It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Civil Servants as a voting block, an invitation to corruption.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The thread title speaks for itself. Somehow, top to bottom, it seems to me that there is an inherent conflict of interest when people exercise their voting rights as a means to secure employment under the government. The party that gets cheated is the regular independent taxpayer, removed from the process and diminished in their roles under the democratic principles our system in USA is based on.

Am I saying that it would maybe be a good idea to limit voting rights in some cases? Maybe, but the constitution seems to stress voting rights as an important theme. How could the people who drafted these documents miss out on a simple principle, like vote->pay->corruption? (assuming it's valid) Good argument, and I can only think that the FF didn't envision such a massive government and the influence of groups like AFL-CIO and the like...ad nauseum.

www.opensecrets.org...

I can cite an example. My somewhat decent town is mired by petty influence, up to and including cover-ups of DUIs, hit and run...also constant "discretion" items like building and zoning enforcement, police attitudes towards "cherry-picking" sides in disputes....ad nauseum. So, the people getting privileges are the ones who are employed under the same system, or their immediate relatives. This goes from lowly streets workers up to the DA's office.

wbtruth.blogspot.com...

Influence weasels it's way in through political parties, no doubt, but that's transient. I think rank-and-file employees of the "state" shouldn't be voting in their paymasters. When I say "state" I really mean all levels of govt, very much including our local friends who vote as a block their own perverted interests into power.

Why not just have local employees not be able to vote in local election, state employees not vote in state election and federal employees not be able to vote in federal elections? As a model for putting "The People's" interests first. Problematic and unlikely, yes...but it's not like these people would have their rights "taken away", they would simply waive them, contingent on their employment.

People are always asking for solutions....here's one.




posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
How about police unions and their representatives bringing made up charges against government officials who vote against what they want?

www.ocregister.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
There are any number of "corrupt" governmental officials, cover-ups, etc., and the SEIU is certainly right up there as a corrupt organization, but I do not think taking away the voting rights of citizens because they work for a taxpayer-funded organization is going to be found legal at any level whatsoever. Your condemning a large group of people because of the actions of a few. To put it in contemporary perspective, that's like condemning all Muslims because ISIS exists or all NRA members because a few people shoot guns in Gun Free Zones. It's like Trump wanting to shut down the Internet because ISIS uses it to communicate.

Condemning and restricting the many because of the actions of a few is just a road to tyranny.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
In my day it was easier to get back stage passes if you knew someone in the band.

Tickets to the game? Ring side seats? Get out of jail free card?



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Oh , how do we eliminate partisan politics . Here in Canada we see the same kind of influences . I read a paper awhile back about how the left academia hijacked the higher learning institutions in the US .Neo-.... what ever you care to put is very susceptible to fifth column penetration and manipulation . The cure for this taint is back to the elder approach .Far too often we see in politics ,what's know as a parachute candidate . Well known and respected but with little to do with the community they look to represent . Usually well sold by tptb as the best choice . Recently a member of our Govt. had to step down because his claims as being a Doctor were shown to not be the case . The elders would have never let that kind of deception get by them ......Think local act global might be a better way to look at it ...



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I keep thinking about all the voters that vote without understanding the elections. At least these voters are voting for what they want.
edit on 8-12-2015 by Iamthatbish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The sole purpose of government is to grow government.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Government as a creation is prone to corruption.

Especially so in a 'democracy'.

However the reason we have a corrupt government. Corrupt officials.

Is because the people themselves are corrupt.

Never forget Washington DC is a reflection of 'we the people'.

And it ain't pretty.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

You do understand that at its core, every person votes "for their own interests." Regardless of who their employer is or isn't, every person is voting for the person they think will do best by them.

How is the jobless, still living at home 18 year old voting for the guy who promises to wave a magic wand to make student loans disappear any different than the 48 year old employed by the state DoT who votes for the guy who promises to rebuild roads?



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Yep , good points. Could take it a step farther and say if you take govt benefits, in ANY form, even welfare, you waive your voting rights. It's almost a throwback to landed gentry being the only voters. That doesn't sound too bad in hindsight.

Sitting here, I remember that certain rights cannot be contracted away. Let's say we make a contract for me to vote a certain way and I choose not to honour the contract....it's not enforceable.

Anyway, just a thought exercise at this point. I certainly can see the merit in the idea, as far as fairness to the taxpayer, the objectively neutral party these people are sworn to serve.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
How about police unions and their representatives bringing made up charges against government officials who vote against what they want?

www.ocregister.com...



Police Unions are really bad, they work to undermine the interests of The People.

What shocks me, is how these petty tyrants would not feel remorse if they were suddenly "educated" on how their actions and attitudes model the very worst tyrants in history. They simply would not care. I understand the cognitive dissonance makes them stubborn and obtuse, but they deep down inside WANT to be Nazis.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Could take it a step farther and say if you take govt benefits, in ANY form, even welfare, you waive your voting rights


But I supposed all the business people who get government contracts, tax breaks or buy off politicians are fine?

Anyone who tries to steal my constitutional right to vote is going to feel my wrath!



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

The Hatch Act. Look it up. Trust me, we Feds are plenty restricted as it is. How about you take your thought that i should not have the right to vote in a national election and deposit it squarely in your lower orifice, when it stops posting for you.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Pretty sophisticated argument.

Nobody is forcing your snout into the government trough. If voting in corrupt paymaster is so precious, you could always look for work in private sector industry, like maybe food service or a mop-and-bucket job that you're over-qualified for.
edit on 9-12-2015 by FlyingFox because: freedom



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFoxMaybe, but the constitution seems to stress voting rights as an important theme. How could the people who drafted these documents miss out on a simple principle, like vote->pay->corruption? (assuming it's valid) Good argument, and I can only think that the FF didn't envision such a massive government and the influence of groups like AFL-CIO and the like...ad nauseum.


Are we reading the same Constitution? In the one I read there is no right to vote specified, and any followup amendments have only specified ways in which the government may not prevent people from voting. It doesn't actually affirm the right to vote anywhere in the document.

And if you want to talk about the founding fathers intent, they didn't think the general public should vote.




top topics



 
3

log in

join