A defence of mixed motivations in democratic elections

In democratic elections, people have different motives and rationales for their voting decisions: some people may vote having in view the common good, while others their own private interest, the good of the group or minority they belong to, loyalty to their political party, or political stability. Drawing on a seminal article by Jonathan Wolff, this paper discusses three concerns raised by the co-existence of such a different and mixed set of motivations in democratic voting: epistemic inefficiency, loss of collective autonomy and unfairness. Against these worries, the paper defends motivational pluralism in democratic elections, by arguing that often it is exactly the presence of mixed motivations, rather motivational monism, that ensures epistemic efficiency, collective autonomy and fairness.