed decisions and have their voices heard in the democratic process!
Thank you!
Should companies be allowed to support one candidate over another :-
I disagree with " Should companies be allowed to support one candidate over another " for example company A supports candidate ABC and does not support other candidates this can create conflicts and would be a very dangerous and disastrous decision made by the company . This may lead to protests which are very harmful and all of these conflicts may contain the maltreating of innocents. So it would be good if the company focuses on its work and the candidate focuses on his/her work.
Waiting for your reply !
quiet_hurricane
Hello,
Today I would like to discuss the matter of the subject. Businesses and elections. I believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote but they can't force them to chose who the company want to win. They should be allowed to share their own opinions because this can change our lives for the better or for the worse.
There is a great alternative though. If the company's weren't allowed to vote or share their opinions then there would be no way of cheating or changing other people's votes. For example,a certain elective could ask a major business to tell everyone to vote for them. If the company said no then the elective would probably decide to pay the business to tell people about them.
In conclusion,I believe that the company's should chose themselves so they won't become annoyed at the government's decision.
I think it is risky for a business to support a particular party during elections because if the part that has been supported eventually wins the elections but fails to fulfil its manifesto, it will be a big stain on the name of the company. People will start thinking that the business was being interfered in by politicians and that will not be good for a business.
I think businesses should indeed be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections. Encouraging participation in the democratic process and exercising the right to vote aligns with the principles of civicc engagement and can contribute to a more representative and inclusive democratic system. By promoting voter turnout, businesses can contribute to a more engaged and informed electorate. However, this can be harmful because of the ongoing corruption, I think some businesses can be bribed or threatened by candidates which can lead to a bad election.
When it comes to sharing opinions about policies, I think businesses can play a role in shaping public discourse and contributing valuuable perspectives to policy discussions. However, it's essential for businesses to do so responsibly, considering the potential impact of their statements on stakeholders and society as a whole. Prudent and well-informed engagement in policy discussions can contribute to an informed public debate and can be consistent with a business's commitment to corporate social responsibility.
In my opinion, YES, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. Strength of a democracy is in universal adult franchise . People’s right to vote ensures election of a responsible government which can work towards the growth and development of that nation. Therefore, it is a moral obligation of the business houses to encourage people to vote in an election .
Business should be allowed to share opinions about policies adopted by any government because freedom of speech is fundamental right for one and all. However, businesses should refrain from openly supporting one candidate over another as they may unknowingly force their opinions on their employees. The employees of a business house should form their own opinions and vote as per their choice. This will ensure a strong democracy in a nation and will lead to growth and development in the nation.
Many thanks!
Hello everyone,
Today I'm going to discuss about that should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
I disagree to this because brands should not force their customers to vote any politician or political party because this can lead to a lot of problems including future problems like :-
ELECTION OF WRONG PERSON AS A POLITICIAN : Election of wrong person because of promotions can cause a decline in the economy of the country and maltreating of innocents
CONFLICTS BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES : The relations between two or more political parties could break because of this.
I think that a company should just be allowed for promoting elections not any candidate .
Thank you for giving your precious time !
Greetings!
I attained 11/12 in the buisness and politics quiz and it was so terrific and informative that I got to know about brands that I wasn't even aware of like Avon and I got to know about the problems that the buisnesses faced in Russia during the war and about companies who took actions on the climate change . It aws very informative and I got to know about buisness and politics.
Waiting for your reply
quiet_hurricane
Hey everyone,
I believe it's important for businesses to tread carefully when it comes to endorsing political candidates. When a well-known brand throws its weight behind someone, it can really shape public opinion. Take for example a popular fast-food joint like McDonald's backing a specific candidate. Their influence could sway people to vote for that candidate, even if they might not be the best fit for the job.
But that doesn't mean businesses shouldn't encourage people to get out there and vote! It's awesome to see companies rallying for voter engagement. Getting involved in the democratic process is crucial for ensuring the right people are in charge. Let's just remember though, it's best if businesses steer clear of directly endorsing candidates.
I think that businesses do not have the right to force people to vote in an election but if we think about it the other way , it is acceptable for businesses to encourage people to express their view point and share their opinion just like other citizens do , but this still democracy and every individual is responsible of their own choice which is whether to participate in the election or not.
I think businesses should share their opinions , because people who work in brands are ordinary people just like us so it their right to express their thoughts.
I believe that businesses should encourage democratic participation and offer resources to share perspectives on policies. As the largest democracy in the world, the United States offers its citizens the right to vote, yet an enormous number of Americans still choose not to vote.
Businesses can encourage people to vote and tell them how to even open sites to vote from home and support the government to help set up the voting place but I think that we should make it illegal in every country if a bussines supports one over another i mean like they can vote for them themselves but like if they tell them or even give them a hint of supporting one over another they should be arrested and this should be a law
Thank you
Businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote because that can help sponsor the candidates for the election and if candidate claims supports the businesses like making stocks worth more and sell for more or more stuff like that can help the business for a small deal.
In my opinion, all of the bulletpoints are valid. I believe this, because businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in a election so that people could actually get something that would satisfy their needs. Also, democracy is very important. To add on, I feel that companies should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. To go further with my explanation, I think this way because businesses should have a say over who they support or not. Even if this leads them to get back lash. This would go against Freedom of Speech. Same thing would go for the last bulletpoint. They should be able to voice their opinions without any back lash or detrimental comments constantly attempting to change their view point.
Yes, I feel like businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in a political election. Although, I feel like businesses should not be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. I also feel like businesses should not be allowed to share opinions about policies. In my opinion, businesses should be allowed to encourage people of the community to vote but businesses should also not be allowed to say their opinion of a candidate. I feel this way because due to some companies being larger than others their opinion may influence some people to think differently and their view-point on things may not be right. I think that if a company encourages people to vote in general not just for one person that the outcome of their company will turn out better. I think that the outcome of their company will turn out better because some people may not agree with their decision to vote for a certain person. I also think that businesses should not be allowed to openly voice their opinions about policies. I believe this because some groups of people may disagree with their opinion and many people in those groups may get their feelings hurt. This may cause them to boycott the business.
In my opinion, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in elections, since everyone has a right to vote and share their opinion. However, they should not be allowed to openly support one candidate and not another. Businesses have a lot of power, especially extremely popular ones, and it wouldn't be fair if the business told their consumer to vote for one specific person. If that happened, no one would be thinking for themselves and only following the brand. This would lead to the election being unfair.
I feel mixed about whether businesses should openly support policies or not. While it's good if the business is supporting a policy that helps people or animals, it also isn't okay for people to decide their opinion based on what a brand said or did. One thing is for sure, though. Brands shouldn't be changing or making one's opinion.
In my opinion I think businesses are allowed to encourage people to vote because if businesses aren't allowed to encourage people to vote they there might be someone who doesn't want to vote.But if they convince that person they will wanna vote. If someone doesn't vote that makes a difference when voting: )
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because elections are supposed to be a time where everyone chooses who they want to lead them. I think it is every citizen's responsibility to vote, so people's favorite businesses are encouraging them to participate to vote it is a superb thing. But I think businesses shouldn’t be allowed to openly support one candidate over another because it could lead to making people vote for the wrong person. For instance, a corrupt politician pays a business lots of money to convince people to vote for them, and since the people trust in the business so much, they vote for them and their country becomes messed up.
HELLO Topical Talkers,
I believe that, businesses are should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. And with that the people will know and understand that their opinion is important. This will lead to to make the people love their country as their country needs their opinions and it's important for them. So if the people loved their country and starts to develop it, the country will get more money and it will be so good country.
I think that, the businesses should be not allowed to vote for only one person everyone should vote for the person he/she likes. As everyone has his own opinion and they must say it.
In my personal opinion I think that, businesses should be allowed to vote in elections as they're from the country and they are after all like us and have their own opinion. So I think that they should say their opinion so that we know their viewpoint and how they think. But also they should be not allowed to vote to their own business.
In my opinion business and brands should not be allowed to encourage people to vote about their products since we don’t know if someone is paying to do that . Let’s take NYC makeup brand as an example you can call it one of the worst makeup brands , this brand may pay money for the people to vote a good things about their brand even though it’s not and will provide people to buy their products.
I think that businesses are going to get more popular. And that's very good people are making new things and saying new opinions for things can be more great and awesome.
I think people that have businesses should put more things on and in clothes to tell people to help the brand raise up more money. Some people don't spread good things about the business because it is other business owners that are jealous. Cause they don't get a lot of customers.
These questions maybe depend on the person or for their business to get more popular and that means more people so that means more money for the company.
Everyone has the right to voice their opinion on elections, so shouldn't companies be able to do the same? I think that businesses have all the rights as well as the freedom to voice their opinion on politics and elections. I say this because it's their choice if they decide to encourage people/their employees to vote in political elections, as well as share their personal opinion, as everyone has the freedom to share their opinion, even if it's a business who is doing it.
I believe that every person, business, and company should be able to freely state their opinion on an issue or election. Even though they can state their opinion, no one should ever try to force their opinion on someone. I agree that businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another, share opinions about policies, but they should never force, or even encourage people to vote for somebody, or even vote at all in an election.
I think businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. I believe this because every vote counts to make the country have better politicians in charge. Another reason I think this is because many Americans do not vote. I also believe that businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over the other because even though they are a corporation they are still entitled to an opinion. Businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies also. Many individuals often read something that seems good but will cause problems later on. If businesses express their views on policies it could show flaws people didn't think of before. So I think businesses should be allowed to do all of these things.
I believe that if a business want to support and encourage people to vote someone specifically they can do it. But they should be ready to accept the consequences of this decision not only negatives but positives as well. There might contrast between the views of the company and the views of people around the world that can cause the destruction of the company or apotheosis as well.
I think businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote and this will be bias due to the business having and alignment with the candidate and the candidate might have bribed the business into persuading the people to vote for the candidate due to their huge influence.
Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
No, because the business would be bias and this would lead to that candidates winning because of the influence the brand has .
Should businesses be allowed to share opinions about policies?
No, because they would share opinions about what would benefit their business and how it benefits the candidate.
You say candidates might have bribed businesses. Do you have any evidence to support this?
I feel that businesses should be allowed to encourage voting in elections, but I also feel that they should refrain from openly having a positive bias towards a candidate. It's great that businesses encourage and or remind people to vote with their products but it becomes an issue when they begin to affect who people vote for. I feel that who someone votes for should be completely up to them without any outside influences and should align with that person's values and beliefs rather than who their favorite brand says is better. Additionally, some businesses will naturally support the candidate that would benefit their business. Even though that candidate may not be better for the people, they may benefit businesses, and if businesses support these candidates people will end up choosing a candidate that is not right for them.
I agree with you. While I feel that businesses should not tell people the candidate to vote for, I think they should be able to encourage people to go all out to cast their vote. This is because everyone has to know the person he/she wants to be their leader that is why it is called an election because you have to elect the leader, but if businesses are allowed to tell people whom to vote for that will require staff to have political loyalty, it can lead to workplace hostility and might even affect the customer base of the business. The business might also be affected if the elected figure is not their choice as the candidate might want to victimise such businesses who were against them.
I agree that it could cause hostility within the workplace. Political opinions cause a lot of controversy and are typically grounds for discrimination against people with certain political beliefs which leads to riots, violence, etc. Businesses expressing their political beliefs (especially large businesses) could strike controversy amongst the public and can cause or add onto already ongoing issues.
Hi guys,regarding the 1st question,studies have shown that attempts to influence voters can have unintended consequences and may even backfire like...a study published in the Journal of Politics found that when people are told that voter turnout is expected to be low,they are actually less likely to vote...I found out this is known as the "bandwagon effect" and it highlights the delicate nature of influencing people's decisions.
As for the second question,allowing businesses to do so could lead to a disproportionate amount of money and influence being wielded by corporations and could potentially undermine the democratic process by drowning out the voices of individual citizens and giving corporations an unfair advantage...We also disccussed about a study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that outside spending by special interest groups on elections increased by more than 700% or so...
Finally,3rd Que-there have been numerous cases of corporate lobbying and influence-peddling in the political process in many countries...For ex-a report by the Center for Responsive Politics found that,the top organizations spending on lobbying in the US spent over 1 billion...I was ib this highlight and wanted to emphasise the need for proper laws and regulations to ensure transparency and to prevent corporations from exerting undue influence on the political process i mean if anyone can in influence the voting system then what's the whole point of so called 'democracy' in a country??...I am open to new povs...Thank you!
Hi amazing friends
I feel that businesses should be obliged to encourage people to vote in an election because there might be information that voters might not have known but because people might need votes, they will expose this information that will cause them to get more votes. If their work is not good, I feel that they will feel ashamed to even enter an election with other prominent people. I also feel that businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about policies because it might not favour them in a certain way that might always lead to their dismay in their elections so it will be best if they address it so that management can think of changing those policies to make all things equal and fair and it should be ensured that it will not hurt other candidates in the election.
Regarding businesses and politics, they should encourage people to vote, but not pressure them to vote a particular way. They should avoid openly supporting one candidate over another and instead focus on issues and policies. While businesses can share their opinions on policies, they must be transparent and act ethically while respecting the democratic process.
The question of whether businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote, openly support candidates, or share opinions about policies is a tricky one. On one hand, promoting civic engagement and encouraging participation in the democratic process seems positive, as it empowers individuals to exercise their rights. However, when businesses openly support specific candidates or advocate for particular policies, it can disrupts the lines between commerce and politics, potentially negatively influencing public opinion in ways that may not align with everyone's interests. Also, allowing businesses to openly support candidates could leas to possible embezzlement of finances. Yet, businesses often have a stake in policy decisions that impact their operations, employees,so allowing them to share opinions about policies could contribute valuable view to public discourse. So in conclusion, striking a balance between promoting civic engagement and ensuring fairness and transparency in the electoral process is essential for maintaining the integrity of democracy.
I think businesses are allowed to encourage to vote in an election because the person that the business wants you to vote for could be very good as a part of their business and if they end up getting chosen then it could be a good thing for the business and more things as well.
Thanks for that wonderful comment but I strongly believe and that think that when businesses began to encourage their staffs or clients to vote for a particular candidates or party, t is an indirect way of denying the citizens of their right as we all know that as a citizen e have the right to vote and to be voted for, so when citizens are been ecouraged to vote for a particular candidate, that right is been denied so I think that the best thing to d0 is for businesses to encourage clients to vote and educate them more on the importance of voting and also advice them to vote for the right government not to vote because of money that they will recieve but for better government because as we know that some people vote because of money maybe if they vote for a particular party they will be given some token.
Encouraging people to vote in elections is a fundamental aspect of democracy, and businesses have a role to play in fostering civic engagement. However, when businesses openly support one candidate over another, it can lead to polarization and undermine the democratic process. By using their platforms to advocate for specific candidates, businesses risk alienating customers who may have different political beliefs, ultimately eroding trust in their impartiality and integrity. While businesses certainly have the right to express their political opinions, they should carefully consider the potential consequences and strive to maintain neutrality to uphold democratic principles. Furthermore, allowing businesses to openly support one candidate over another can create an uneven playing field, particularly for smaller businesses that may not have the resources or platform to compete. This could result in the amplification of certain political ideologies at the expense of others, stifling diversity of thought and limiting the marketplace of ideas. Additionally, it may create an environment where individuals feel pressured to align with the political views of the businesses they patronize, rather than making informed decisions based on their own beliefs and values. While individuals certainly have the right to share their opinions about politics, businesses should exercise caution when doing so in order to maintain professionalism and avoid alienating customers. By prioritizing inclusivity and neutrality, businesses can help foster a healthy democratic discourse that respects diverse perspectives and encourages civic engagement without compromising their integrity or alienating stakeholders. Ultimately, businesses should focus on providing quality products and services rather than engaging in overt political advocacy.
My opinion is that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because not a lot of people in America vote and I feel like people in america should vote more so that they pick the right person to be a president, mayor, etc. Businesses should be allowed to openly support one candidate over another because supporting is good especially supporting good candidates. Businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies because it's their opinion but the businesses shouldn't give bad opinions about good policies since their businesses can be ruined and they would get less money and customers.
What other ways can we encourage voting?
Yes, I agree with you, businesses should be allowed to encourage people because businesses have the right as citizens of a nation, I say this because businesses are owned by citizens of the nation. They should be allowed to encourage people to vote for whoever they want to become the leader because we all need a good leader in charge of the affairs of the country. If businesses choose not to encourage people to go out there and vote, they have to bear in mind that their businesses are put at risk should a bad leader come and put a bad policy in place. This will affect their businesses as well as affect the citizens of the nation. Businesses due to their size and makeup can get to the grassroots faster than any other medium as a result, will be able to get people enmasse to vote. The more businesses participate in issues like this, the more people will be reached and encouraged to come out and vote.
Yes of course businesses should encourage people to vote in elections because out of the world's population around 14% are illiterates and are unknown about the power of their vote and also many people choose not to vote. In countries with a high poverty rate where people are not educated about elections , top brands and companies can educate those peoples with all the power and influence. Businesses should not be allowed to support one candidate over another cause this is called politics. For example a candidate offers a bribe to a certain company and they influence the illiterates to vote for that candidate. In this situation the illiterates are influenced in a wrong manner and it also affects those people's right to vote to the candidate of their opinion. And also Businesses should be allowed to share opinions about politics because if a candidate or a political party does something against the favors of the people and environment, then with the influence of the brand or company they can lead the people in the right path and a justice can be made to the citizens.
Thank you
Hello, I am from Pakistan this topic is very interesting because we all childrens and youngsters seen this political activty of elections very closely recently. I will talk purely on the basis of our Subcontinent region. I think political parties or politicians actually come to politics specially to expand their business. I am eye witness of one fact that i shared with you. My uncle works in a Factory he came to our house and asked me they forcefully asked all the workers of our factory to attend the Poltical gathering (Jalsa) otherwise they will be fired from job. Now imagine can these workers cast against them. I think No. As rules and regulations in Pakistan are very strick for New business there are are so complicated technical issues as well as legalities that one cannot fullflil without refrence. So i strongly believe our polticians actually come to polticis just only to increase their own businesses.
Hi,
I think that every business is allowed to do whatever they want as long as it brings them money, which is their only cause after all. We often see businesses supporting one candidate and encouraging their buyers to vote for the same person by having them as the ''face'' of their company for a while. I believe that it is okay for businesses to encourage people to vote but it is important they do not start forcing them. In a world where we all have free will, and democracy exists, just like we can not oblige people to vote for a specific candidate, we also can't tell businesses if they can openly support a candidate and encourage others to vote for them or not.
Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
I'd say yes they should because if they have an opinion then they can have an opinion if they want to support a candidate over another then they should have the option too it's their opinion or their option but you don't have to agree with them but you also don't have to hate on them either and that's why I say yes.But if they support a candidate they should have a good reason like if they thank this candidate is better because of designs that's not a good reason they should have a reason like if that candidate is supporting saving the climate than they should be able to support that candidate because they have a good reason.
Thank you for listening to my comment.
Businesses have the right to vote. They should be able to encourage many people to see whether they agree on that decision, and they can also show how good the person could be for a country or an election to be a prime minister. Also, it helps people to make their mind on different voting criteria, like if they want to help fund and support this or if they want to help people with different agendas. Another reason why businesses have the right to vote is because they're large companies who try to appeal with buyers. they might vote for the most popular and liked person to appeal to people, and that will make them more popular, so yes, businesses have the right to vote.
I agree with you. One of our basic human rights is free speech, so we should be allowed to use this to express our political opinions. If we are allowed to speak about politics in front of groups of people, then why shouldn't businesses have the same ability. With the number of people voting in general elections decreasing, businesses may have the ability to persuade people to vote and have a say. This would be because of the large social media presence the company may have, but any way we can get more people to vote would be a good thing.
As long as businesses don't try and start manipulating their consumers to have the same political view as them, then no problem would arise with them simply sharing their opinion.
i think businesses should be able to encourage people to vote as long as it wont be taken advantage of.
Can you explain what you mean by "taken advantage of"?
as in businesses could take advantage by forcing people to vote for a certain thing
I personally think that, celebrities shouldn't be forced to join a company. I'm not sure if any brands should be involved in any politics for whenever someone should vote or not. It's not the brand's job to decide who votes and who doesn't. It's the job of the people who are in the courtrooms.
I think business should be aloud to help vote for elections as depending on how old the business is it will know its way around elections and how yo help.buisnness should be allowed to vote for other candidates because it means they would get more business if they were voting for the candidate with more votes and therefore they would get more purchases from customers.businesses should be allowed to share opions on policies as a customer may not be able to use a mobile phone or technology and therefore they wouldn't know if there was new policies so I think yes.
I feel that companies should be able to openly do all of the things listed above. This is because many people do not vote and brands who openly talk about voting and elections may encourage or spark conversation on this topic so that more people’s opinions are taken into account in elections so as a population the majority get what they want if the person they have chosen to support wins. I see no reason why a company should not be able to encourage people to vote as many women fought for the right for women to vote and to have their say as it would give the opinions of many different people. Encouraging is a good thing and should be done more often as it usually inspires people to do a certain thing without being forced.
I do not think that businesses and politic should be mixed because they should be kept seperate.Businesses can persuade people to vote for something they don't agree just because a brand is telling you that it is good.This could also apply the opposite way around with political parties persuading people into brands that might not have the same views as them.
Businesses can encourage people to vote but i don't recommend as it is getting involved with politics that can start something that is small and it can turn into something worse which can get companies in trouble which is why i think they shouldn't get involved .
I think that businesses should be allowed to vote openly because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if they share the same view as people, it may give them more customers.
I ultimately agree with you eleted_dog because election is the leadership quiz. After election, I suggest people will find out their leaders. The leaders have the control over every single business. Businesses can enhance due to good leadership. Leadership should be democratic based on my opinion. THANKS YOU
In a democratic society, it is important for businesses to encourage people to vote in an election to promote civic engagement and participation. However, businesses should remain impartial and refrain from openly supporting one candidate over another to ensure fairness and transparency in the democratic process. While businesses have the right to share their opinions about policies that may affect their operations, they should do so responsibly and ethically to avoid influencing voters in a biased manner. Ultimately, businesses play a role in shaping public opinion, and it is crucial for them to uphold democratic principles and respect the diversity of viewpoints within society.
I believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. Business has a political
responsibility that should help encourage employees to vote. Sense the United States is the largest, most powerful Americans still don't vote. So if we allow business to help encourage this could maybe help just even a little bit. So it might work or might not just depends on their decisions.
I think businesses should be separated from elections. Businesses can use their brands to influence the decision of their followers to vote against their will due to the love for that brand.This can be helpful in a way but when the party they support lose the election, the success and progress of that business may be threatened thereby leading to a collapse of that company as some policies that will be formulated may be done just to the detriment of such businesses.
Thank you.
I believe that business shouldn’t be allowed to openly support one candidate over another. Like a brand supports candidate A openly and the people who supports candidate B wouldn’t like the brand that supports candidate A. So, the people who support candidate B won’t buy the things sold by that brand and that will cause big loss for that brand. By the time, it will be hard for their brand to regain their position.
Thank you!
Yes I think business should be allowed to encourage people to vote but until it's supports an appropriate party...it has its own pros and cons like I a famous brand encourage people to vote a political party who would work for the welfare of the country then it will be proved benificial for the later development of that country but on the other hand if a famous brand encourage people to vote a inappropriate political party then it might give the future of that country in unsafe hands..still many many people do not give their votes but election is an integral process for a country to be governed property and it also plays an important role in the development of the country in economic,social,political and other ways therefore I believe brands should support candidates until they follow an appropriate candidate and create awareness among society..
Hey everyone!
One click can make all the difference in the nation.
I believe that all businesses, non government organizations (NGOs), companies etc. should promote in every possible way according to their ability to promote people, empowering workers to vote.
Our vote can be our next big change.
However, we should ensure that we encourage the process of voting but not coerce people into voting for a particular political party. Voting should be an unbiased process and should not be forced on anyone.
One such campaign was launched by twitter- The 'JagrukVoter' campaign aimed to empower citizens with the "right knowledge before they cast their vote". These initiatives were directed towards not just ensuring a high voter turnout, but also ensuring voters are involved, engaged and informed throughout the election cycle.
I think they have the right to as one who can stop them and although it could either increase or decrease their popualarity they are allowed to try and puasuade their fanbase for what they think is right it could easily puasuade there fan base if national or big
In my opinion companies should definitely be allowed to participate in politics by expressing their views or showing support for or disapproval of certain politicians or policies (I definitely do not mean lobbying, which is a completely different topic that should be discussed seperately). Speaking from personal experience, if I knew of a brand that was supporting right-wing politicians, buying from them would mean indirectly supporting them. On the other hand, if a brand was supporting e.g. human rights activists or human rights movements, I would love to support them. Since I am already privileged enough that I have the financial capacities to pay attention to political standpoints of businesses, which is not to be taken for granted since not everyone can afford to be politically correct in every aspect of life, why wouldn´t I take that opportunity?
As a citizen of Pakistan, it is my opinion that businesses should remain neutral, they must not be allowed to take part in politics directly or indirectly, because through political influence they can bring forward the policies which suit their business, however, such policies and decisions might affect the environment and country badly.
i think that businesses are not allowed to encourage people to vote in an election because they can put a different person to vote than they previously wanted to due to someone else's opinion when voting is only supposed to be the persons opinion and not anyone else brainwashing them.
I definitely think that companies and businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote! The world is becoming more and more political and it seems like even issues like climate change or women's rights are turning into political questions. And regardless if that's right or not - it is the reality. That's why I don't think - especially popular brands or companies with millions of customers - can afford to stay silent. It reflects well onto companies if they speak up about human rights violations, climate change or equality. Furthermore I think that companies should be allowed to openly support a candidate however assuming that someone who is for example wearing that brand's clothes is automatically associated with that candidate would be wrong.
Overall it's safe to say that the more people go to the polls in an election the better. The country is represented more accurately and it's one way to actually change what's happening in the world. And as long as that's the end goal I don't see an issue with brands advocating for an (national) election.
I personally don’t see why businesses shouldn’t have the right to share opinions about politics. After all they have a right to think freely and believe in whatever they want to. Politics is a public topic.
And on the other hand the buyers should have the chance to see if they agree with the politic opinion of businesses since by buying their products they support the company. If business are problematic their buyers own the right to know and decide if they want to keep supporting them with their money.
Therefore speaking out the political beliefs of a company is unproblematic in my eyes.
However I don’t agree with encouraging people to vote for a specific party. I believe that it is helpful to remind people to vote in general, but not for a specific party. I feel that this would spook of their buyers and important electorates to vote, since they could feel intrigued.
So therefore businesses should keep their political encouragements general.
I think that while it is a fine line to walk, to position yourself as an entire company it is possible to do right. Certain general values can definitely already be reflected in a company and a strong encouragement to engage onself politically can be one of those. This means that engaging your costumers to go out and vote in itself, in my opinion is not the tricky part. It only gets complicated when explicit political opinions are expressed, because it can be highly controversial. That beimg said i think it should be allowed for companies to express their support for a candidate or policy, because then the company would stand oin for what it believes and i do not think, that that is wrong. Furthermore it can show customers what sort of company they might be supporting and puts the decison to continue to do so or stop in their hands. That is why i think companies should be able to express their political position outwardly.
I think a differentiation has to be made in order to answer this question. Do I think everyone should vote? Yes, because elections are what a democracy is based on. Do I think anyone should be forced to do so? No. So, I think there is no probelm when businesses encourage people to vote in general as long as it does not morph into forcing people to vote. It is a complete difference when it comes to businesses encouraging people to vote a certain person, because there is a fine line between a recommondation and a mandatory. This applies to the staff of a company, because they might feel pressured to support a ceratin party, as well as to the customers as they could find themselves dragged into a certain political direction, because they are huge supporters of said brand. So the impact on the voting of people, especially the impact of well-known and hyped brands on the population, is incredibly high - which can be a blessing or a curse.
In general I think businesses should stay neutral most of the time, so they do not get in the position of having to defend themselves, at all. I think it is more likely to keep a wider range of customers this way. Of course exceptions exist, for example if the frustration level on both sides of the political debate get particularly high.
Businesses and Politics are a horrible combination in my opinion. What if my favorite soda brand told me to vote for someone? It's basically propaganda for normal people. If businesses openly support candidates then that could also create in-company problems, not everybody has the same ideas. Plus, I just want to have my product, not to be overly persuaded to vote for someone!
In my personal opinion, businesses shouldn't be "encouraging" people to vote. Business interests have shown themselves as a deeply destructive thing throughout the latter half of the last century. For example, the so called "Banana Republics" of Central America. Those countries today can barely function and their population is seen as a "workforce" rather than people. Openly supporting candidates is a thing that is irrelevant to most people who follow politics, but is the "swing" voters that can be swayed in a certain direction.
I believe that businesses will always have their bottom line as an interest, any time that a business shares a political opinion can be seen as somewhat of a farse and "performative activism". We can see this the most during the month of June, or more well known as "Pride month". When most Western companies change their logos into a "rainbow washed" version.
I think politics nowadays are a difficult and controversial topic, people could even treat you differently depending on your vote or politic believes. Because of this, businesses should not be allowed to encourage, support openly or share their opinions about politics; our vote is supposed to be something only ours, so no one should influence our thinking or ideas, even if it is not directly. Nevertheless, businesses and brands often revindicate some polemical ideas which can make them loose or gain clients.
I also believe that the employees of the business should vote by their own, and is not the fault of anyone if they do not vote, because it's their decision. Businesses aren't obliged by any law or policy to push their workers to vote or have an specific idea.
It is important to consider whether businesses should be allowed to influence people's decisions in an election. Should businesses have the right to openly support a specific candidate? Should they be able to share their views on important policies? These questions raise concerns about the role that businesses play in our democratic process. What do you think?
I feel that either being allowed to support one candidate over the other or not being allowed both have their pros and cons. Let me explain, a business isn't run by 1 person. Yes there maybe be a CEO or someone who makes all the final decisions, but, there is still a board of people who discuss these options and usually vote how to go about things. Choosing which party to vote for may cause discourse in the board where people may not agree on giving support for the same party, which could affect the overall performance of the business. It could also cause many members and employees to fight or not get along also hindering their performance as a team. It could also affect who buys there products and if they support one party and most of their customers support a different party then they could lose revenue because those people may choose to go with a brand that matches their beliefs. Which makes it seem obvious that businesses should just not support anyone to keep up profits and performance rates, but, sometimes supporting a certain party could help you. For example; you have a business selling products made of biodegradable materials. Logically speaking most people who buy your products care about the environment since that Is what they are buying. If a party's main goal is to help the environment then showing support for that party would be the correct move, because it may extend your product to more people who support that party since that Is probably something they would buy judging by who they support. Obviously they would have to check to make sure that the party doesn't have any controversial views that they wouldn't want to be associated with. Other than that it could help.
I personally think that businesses should have the right to support different party's as long as they arent too overbearing, (What I mean is as long as it doesn't seem like they are forcing customers to vote for the party they support) then they should be able to support who they feel interlocks with their brand then most. But also they should be allowed to not support any party and stay neutral if all party's seem to not support what the brand is trying to do. Personally I would go with the safe option and not support any party to avoid any conflict between staff but would still want it to be an option in case there was a party that could benefit the business.
Businesses play a significant role in society, and their involvement in political activities can have diverse impacts. Encouraging employees to vote is a positive practice that can contribute to a more engaged electorate and inclusive democracy. This can help increase voter turnout, particularly among historically underrepresented demographics. While, openly supporting one candidate over another can lead to polarization and potential backlash from customers and employees although it is within businesses' rights to express their views. Additionally, businesses sharing opinions about policies can influence regulations, demonstrate social responsibility, and contribute to societal well-being however, they need to be mindful of potential effects on their reputation and brand loyalty. Overall, businesses have the potential to make meaningful contributions to the democratic process, but the implications of their involvement should be carefully considered to ensure positive and responsible engagement.
I think that businesses should be allowed to speak openly about politics, but doing this could potentially hurt the brand. An example could be, Taylor Swift encouraged people to vote, and the next day over 65,000 people registered to vote! If a very big brand has as much of an impact as Taylor Swift does, it could be good by having more people vote in the election. On the other hand, speaking out about politics has not been such a great idea from other brands. For example, Goya foods made a statement supporting former U.S president Donald Trump, which caused many people to stop buying their products.
My opinion is a bit mixed, on one hand businesses shouldn't encourage people to vote because it is their choice to make and they should choose it from their heart. On the other hand, they should encourage people to vote because the business might know if the candidate is eco-friendly and then they will encourage people to vote for the eco-friendly one. Businesses should not support one candidate over another because then that would be biased judging, but they can vote sepertly at home. I do not think that businesses should share opinions because that will make it unfair. The person can make a vote personly, but in public no.