posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 01:23 PM
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.